| Revision as of 23:16, 10 January 2007 editNmajdan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,744 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:46, 11 January 2007 edit undo76.210.181.53 (talk) ←Replaced page with 'Even those who have renounced Christianity and attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardou...'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Even those who have renounced Christianity and attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardour of their hearts has been able to create a higher ideal of man and of virtue than the ideal given by Christ of old. --Fyodor Dostoyevsky | |||
| {{skiptotoctalk}} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{Heroes discussion}} | |||
| {{TVSeriesTalk}} | |||
| {{todo}} | |||
| {{Archive box| | |||
| *] July 27 2006 - Oct 3 2006. Peter's, Niki's, Micah's, and Sylar's powers; Horn Rimmed Glasses' and the Back Dorm Boys' identities; external links. | |||
| *] Oct 3 2006 - Oct 4 2006. Symbol-RNA relation; Peter and Isaac's powers; Is ''Heroes'' too gory?; Sylar's hunger. | |||
| *] Oct 4 2006 - Oct 11 2006. Mr. Linderman, garbage disposal lawsuit, and 1st semi-protect added; TVGuide article; Sylar and the bulletproof vest; the Mysterious Man's identity. | |||
| *] Oct 11 2006 - Oct 16 2006. The eclipse; standardizing the main characters' table; Peter's power; defining "verifiability". | |||
| *] Oct 16 2006 - Oct 18 2006. TVRage.com link removed; the Symbol subsection and photo added; the minor characters subpage; the graphic novels' Easter eggs; the occupation field edit war. | |||
| *] Oct 18 2006 - Oct 24 2006. Ages versus birthdates; plagarism found; NBC.com's errors; minor characters' last names; WikiProject ''Heroes''. | |||
| *] Oct 24 2006 - Nov 10 2006. Graphic novel subpage and Heroes image category added; 2nd semi-protect added; defining powers and characters' statuses; Automated Peer Review. | |||
| *] Oct 19 2006 - Nov 22 2006. Archives started; Ratings table and fansites removed; Mr. Bennet's status and Mohinder's lack of powers discussed. | |||
| *] Nov 10 2006 - Dec 16 2006. Genre: Supernatural or Sci Fi?; Issac's, Ted's, and Mr. Bennet's powers; characters' number of appearances; "full-time" v. "main" character status. | |||
| *]}} | |||
| {{TelevisionWikiProject|small=yes}} | |||
| ==Heroes premiere in the UK == | |||
| Hello! Heroes will be shown in the UK in February on the SCI FI channel. I work for SCI FI, and I believe this is relevent and useful information for this Heroes page (particularly for the significant number of readers based in the UK). It is factually correct, most importantly. I suggest mentioning it in the introductory paragraphs. Indeed, I already entered it, but it was deleted. Please let me know what objections there may be to this addition. ] 16:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Put it in the section entitled "International Broadcasters".--] 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Forgive me for saying, but surely an encyclopaedia should be neutral, and not favour one territory over others in this way? Of course I appreciate that it is an American show, but it will receive a worldwide fanbase, notably in Great Britain, arguably the second most important TV audience in the world. A small mention at the bottom of the page seems to be somewhat short shrift. ] 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The reason that the US premiere is mentioned in the first paragraph is because that was the original airdate. Including information on international premieres is certainly important, which is why an entire section is dedicated to this purpose. ] 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Showing bias would be what you were doing, BTW. Cute attempt to turn it around ]; ]. 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, you shouldn't be posting here at all. Misplaced Pages has prohibitions against corporate exploitation of Misplaced Pages, and posting about a future debut on your network would be advertising. thanks, but no thanks. ] 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ]. There intentions are '''obviously''' not malicious. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I never said anything about malice, I said it's exploitive. I never said 'obviously' either. I simply informed him that wikipedia has rules about such conflicts of interest. ] 23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Most other articles about shows and movies on wikipedia have the air/release dates of the show/movie in other countries. The article for the British show Dr. Who mentions the premiere of the show on the American Scifi channel, so does that mean that info should be deleted? I don't see a problem with a blurb about the premiere of the show in the UK, not everything revolves around us Americans.] 10:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There's a whole section about international broadcasting. I don't think anyone has proposed deleting this information. ] 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How about as a compromise, we move the international broadcasters table higher in the page so they come right after the lead? ] 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd oppose such a move. It doesn't make sense to discuss international broadcasting so early in the article. I think it's fine where it is. ] 12:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with leaving it where it is. I'm not sure what the complaining is about, there is british info in that table - if the air date has a reliable source, add it to that table and cite it. --] 13:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::We haven't officially released a tx date for Heroes yet, but when we do (pretty soon now) I shall make sure it is reflected in the table. Please don't mistake my presence here as an evil corporate agenda to hijack the page, it was a genuine attempt to improve the article and give English fans a bit of useful information, prominently displayed. I completely understand how my appearance could be alarming, of course. | |||
