Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Heroes task force/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Plot summaries

I would like to remember project members that a scene by scene plot summary does not constitute a encyclopedic article and may be a possible copyright violation of the original work. Please be concise and try to add more real world information and less in-universe information. Keep up the good work though. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The summaries we have now are fine. They aren't word for word, like we copied from the script or something. If you want to look at some other articles that have these kinds of summaries, check out Lost (TV series), Doctor Who, ect. As long as we don't start doing a play by play, we should be ok. Right now, that isn't the case. dposse 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they could use some work, if the goal is to take this up a notch above the typical TV articles. Some of the Heroes plot summaries do read like a "play-by-play", while others use terminology that isn't necessary - in "Genesis", for example, words like "shockingly" and "more disturbingly". (Please remember that comments like TheDJ's aren't meant to disparage the editing, but instead to offer suggestions as to how to improve it.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the individual episode articles have a lot of room for improvement. Other shows with meta-plot/seasonal story arcs have sections like "Arc significance," and there's also room for sections on things specific to Heroes, like "Powers used," "Powers revealed," etc. Pop-culture references are also sometimes noted, so maybe an optional section on references to real-world comic books or comics fictional structure. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Well, as with most WikiProjects, our primary goal is to improve articles. MatthewFenton expressed concern that we'll just "sit [here]". Not on my watch! I propose we pick one of our best articles and submit it for a peer review. I'm thinking something, or rather, someone like Claire Bennet or Peter Petrelli. A successful character article will offer a good basis for the others, as well as our own guideline and/or manual of style. From there, the sky really is the limit. So, any nominations? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the character articles, Claire's I think is the "best," since it's not as heavily editted as the others. I mean, everyone is confident we have her page factually and referentially correct. (Or if they don't agree, they haven't said like they have in the others.) After a read through it seems spelt correctly, though I'll do a thorough check later, and although I am not the most literate with formattin, it seems good enough for a nomination. What does everyone else think?Jacobshaven3 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that, and submit her. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template name change

Sladen proprosed at Template talk:HS1#Ambiguity that we change the title of template:HS1. Specially, we move our content so that another group can utilize the name. He also referenced the HS1 redirect to Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Personally, I'm not convinced, and think he or anyone else could just use a different title. Still, I thought I'd run it by the project. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I could see giving the HS1 template to Wikipedia: WikiProject UK Railways as the train line plans on being branded as HS1. However, that abbreviation is only referenced twice on Channel Tunnel Rail Link's article. The first time is at the end of the introduction, while the second time is in one of the references. Apparently, it's still much less common than CTRL. As I don't see the computer key CTRL getting its own template, perhaps its better if Sladen uses that name for his template instead. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 21:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said at Template talk:HS1#Ambiguity, there's no real reason NOT to accomodate the request. The name makes more sense for that use, and it is very cryptic for Heroes purposes. There would only be about fifteen links to change, so I'll volunteer to make the changes if that's what it takes. (BTW, Ace, why did you have to be so hard on the other editor - it was just a question, after all. And what's the deal with "I'll be a sport and ask my project"?) --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy just seemed a little...a dunno. He was kinda like Butters Stotch. He didn't seem to make a good argument, and there didn't seem to be much reason for a change in the first place. I suppose the original name could seem a bit "cryptic," but it wasn't bad. Ah well. You're right. No reason to make a big deal out of it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Primatech Paper Company

I'd like to start adding links to this article, though it doesn't exist yet. The reason is that I'm sure the article WILL exist the moment enough plot details about the company surface in future episodes, and we might as well start the busywork of adding links now. Thoughts? --Measure 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of adding links to an article that doesn't exist and may not ever. If there's enough for an article later, we can add the links later. Plus it's annoying to click on a link and find out there's no article. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why the links are red. So you know there isn't an article. --Measure 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that at this point we know that it's likely that Primatech will deserve an article. If it never does, then someone has to delete a bunch of pointless links. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You -may- have a point with that. However, I think it would have been better to discuss this stuff without reverting me the first time I made a change. In any case... Why do you think it is unlikely that Primatech will eventually get it's own article? Watching the show it's pretty clear that Primatech already plays a huge role behind the scenes. --Measure 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Allright. Primatech has been created. Now will you tolerate my efforts to add links to it? --Measure 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The individual notability of this subject is limited. The article itself isn't very good. Still, we're a project. I'll try help it out. I would, however, recommend you not create articles so hastily and carelessly in the future. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was careless or hasty about the article creation. Sure, I'm not great at starting new articles, but others have stepped in and made it much better than my original. --Measure 06:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to see how notable it ends up being in the show, if we never get much more info about the company, I could see it getting deleted or merged down the road. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pods v. Story Arcs

