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.

User talk:Waffle Fan

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Waffle Fan

General Help
Special Topics
For more help...

Contact an administrator

Or leave a message

Welcome to Heroes Wiki!

Here are a few links to get you started:

  • If you are new to Heroes, you might want to start at the New User Portal.
  • If you're not too familiar with editing Wikis, you might like to start with Help:Editing.
  • If you already are familiar with wikiediting, you might want to try Help:Style.
  • If you're ready to get started, Template:Todo lists some ways you can help out.
  • Of course, if you have your own idea for a new article, that's great, too.
  • Recent Changes will let you see others' contributions as they happen.
    • To make Recent Changes more useful for all users, remember to provide an edit summary in the Summary field before you save your changes.
    • You can set the Wiki to prompt you for a summary in your preferences.
  • When posting on an article's Talk page you should add ~~~~ or click the signature button.
    • This will add a signature and timestamp to the end of your comment so others can easily tell who posted it.
    • When editing normal article pages, don't sign your contributions.
  • If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to leave a message for an administrator.
  • You can also customize your user page if you like.

Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!

Hana Gitelman page and notes regarding email/IMs

If the following info is "canon"...

Then why is the content of the messages she has sent not canon? --Waffle Fan 03:01, 10 February 2007 (EST)

  • Hey, Waffle Fan. The main issue was that the info is already on, so it didn't need to be on Hana's article as well since there's already a link from her article to The smaller issue was that what occurs as part of Heroes 360 is not exactly canonical so it should only really be mentioned in character articles in the Notes or Trivia sections. The article is part of our documentation on Heroes 360 so it definitely belongs in there. (Admin 08:46, 10 February 2007 (EST))
OK, I understand. However, I think there should be a separate article, linked from Heroes 360 and Hana Gitelman, that has a complete chronological record of the communiques from Hana. See ya after tonight's broadcast! :) I also feel that, since these communications originate from the producers of Heroes that they SHOULD be considered canonical. --Waffle Fan 09:56, 12 February 2007 (EST)
Check out, I do believe all of Hana's messages are being documented there. As for their reliability, they're considered near-canon. Only content that has aired within the show itself is considered truly canon. (Admin 10:04, 12 February 2007 (EST))
I guess I am just having trouble, as a net geek, accepting the notion that a series which is going to such lengths to create a multimedia fan experience should be restricted to only what one part of that media displays. TV, web-comic, email, web pages... so long as it can be reliably determined that the content actually originated with the show's producers, should be considered canon. --Waffle Fan 10:08, 12 February 2007 (EST)
The biggest issue I can see with considering them canon at this time is that we have no idea who's responsible for the content. Is it NBC's webmaster? Is it the interns they chain in the dungeon and force to write Hiro's (also not canon) blog and Claire's (also not canon) MySpace? Or is it the writers of the show? Unless it's the writers, there's always a good chance that the Heroes 360 stuff will be contradicted by an episode or a graphic novel (heck, even if it is the writers there's still a chance of that happening) ... particularly if it's just NBC's marketing team doing the 360 content. NBC can't even get the actual aired details of the shows right with any consistency, so why should we trust them for creating new content? Also, we run into the same problem we have with the graphic novels, only more so: treating the ARG stuff as canon is potentially very confusing for people who are just watching the show and not playing the game (which is, once you leave the safe and happy confines of hardcore fandom, probably most people).--Hardvice (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2007 (EST)
I'll echo that comment. I, for one, don't really enjoy the game and the 360 content. In fact, the only reason I look at it at all is for the purposes of Heroes Wiki. If I weren't a sysop here, I wouldn't look at it all, and then I'd be really confused by the info, if it were included in places other than the notes. ... I agree, it's frustrating when you really enjoy a particular piece of content (personally, I love the graphic novels, almost as much as the show itself), and it's not considered canon. arrghRyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2007 (EST)
I would have to say that I have no problems including Heroes 360 content (such as it is) on other articles, so long as it doesn't appear in the history sections and is clearly labeled as coming from the ARG. That prevents confusion and allows for the possibility that it will be "overruled" by an episode or graphic novel. Of course, that's exactly the way it works under the current source rules, even considering it a non-canon source. Ideally, all unlabeled information should come from aired episodes, and any information that comes from elsewhere (previews, spoilers, interviews, graphic novels, Heroes 360) should be labeled. That way, someone who only watches the show knows where information comes from 100% of the time. Considering a source non-canon isn't about saying it didn't happen or isn't true; it's about noting its value relative to the episodes and marking "extra" information as extra.--Hardvice (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2007 (EST)
OK, I think that sounds workable. I would like to see some graphic tags or boxes we could use to mark or wrap the source for such inclusions. :) --Waffle Fan 10:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)