| :::Even if I wasn't an employee of SCI FI (the name of which which continues to be formatted incorrectly in ], and yet I am too new at this to correct it, sadly) I am still a UK-based fan of the genre and the show, and as such would have liked to see the UK premiere date somewhere easily visible. I completely understand and respect the consensus, that the international broadcasters table serves a similar purpose. I think the argument for a 'world view' that isn't dominated by America is an interesting one, but perhaps best led elsewhere for now. ] 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The page has a world view. The only reason the US broadcasts are more prominent is because they are the first broadcasts. While the foreign broadcasts are interesting and useful, they don't really merit being at the top of the page. --] 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Zach's sexuality == | |||
| A user recently tried to add this issue with the series. While his attempt was poorly worded, steeped in POV and OR, it's valid information about the show, and someone should add it in soon. ] 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :X, no offense here, but work on the spelling and caps. ] in general, I guess. It's getting a little...weird. | |||
| :I see no "cotnroversy" or ] of any kind. That latter word is really abused, I find. (e. g. "KFC" redirecting to "niggers" is a "KFC Controversy".) Anyway, Zach's sexuality is really a minor thing, especially now that the character and actor seem highly unlikely to return. If it were Peter, and Nathan had a problem with it, ala ], I'd see the import. As is, a recurring character on hiatus was the subject of gay speculation/bashing. How about we mention Ando's perversion on the main page while we're at it? ]; ]. 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking closer, and reverting the user's idiocy myself, it looks like vandalism, or, at best, content still not suitable for various reasons. Common sense, people. ]; ]. 00:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There has definitely been some controversy about this, although I don't know how much if any coverage there has been in the mainstream press. Tim Kring himself has even publically given a message of excuse/apology. To be honest, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to add it. I'll give it a shot tomorrow if someone hasn't done a decent version by then. --] 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's an issue. Okay, fine. This still doesn't seem like something for the main page. Add a blurp to Zach's section of ] and be done with thus. ]; ]. 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is a two part thing, Ace. One, there's a valid issue that the page needs. Two, there's a rude editor taking ] too far with total disregard for grammar. Part one matters, and should be addressed. Part two should continue to be reverted, as both you and I have done. as for my typing, I type fast, and on a keyboard that, regretably, has kiddies getting crumbs on it at times... sometimes i hear the distinct 'crunch' of a crumb going to powder, and I have to hope it don't ruin another key. Half the sensors for my 1 and left SHIFT and CTRL keys are shot, requiring a harder touch than my touchtyping leaves. As for the rest, I type fast and even faster when on a roll. ] 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hmm. Fair enough. I just don't want to clutter the article with a character specific issue of limited notablity. ]; ]. 04:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We can edit it out over time, but it's worth including for now. Not because he's minor, but because gay characters on TV is a more siginifcant issue nowadays. ] 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The show isn't about someone being gay, and I don't see the point of making a big deal about it on the main page. Show's like "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" has kinda made the whole gay character thing, "so last year." ] 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, it'snot about one character being gay, the controversy is that the creator/writer said he was, and NBC executives forced the change in response to outside forces to increase marketability and to appease moralists. that sort of controversy about a show IS worthy of inclusion. ] 12:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely. There's a big backlash right now in the gay press and community (I first read about it in TV guide and IMDB). Although the real reason for the change is unknown right now - I've been reading that it wasn't NBC itself, but the actor's management. But at this point that's pretty speculative. --] 14:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A source for what you spouted would be great, X. Kind of hard to imagine the network that kept ] on the air ten years would buckle to homophobes. ]; ]. 19:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's a source on it supposedly being due to the actor's agent . More here: I think there's enough verifiable info to mention that there is a controversy (which is hinted at in the list of characters), but the reason behind the change still is speculative at this point. --] 20:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. How about something in the ] article ala the "alternate version" section of ]? ]; ]. 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk Page cleanup == | |||
| Today I created archive #9 for our main ''Heroes'' talk page. Hurray for us working actively on the WP pages for a great show! The top section of our talk page has a lot of info boxes, however. (Sorry, not sure of the proper name for those boxes.) Can any of the boxes be moved or removed? ] | ] 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You could also use ] for archiving as well.--]•] 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == George Takei to star as Hiros father. == | |||