(Info is from "A Hero's Journey", written by Mel Caylo and published by Wizard Universe on Jan 22, 2007. Skip to the "Save the Cheerleader" section.) On the main article, the Plot section said we had two story arcs the first half of the season and are now on the third. According to the above article, the story arcs are called "Pods". (Bryan Fuller also called them pods in his podcast interview.) Kring has seperated this season (Volume I) into three pods, of which the first eleven episodes was all the first pod. My questions are:

Should we mention "Pods" in the plot section?
Should we rewrite the info about the story arcs to how the show crew organizes it?

On the latter question, although Kring says the first half of the season was one Pod, I can see how the first four episodes was a (seperate) first or prologue arc from "Save the Cheerleader". What do y'all think? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact they call the arcs "pods" might warrant a mention at most. However, using it here would only make the articles look "fannish". Better to be encyclopedic, and use a proper industry term, IMHO. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz. We should stick with the proper terminology and not use the term that they made up on a whim. If we use it in more than just a brief mention, it would just be confusing to people. Anticrash talk 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode images

Talk:List of Heroes episodes

For the most active and thorough discussion of this issue, see Talk:List of Heroes episodes.

We have a bit of an issue with the pictures in infoboxes for the Fallout and Godsend episodes. a user believes that it somehow violates fair use. Can everyone here go to the Fallout talk page and discuss this issue so we can reach a consensus? thanks. dposse 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, if we want get a definitive concensus, we should direct everyone here. Post message on every episode-related talk page, and state that the to discussion is here. After all, this is the place for project wide discussions. Also, it seems that the (re)movals weren't limited to episode articles. Whoever was causing problems, they seemed hell bent on removing all images from the list, too. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to make the fair use for all pictures our number one priority. We need to do it as quickly as possible so they aren't deleted. dposse 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and on second thought, let's direct conversation to Talk:List of Heroes episodes. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Page Redesign

I've been working on redesigning the project page at my sandbox over the past week, based on parts of project pages from the Arts, Biography, Blogging, Television, and U.S. Congress. Does anyone have an comments or suggestions on how to improve it? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit. Ths page looks ten times better then it did. Great job! dposse 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

At the time, I have no suggestions on improving it. However, may I say... AWESOME WORK!!! This is truly superb work, I must say. Cheers! — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 22:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and uh... if one of the mission tasks have been completed, do we strike it out or remove it completely? Just asking. Cheers! — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments Dposse and Tohru Honda13! To answer your question, I think we should go with the strike-out. It can help show newcomers what tasks have already been completed (and that we're not an inactive WikiProject). Also, if someone feels the task has not been completed, then possible improvements for the task can be discussed here. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I have a suggestion: Can we use the "To-do" box for our mission tasks? You know, that yellow box that has the important things to do? Or is that only for talk pages? Cheers, — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We did previously have a to-do box. I don't think the relevant to-do page was deleted, so the template can be added in if the project members want to see it return. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 07:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just suggeted this because before, I saw that the border of the project was expanding than it usually is, and I thought it was becuase of the mission tasks, somehow. But it's fixed now. Still, thanks for answering. Cheers! — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I made a typo while fixing Template:Heroes. The template looked OK, but I didn't realize the typo caused the project page to go wacky. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Powers and labelling