| According to a number of news sources, ] will join Heroes as Hiro Nakamura's father. This is ''very'' exciting news, in my opinion. Where shoud this infomation be put in the article? ] 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I saw this announcement a couple of days ago, and I thought that it was exciting news too, but I don't think it has a place in any of the articles yet. He should appear in cast for the articles on the episodes in which he will be appearing, once that is determined. ] 03:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Narration by Mohinder Suresh == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Those six articles need the Narration by Mohinder Suresh either added or expanded. If anyone out there has the episodes recorded, please add the Narration beginning and ending to all six of those articles. thanks. ] 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Fallout didn't have any narration, surprisingly. I might still have Nothing to Hide recorded somewhere, I'll add anything missing when I get a chance. --] 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've got someone to transcribe narration for some of the episodes. You can get the missing narration for Genesis, Collision, Hiros and Better Halves" from , since all you're taking is the direct quotes from the show. Of course, other information requires attribution. Technically I think the narration is by Mohinder Suresh, not the actor Sendhil Ramamurthy because Sendhil doesn't naturally have the accent Mohinder has, but it's a minor point. --] 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == From what we know, Micah does have a confirmed power == | |||
| He is a technopath. What other power could repair a telephone? Nikki never said outright "I have super strength" but we know she does. Micah does not have to outright say his power for us to know what it is. It should be allowed to put that Micah is in fact a technopath ] 13:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)December 25, 2006 | |||
| :We've discused this already. Until Micah or someone else says that Micahs power is only Technopathy and not something else, it is considered ]. The same goes for The Hatian. ] 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Then if that is so, then you must not put Nikki's power there either, because "it might be something else" she may just be crazy and work out alot.] 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)December 25, 2006 | |||
| ::Insanity and human fitness wouldn't explain her breaking open a ] with her bare hands. Plus, she's kinda thin. ]; ]. 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Haha. We actually have a source for Niki/Jessica. But for now, we don't have a source for The Hatian or Micah Sanders. Until it becoes more clear in the series, or until we get a story like that one in the media, we have to wait. ] 21:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What happens if those two powers are never "officialy confirmed" and left to the audience to confirm it themselves? Is it also not allowed to put what an unconfirmed power is similiar to? ] 09:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC) December 26, 2006 | |||
| :::As you can see through the archives, this question's come up before. One good way to be sure is to wait for comfirmation. barring that, the media. Only third, by blatant repeated demonstration on the show, should we validate a power. For example, we knew Jessica was superstrong long ago, but couldn't add it. Now, with that EW report, we can clearly explain her powers. IF we saw a scene in which Micah interacted with machinery in a way wherein he got results so out of spec that there's no good explanation BUT technopathy, we could use it. if we could see him changing TV channels with a remote OR (gasp!)getting up to turn them manually, we'd have a clue. If we saw him using a computer without touching it, or touching it but NOT typing or clicking, that'd be a good clue. and so on. Given that Micah's been shown to be fairly UNafraid of his powers, I doubt it'll be much longer before we see him use them in a more overt manner. I recommend some patience. we've still got half a season to go. ] 15:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::So can i delete this whole section then? ] 01:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)December 26, 2006 | |||
| ::::What if the pay phone was simply out of power, and Micah provided an electrical charge to power on the phone. Oh no, look at that! He's an electrokinetic! (Is that a word?) That revelation would totally debunk any speculation about Technopathy and prove us wrong if we put that into the article. Hm.. I'm starting to actually wonder if maybe his powers truly are electrically based. Static Shock, anyone? Check out Electrophoresis if you get an opportunity. ;) <font color="red"><sup>] / <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)</sup></font> | |||
| I would ask for people to check this interview out: http://www.comicspodcasts.com/?p=500, when asked if Micah could "communicate with machines and electronics", a writer said "Yes", now as far as I'm aware, that is what Technopathy means. Is this enough of a source to finally put Technopathy as the power? ] 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Haitian symbol == | |||
| Should we do something about ]'s symbol? Like...move it to his article? It's only appeared a few times, only on two people. It can't be considered a "symbol of the series" like the RNA S. I was iffy about the placement here to be begin with, and now it just seems like some misplaced, largely irrelevant detail meant for another article. ]; ]. 20:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good to me. It makes sense that his symbols go on his page, just as Isaac's paintings go on his page. Although I have a feeling that the symbols may not be due to the Haitain but to Mr. Bennet's organization in the end. ] | ] 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I oppose this. It seems silly to me, considering the multiple places we've seen it. It's much more of a symbol of the series then it is a symbol of the Haitian. I don't really need to list the dozen places it's shown up unassociated with the Haitian, do I? --] 14:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::We're talking about t5he symbol on Matt and Ted's necks, ''not'' the RNA. ]; ]. 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sorry, I was confused. But if that symbol were to be moved, I think it would be just as at home on Mr. Bennet's page. There's nothing to indicate that the symbol is a result of anything the Haitian has done to Matt and Ted. --] 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with Stabbey, the parallel marks could just as easily be marks from some kind of surgery from biological testing/experimentation performed by Bennet's team; it might not have anything to do with the effects of the Haitian. <font color="red"><sup>] / <sub>]</sub> 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)</sup></font> | |||
| :::::Whatever the case, I'm removing it from the article as irrelevant and reinstating the title "The symbol". ]; ]. 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How can you make a judgement like this during the hiatus? Wait until after the hiatus, or wait until we know more, before removing it. Now, i'm replacing it because it is part of the Heroes plot. ] 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As I'm the one who added it, I added itto the main article with the intent of noting it as it was currently known. NO one has been able to explain the RNA either. Until we are sure that the parallel lines aren't a 'symbol' in the direct sense, but resultant scars after surgery, or something else, leave it here. The producers of the show saw fit to focus the cameras on it and to have Matt Parkman (the cop) notice the similarity in a clear, unambiguous manner. That said, Leaaving it here until it's explained makes far more sense to me. Once we can explain or dismiss it, then we can adust it. ] 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Flag in infobox == | |||
| It's fairly common to use the <nowiki>{{USA}}</nowiki> template in infoboxes. That's why the template exists. What exactly is it harming? - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It harms the readability of the template, over-emphasizing the location where none of the other items have, or should have, a flag. It harms navigability, in that anyone clicking on the flag is sent not to the appropriate article on the United States, but to an Image namespace page with a picture of the flag—because the purpose of images is generally to ''be'' images, not navigation tools, and there is no reason in this case why the flag would be needed for navigation. The commonality of a bad practice does not make it a good practice. Often, practices are common simply because someone looked around and saw a bunch of uses of it, saying "oh, it must be standard practice, I must put it in the infobox". Or, some flag aficionado goes around with a semi-automated tool and replaces all the infobox location items with flags. It also implies that the show is somehow specially related to the flag, when it just so happens that it was produced in the United States (and other things may have been done elsewhere anyway); it is unlikely the producers decided to produce it in the United States to work under the flag or declared the pledge of allegiance before filming every day. The main reasonable use of the template is for sports infoboxes, which is a genre where it is common to say that a person is representing a country and where the flag is often included. It is also useful in these and similar cases where the full name of the country should not be stated every time; the first use has the flag with the country and then subsequent uses have only the flag, e.g. to save space in a table. —]→] • 23:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see no harm to the readability, and as it is a standard practice, I'd suggest that the Village Pump would be the place to discuss this, and not try to make a stand here on one article page. Bring it there, see if they reference you to a WP or an existing debate. As to whether or not the images should link to articles on the nation, it's flag, or simply it's image resource page, I definitely think that the VP is the place to bring your concerns. In the meantime, I recommend you let the flag stand, until such time as a citable policy is evinced oppsing the use thereof. ] 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is not standard practice (see, for example, anything in ]; such as ], ], ], ], ], etc., I clicked on about 40 persons, television shows, films, etc. and found only 1 that had flags (and which used them in a different way)) and there is no "citable policy" for including the flag. If you want though, see ] and ], and disparate parts of ]. —]→] • 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like SigEp, I've seen it used elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, and sometimes on similar or related pages, suggesting that multiple editors have added the flags to clusters they work. I'd suggest bringing it up on the Talk for Images, as you linked. ] 04:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)(Also, ] isn't policy not guideline, and the talk only identifies is as 'Descriptive'. I really think that rather than get contentious, it would be great to get some thoughts from those over at WP:Images, ee if they can generate a guideline, and then all of WP will have a reference for this issue.)] 04:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)(edit conflict here) | |||
| ::::So is there any reason why it should be included in this article? —]→] • 04:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is there any reason you can't wait and get some feedback from those who focus on image use? ] 04:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == All images in ] need to be double checked == | |||
| I have just finished going through every Heroes article I could find and tagging all the images with ]. While doing this I noticed that most if not all of the images lack a description and more importantly lack fair use rational. Because of this many of the images have already been tagged for deletion. I'm fixing to head to bed so someone else is going to need to take aver from here but at least all the images are in one place now. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ]</span></small> 12:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == CFD notice == | |||