At soome point, maybe a month or two ago, there was a protracted discussion of labelling unpowered characters, and the upshot consensus was that since the vast majority of people are unpowered, and the character represent a tiny group who are different, and as such the basic assumption should be characters lack powers unless noted. Thus, there was no need to add things like 'no powers known yet, and such, and instead 'none' was fine. This is now a bit of an issue over at the main page for the show, and probably should be addressed here. I'll try to find the relevant discussion in an archive somewhere, but we should establish it as a presmie for style guide writing or something. ThuranX 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. It was here. ThuranX 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On the point of a Heroes Manual of Style guide, what else could be included aside from "none" for powerless characters? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 23:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Isaac Mendez#Artwork and Artwork of Isaac Mendez

A list of Isaac's art is found at both of the above locations. Also, both point to the other as "Main Article". I want to gather people's thoughts on how we can improve both, as right now it's generally repetitive.
My thoughts are that the Artwork section of Isaac's article should summarize his artistic ability, the works overall, and information on how Tim Sale and NBC produce and market (or lack of marketing, according to Tim Sale about NBC). Meanwhile, the Artwork article should include more in-depth information about each piece. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Removed redundant artwork summaries from Isaac Mendez and wrote up a quick rundown on the art style. Anticrash talk 19:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Power Sections in character articles

I have noticed that unlike most fictional character power sections, for example Spider-man, Piper Halliwell and Bigby Wolf, the ability sections for the Heroes characters read more like a day by day coverage of their power. Many could be condensed, to just a description of their power. I've already begun this with Peter Petrelli's ability section, but what do other people think regarding this? Jacobshaven3 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because Heroes is unlike Spiderman or Charmed. Things change quickly in Heroes, and we have to make note of these changes. Condensing is fine. However, deleting entire paragraphs, which you did in Peter's article, isn't. We have to note what happened in the past. Just because something changed as of a certain episode doesn't mean that a certain event (like Peter's power only working while in close proximity to a Hero) has become untrue or not notable. dposse 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So every Powers section should read: "In Episode One, we weren't sure of his power," " In episode Two we had an inkling" " Between episodes 2 and 3 a magazine revealed his power to us" " In episode 3..."

All I'm saying is, The section isnt "The history of the revelation of <character names> power" It is, "Powers and Abilities." Also, as far as I was aware, my edit's on Peter were not reverted. It's much easier to read and actually includes his Powers and Abilities, nothing more. When a characters ability "upgrades" so to speak, all thats necessary is a one line mention of this. And actually, I see no reason why Heroes should be given a different treatment to other similar texts. Charmed's main characters abilities upgraded over the series, and the powers section still manages to avoid a step by step analysis of the characters powers past.

Also, I didn't delete entire paragraphs, I condensed them into readable paragraphs so the article wouldn't become incredibly long. Jacobshaven3 10:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Update, Just seen the edit, and it makes the article look poor. I didn't just outright remove that paragraph, I replaced it with a single sentence. Which was removed because of it's repetitiveness with the apparently far superior paragraph which just wastes memory.Jacobshaven3 10:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Episode naming convention

I propose the following naming convention. All individual episode articles should be titled in the following format: Episode Name (Heroes episode). Example: Run! (Heroes episode). Why? 1) This would provide excellent and automatic disambiguation for all episodes in a uniform fashion. 2) This would place this naming convention in line with a significant body of television episode guides, leading to improved standardization within the Wikipedia. 3)This would avoid future arguments similar to the one that is currently occuring on Run!. Transcendentalstate 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Or we can just follow already established protocols such as WP:TV-NAME and WP:TVE.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You will note that my proposed standardization adheres to the standardization you cite in WP:TV-NAME "Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode":

   * Serenity (Firefly episode)"

Transcendentalstate 14:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a slight difference in what you're proposing, Transcendentalstate, and what WP:TV-NC states. In the TV-NC it states not to add the '(Heroes episode)' to a entry title unless there is a need for disambiguation. This was also confirmed in an arbitration case. The specific case for Run! is special because there is a difference in opinion on how to handle the exclamation point. Hence the request for consensus on that talk page. -- Marcsin |^Talk 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Muggles