| {{cfdnotice|Heroes (TV series) actors}} | |||
| == Influences on show premise == | |||
| for the debut of Heroes on New Zealand's TV3 quotes Tim Kring on being influenced by ] and ] when creating the show's idea. I thought about adding this to the article, but I don't see where it would fit well. Should the information be added or not? If so, where should we add it? ] | ] 19:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Heroes Wiki (p2)== | |||
| Do you think that the has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? I want to add the website to the links section, but not before I know that it meets ]. --] 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a glorified fansite that blatently rips us off. Nuff said. ]; ]. 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fan Site or not, it is still an in-depth resource of information on the show. From first glance it even seems to have far more information on Heroes than is listed on Misplaced Pages. You shouldn't be so '''blatantly''' biased towards it. <font color="red"><sup>] / <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)</sup></font> | |||
| :::Ohh! People's choice award! Stop the fucking presses. You want to add more data to ''this'' article and ''this'' ]? Please, go right ahead. I love how people say "they have way more!" yet do nothing to balance the ]. And frankly, I'll take ''quality'' over quantity. For example, | |||
| {{cquote|Peter believes he has a greater place in life than just saving one person at a time, and he's willing to sacrifice himself to save the world. | |||
| His brother, Nathan, seems to disapprove of Peter's choice to become a nurse. Nathan also considers Peter the less favored son of their father.}} | |||
| :::Who needs a subjective, and ultimately redundant analysis like that? The second line is mostly about his brother anyway. They do excessive, episode by episode summaries of even the most irrelevant details. They miscapitalized, misspell and overall miss the point. For us, anyway, it's not about recording every little detail. It's about properly informing the reader. No amount of content can make up for all that site's failings and issues. | |||
| :::Oh, and I repeat, it's ''redundant''. "Just to itself?" you ask? No! To us. Adding a link to that ] would effectively be linking to a craptastic substitute that tries to out do us. ]; ]. 05:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Does that mean you don't want it listed in the Links section? <font color="red"><sup>] / <sub>]</sub> 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)</sup></font> | |||
| :I'm going to oppose such a link as well. THe whole wiki there lacks truly good citation, instead mimicking citation to mask OR and SPEC. I looked through a number of articles, and found trouble all around. For exampple, the article 'brain' redirects to vbrain removal, and then only talks about sylar, instead of being it's own article. Neither brain as redirect nor brain removal bother to mention, in all that spec, that if Sylar's removing the brains and getting the powers, and even Eden McCain blows her brains out so they're ruined, then the brain must house the powers, even physically manifest powers like Jessica's super-strength or Claire's rapid healing. Since even the Spec isn't well thought out spec, since there's a lack of references that actually support objective facts, since there are the grammatical errors observed by Ace, and, among other reasons, WP prefers as a policy/guideline to limit the number of fan sites, I'm going to go with a general 'No.'. ] 06:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry ThuranX, just to be clear, I was not supporting this proposal. My last statement was meant to be sarcastic since Ace made his point with a vengeance. I hadn't even heard of this site before ] posted it so I was neutral on the subject. I just wanted to be sure that it wasn't be rejected simply because it's a Wiki (since not all wikis are wannabe Wikipedias). But as long as thats not the case and the site truly is, as you say, lacking in references and objective facts, then I'm with you. <font color="red"><sup>] / <sub>]</sub> 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)</sup></font> | |||
| :::"Humor" only goes so far, Anti. If you want, we can make a mock survey and definitively test the waters of ]. However, I'd hope a reasonable user would realize, simply from these comments, what the consensus already is. Furthermore, you don't ''seem'' slow, so I wonder why you keep making these little "jokes"(?) of yours. Remember, there's a thin line between "persistance" and "annoyance", especially your argumant's failing/failed. ]; ]. 06:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're the only one arguing here, Ace. <font color="red"><sup>] / <sub>]</sub> 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)</sup></font> | |||
| :::::Don't know many meaning of the word "argument", huh? Ever read a ]? How about ]? Whatever. I'll just slowly explain which meaning of the word I was using. | |||
| :::::From ]... "A fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason". In other words, your argument is your weak attenpt to sell us on using the site. You ''are'' half-right about one thing: this isn't an agrument. You're wrong and the proposition you're supporting has been opposed by two people in a matter of hours, if not minutes. | |||
| :::::In the future, also avoid: | |||
| :::::*making the same rejected proposal twice. ( ) | |||
| :::::*asking a question with an obvious answer to. ( ) ]; ]. 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*]. | |||
| ::::::Wow, Ace, you have a harsh tongue. 1) I never supported this proposal, and 2) I'm sorry if my actions have somehow offended you. Now I know better than to engage you in discussion of any kind. You've proven yourself the alpha dog, and I will no longer reply to any statements made by you. I hope this resolves any issues you have with me. <font color="red"><sup>] / <sub>]</sub> 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)</sup></font> | |||
| :::::::: I cracked up laughing at this: " m 21:40 Heroes (TV series) (diff; hist) . . (-99) . . Ace Class Shadow (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 99172368 by Cuardin (talk) See talk. '''I have to revert this again, an admin might be notified'''.)" <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 21:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There's no consensus to add it, Matthew. You know...like the way your friend El edits project pages. ]; ]. 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems there's still trouble with this. I'm going to try another explanation: The heroes Wiki lacks the disciplined level of citation Misplaced Pages demands. There is a lot more colorful language, conjecture, and fannish writing. As a result, it is probably less factual and authoritative in most regards. Linking directly to such a site from Misplaced Pages would be bad, because users coming to the WK Heroes page may follow the link to the HW, thinking it meets WP standards for verification, which it doesn't. Finding information there that isn't contained on Misplaced Pages, they may be tempted to bring it back to WP, citing HW. This sort of breeding ground for incestuous unverified information seems counterproductive at best, and a stupid self-defeatist behavior at worst. Until and unless HW begins to take on the burden of serious citation and scholarship, we'd be feeding the beast of bad (yet AGF-ish) edits, creating ] style confrontations we should instead be avoiding. The best way to do this, short of invading HW to get it citation'd up, is to simply avoid the tacit endorsement that a link constitutes. ] 05:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very good, X. You hit the nail on the head. Thankfully, Anticrash denies supporting the link, and Matthew seems to be more disagreeable/agrumentive—nothing new—than genuinely interested in debating us or adding the link. Best thing now is to let this rest. ]; ]. 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Threatening to notify an admin if it's added again? Don't be ridiculous. I think you guys are misinterpreting ] and mostly resorting to ]. It's hypocritical to complain about lack of citiations when most Heroes articles here on wikipedia (and the vast majority of TV articles) use few if any citations. Which isn't necessarily that big a deal since the show itself is the primary source. External sources aren't required to follow all the wikipedia policies, just meet EL, and that wiki does seem to contain info beyond what is here, and generally be factually correct (which is the relevant criteria for linking, not whether they use citations like wikipedia). This seems to be a fairly common attitude in the wp TV articles, an unwillingness to link to other unofficial sites (maybe out of a sense of rivalry?), whether a link is appropriate or not. --] 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"maybe out of a sense of rivalry?" - That's what I originally thought, since it seemed that the site was being bashed simply because it was a Wiki (as if it was a wannabe Misplaced Pages), hence my original reply of "blatant bias" toward it. Though, somehow my defense of the site's integrity got twisted into me suddenly supporting it's linkage in the article, which is *not* the case as I am still neutral on it. I really don't care if it's listed or not, but that is beside the point. Since you brought it up, Milo, the ] seems to be pretty common around here, not just in this article but among others I've contributed to as well. It makes it somewhat difficult to reach a ] when people assume more authority than they are warranted and make ] on their own. {{:User:Anticrash/Sig}} 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's just it, guys. Well, half right, anyway. I have nothing against most external links, really. I didn't really care/know about the whole "no fansites" thing until at least mid-2006. Still, the perceived rivalry goes both ways. Normally, Misplaced Pages links to sites which are dastintly ''different'' from it. In this case, we're linking to substandard copycat. And why? "More data"? For the reasons I stated above, that argument—chill, Anti—doesn't hold up. If I ''must'' repeat myself, the fact is that we could, ''logically'' have any data they have. Their format is supposed to mimic/match ours, for christ's sake! Anything they have that we don't probably isn't fit data anyway. And I don't want anyone trying to bring their crap from that site to us. It's just not...]. ]; ]. 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the difference between the two sites is level of detail. A specialized wiki can go into complete details on the show, while wikipedia articles should maintain an encyclopedic level of detail (meaning keeping trivia to a minimum). The Heroes pages here absolutely should not have all the data they have. And I don't see the relevance of calling it a "copycat" based on use of the wiki format, there are tons of wikis and wikipedia certainly wasn't the first. Unless they have actually plagiarized this site, making accusations of mimicing just seems petty. Do you have an example of specifically ripping these pages off? --] 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fact that you need an example, Milo, is proof you aren't paying attention...''and that's trouble''. Heh. Okay. Let's try the freaking ]. I present to you exhibits , ], , ], and . Now, I'd also like to add that I couldn't do much with the Heroes Wiki data because they only let registered users edit. So, I'm actually lucky they didn't wise up and change their ripoff template much, beyond shifting the matching green/aqua to any color differences. Oh wait. Your honor, I'll submit exhibit . Now, I'll admit, most of the blatent plagerism comes from a user called "Admin". Still, that's not a good scene, either, right? Yeah. So, I'll admit the tiniest bit of bias against a site that, to put it simply (and maybe immaturely) STOLE MY/OUR TEMPLATE/DATA! Of course, that's just one example...from ''long'' ago. I'm sure they've improved. ]; ]. 