Someone created a article for Mr. Muggles, Mr. Bennets family pet. This article is hardly notable. Mr. Muggles isn't a Hero or anything, he's just a dog. I recommend that the article be deleted and merged into List of characters in Heroes. What do you think? dposse 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; Mr. Muggles is just a puppy that appears in only a few episodes and a few minutes, if ever. Placing him in the "Other characters" section of List of characters in Heroes would be the best solution. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 17:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We can give it a shot. If people don't like it, we can always revert.. ;) Anticrash talk 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Would one of you like to start doing that? dposse 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it! So, I should just state that we would like this page deleted and merge it to list of characters in Heroes? — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Muggles and voice your opinion! And if you must change the wording for the reason of deletion, please do. I've put up what Dposse wanted to do, which was deleting and redirecting to List of characters in Heroes. Cheers, — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the ball rolling dposse and Tohru Honda12! fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. And uhh... it's Tohru Honda13. :) Cheers! — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 00:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, a user asked in the discussion why we didn't just redirect Mr. Muggles to List of characters in Heroes, instead of bringing up the discussion. Why didn't we? It just dawned on me as well. Cheers! ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that normal users had that ability. I'm sorry. I just thought a AFD was the logical step. dposse 05:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. Besides, I haven't quite gotten the hang of redirecting/merging an article to another (only done it to my user subpages). But still, let's just let the discussion continue. Eh. Unless someone else wants to withdraw it? Cheers! ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pointless to withdraw it now. Let's just let it go through. dposse 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter in Unexpected: Telekenesis or Stopping time?

We have a bit of an argument over at Talk:Unexpected (Heroes) that needs a consensus. The scene where Peter stops the two projectiles shot at him by Bennet and the Haitian is in dispute. Will anyone here go to the talk page, please? thanks. dposse 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope I've sorted it out now. I replaced the answer by not specifying the ability used, easiest way out of it. :-) Jacobshaven3 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the argument is still going on. Any help from the users in this wikiproject would be great. dposse 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortening plot summaries

Is there a target for how short summaries should be? Some articles have been shortened already but still have tags. Is there an example featured episode article to use as a reference? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the situation we face is that the plot summaries are scene by scene descriptions instead of a summary. One example of something we could go by is Endgame (Voyager episode) where a two part series finale is summarized quite succinctly. -- Marcsin |^Talk 17:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pilot (House) is the only television episode currently listed as a Featured Article. The plot summary is three paragraphs, albeit three long paragraphs. A problem with smaller plot summaries for Heroes episode articles is that most scenes only include two to three main characters. Thus it's hard to shrink plot summaries for episodes like "Six Months Ago" where most of the cast appears but doesn't interact as a group. In House, many of the cast often work together throughout an episode. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try, just that it will be a difficult task and that everyone will need to work together to improve the articles. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The plot structure in Heroes is very disjointed, as there are multiple seperate simultaneous storylines involving characters in various parts of the world. Our first course of action would be to address this on the main page, much like they've done with the Lost article, then approach each individual episode article as a breakdown of what happens for each character involved. As encyclopedic articles, these shouldn't be play-by-plays, but rather summaries of the information gathered from the episode. It doesn't seem many people want to take this task on, so I plan on addressing it myself once the season is over and there is no more new information to keep up with for at least three months. Windmillninja 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of characters in Heroes

there's trouble here about how to organize what's becoming too long a list. Some editors are smitten with adding more and more tables. Others are trying to work out a consensus for organization first, then worry about the format. We could use more voices. Thanks. ThuranX 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment of articles

Most projects use their banner to assess articles within their project. Would the people on this project like for me to modify this project's banner so you can assess the articles in this project?↔NMajdan•talk 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

huh? dposse 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

First encounter

This series is based on seemingly unrelated people somehow all linked together. Wouldn't it be nice to complete the following table? I did Six Months Ago, Company Man, and the first 7 episodes. No future plot or future Hiro involved in this table. Hana's unilateral interception of other's communication does not count. Only physical encounter or bidirectional communication counts.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded, I will take it to my user page. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:List of characters in Heroes#Encounters Survey. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"the fuse"

We need help over at the Heroes talk page. We need to find consenus about disputed content. dposse 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)