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You're pulling versions out of their history from months ago to claim that they are presently copycats? Do you have any examples of pages that are '''currently''' still copies from Misplaced Pages? I do recall an issue a while back where they forgot to properly attribute some of the pages to Misplaced Pages, but going through the site those pages have long since been rewritten. Plus at that point their only issue was that they didn't atrribute them properly, something it looks like they promptly fixed. Sounds like you're just holding a grudge... which is a bit odd given that the GFDL does allow reproduction (which admittedly they did incorrectly at first, but then fixed). It seems rather inaccurate to claim they "stole" anything given the licence by which the content may be reproduced. --] 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Like I said, the template is still a blatent rip, minus the color change. They're idiots. Linking to them wouldn't be any better than linking to some fan blog. ]; ]. 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Quite honestly, Ace, you are the only one who needs to chill; you are the only one getting bent out of shape over this. I don't know why you think ''I'' need to chill, but I've been pretty calm and composed during this discussion. It seems that you have an issue with interpreting tone. Many thanks to my college Speech class for teaching me how to have a proper conversation. Anyways, since I have stated several times already that I am neutral on the Wiki's inclusion in the links section, your argument about "more data" against the site is void. The argument brought up by Milo, and supported by me, concerns the misuse of ] and ]. He did not say anything about the Heroes Wiki specifically, nor did I in my reply. Also, Ace, I am concerned about your overtly ]. {{:User:Anticrash/Sig}} 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Testy. Who needs to chill, again? I was just referencing your inability to comprehend my uses of the word "argument". Didn't want to have to school you...''again''. ]; ]. 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, you misinterpret my tone, Ace, I didn't intend any sort of testiness in my response. If that's how you perceived it, then I'm sorry. Anyways, again with the ]. Why? I don't understand why you feel the need to be so hostile. Also, you seem to obsess with my understanding of the word "argument." What relevance does that have? You have some major ego dominance issues to deal with, and from this point on I will not acknowledge your hostility until you can respond in a mature and civil manner. Your "colorful behavior" is borderline harassment, and it has to stop. {{:User:Anticrash/Sig}} 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::When yu two are both done ramping up the incivility and having a ], please focus on the problems with the site. As for citation, I believe my point, above, which hasn't been addressed, is that unlike show based observational reporting, which we all agree is acceptable, the Heroes Wiki editors engage in speculation, and draw conclusions NOT supported in the show. Linking to such a speculative wiki implies endorsement of the content. Enthusiastic editors who read WP's heroes, go there, find 'information' that they think our page should have, and come back to WP and post it without citation, can rapidly pollute the page with Spec and Crystal Ball'ing. If the Heroes wiki was more strict about it's edits, then we could accept them, but there's rampant guesswork, fanboy ideations, and so on. Opening the door to let that stuff in is a foolish decision. I'm firmly opposed to the addition of the site in any way as it currently stands. I'd suggest going there, tracking down their admins, and bringing our reservations to their attentions. If they can shape up their site, then we can link to it. As it stands now, no go. ] 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We already established that the site wasn't to be added to the links section. The last two-thirds of this discussion wasn't even about that. Case closed. {{:User:Anticrash/Sig}} 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"Linking to such a speculative wiki implies endorsement of the content." Since when? Links on Misplaced Pages do not imply endorsement of the content of the sites in question. They are provided as a resource to the reader. To consider an extreme (and risk invoking Godwin's Law), consider the link to the Nazi propaganda archive at calvin.edu from the ] article. I doubt many people would consider that link to indicate that Misplaced Pages endorses Nazi propaganda. It is provided as a resource for the reader. Likewise, a link to a ''Heroes'' wiki site would not imply endorsement of everything on that site, and should not be excluded on those grounds. There may or may not be other reasons for excluding it, but this is not one. --] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Hiya, ThuranX. If they eliminated the content that you mention as being a major stumbling block then the information remaining would be virtually the same as what's available on Misplaced Pages already so at that point a link would now be moot anyway. It's the additional material that sets them apart in the first place. In theory the concern about the material making its way back into Misplaced Pages could be alleviated by adding a disclaimer that the site contains unverified information if there is a concern about it. I think the problem might be that it's being treated as if it's Misplaced Pages just because it's a wiki. Not weighing in on whether it should be linked or not, just bringing up some thoughts that came to mind. --] 04:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Completely agree. Linking to a site doesn't imply endorsement, and doesn't mean that a linked site does (or should) follow WP policies. I don't even think speculation on a link is really that big an issue either, as long as speculation isn't presented as fact. I also believe the opposite of ThuranX in terms of the relationship of content between the two. I think if there's a link to a site with cruftier content, users will be more inclined to take info at a level of detail (trivia?) beyond what WP wants to go into there. And then editors here can even recommend taking material over there if it isn't appropriate here. Different audiences are looking for different levels of depth - I don't see the problem with pointing those in search of a fan level of detail to a site that offers it. And Ace, I'm addressing your incivility on your talk page. Please cut it out. --] 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == uh Clair.... == | |||
| I was reading clair's power definition on this article and I saw that it said that she had the power of spontaneous regeneration. Spontaneous is something that happens randomly regeneration is the restoring back of what previously was there. These these terms do not explain clair's powers at all, she can't randomly heal, she is healed when she is hurt. Can we change this to the power of accelerated healing. ] 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't make up the terms, GIPU. The show has referred to her powers as such. It's either that or "healing factor", honestly. ]; ]. 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Spontaneous- | |||
| 1. Self generated; happening without any apparent external cause. | |||
| 2. Done by one's own free choice, or without planning. | |||
| 3. proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint | |||
| 4. arising from a momentary impulse | |||
| 5. controlled and directed internally : self-active : spontaneous movement characteristic of living things | |||
| 6. produced without being planted or without human labor : indigenous | |||
| 7. not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural | |||
| 8. Random; sudden, without warning | |||
| Her power is self generated (1), without planning (2), arises from a momentary impulse (4), produced without human labor (5), not apparently manipulated (6), sudden, without warning (8). Her power seems to satisfy 6 of the 8 definitions for spontaneous. I would say her power could be called spontaneous. ] 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Spontaneous" does not mean "randomly"; it means "instant," or without catalysis. ] has it right. Numbers 3 through 7 are the best fits. Basically, an instant natural reaction. Her healing factor activates instantly and is a natural occurence, therefore is spontaneous. <font color="red"><sup>] / <sub>]</sub> 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)</sup></font> | |||
| == Wikilink usage question == | |||
| This might be a better question for the Help Desk, but since it applies to this article I wanted to ask here: What is the guideline for how often to wikilink? For example, in the "Characters" section Leonard and Jack's names are not wikilinked next to their characters because the wikilinks are in the intro paragraph. However, Isaac is wikilinked twice in the same section ("Symbols"). Sylar is wikilinked in "Plot" and then later in "Symbols". Is it OK to wikilink twice in different sections of the same page, or should a name only be wikilinked once in an article? ] | ] 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's definitely okay to link once in each section, if deemed necessary. Not every reads all of the article, and the order in which they go is relative. I'll make a few touch ups, though. I would say that it seems odd a person misses how text is repeated within lines of eachother, especially if it's wikilinked. I mean, I'd think there's something wrong with that person, or they just ]. ]; ]. 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Links - 09th January 2007 == | |||
| Hi. Well there is a current problem with the fact that external links cannot be added. When will this change as this policy is not adopted for other TV shows so why this one? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| :See the section above regarding the Heroes Wiki for the current discussion about this, thank you. ] 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible vandalism? == | |||
| Has anyone noticed the "Heroes" main page recently? There have been some inflammatory changes to some of the by-lines and descriptions e.g. "Lack of Plot," "Rectal Links," and the ongoing war of words concerning the title card appearing on the main page. It appears completely unprofessional. | |||
| Regarding character development, can someone offer me any reason as to why Simone is listed with the main characters? If anything, her presence is more of a recurring role than that of Mr. Bennett (HRG). Sure, she was around from the beginning, but her relationship with Peter Petrelli adds nothing to the plot or character development for either Simone, Peter or Isaac. I feel that her entry on the "characters" page should be moved to the main article "List of Heroes Characters," only and not referenced here. | |||
| Also, because of the duality of Nikki/Jessica Sanders, I propose renaming her link as Nikki/Jessica Sanders. | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| ] 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, there is vandalsim. Multiple Admins are aware of the problem, and are following up. The Editor has had one IP blocked, and soon will have another. | |||
| :As to your other questions: Simone is there because the inital press material had her as a major character, and we have often talked of waiting till the season is over to assess such changes. Similarly, we've elected to wait regarding Niki and Jessica. We hope you'll join us in working on the page, but please read through the talk page and archives. given the pace of the show, we have two options. hundreds of rapid small changes week after week generating lots of argument, or patience and slower changes that have greater consensus. We hope you'll work with the rest of the regular Heroes page editors to make this page great! ] 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:46, 11 January 2007
Even those who have renounced Christianity and attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardour of their hearts has been able to create a higher ideal of man and of virtue than the ideal given by Christ of old. --Fyodor Dostoyevsky