Talk:List of Heroes episodes/Archive 1

Multiple Versions of Episodes
Are multiple versions of episodes airing? Some of these descriptions contain events that did not appear in the version I saw.
 * No idea, but the descriptions I see are of the shows I saw.--Kranar drogin 10:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be that the Canadian version is different from the American version, it could be that you are referring to the first airing of the pilot compared to subsequent version (which were trimmed in length for commercial breaks,) and it's possible that the Sci-Fi channel's version in the US is slightly different then the NBC version in the US (also due to commercial breaks.) --DJ Chair 13:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode Titles
The Sci-Fi Channel schedule lists the 7th episode as "Nothing to Hide," not "Nothing to Lose." Also, the following episode is listed as "Seven Minutes to Midnight."--MythicFox 08:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Seven Minutes to Midnight" is a reference to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' "Doomsday Clock," which currently stands at seven minutes to midnight. --198.82.102.237 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I support what was stated above. There are multiple versions at least of the first episode. I have on my HDD two versions of episode 1 with significant differences (story, not just length)--Energman 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to Episodes
Shouldn't we follow some type of naming convention here? I mean, what seems to make the most sense is to place the name of the episode, and then the name of the series. Having Hiros listed as just Hiros is going to follow some people up. --DJ Chair 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That does not "make the most sense". Naming conventions of Wikipedia are about clarity, disambiguation and accuracy. No other articles for "Hiros" eliminates the need for disambiguation. Clarity is achieved by naming the episode properly. Accuracy over rules the supposed benefits of adding "Heroes episode" to the end of every article title. "Hiroes" is accurate. "Genesis (Heroes episode)" is not, but forgetable. Honestly... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Consistency seems to be the best approach and so appending (Heroes episode) seems logical. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you DJ Chair! I totally agree with you.  We have been having a discussion over at Hiros exactly about that.   I think Clarity is HELPED, not hindered by (Heroes episode) after the title.  I'd be okay with (Heroes) as well, as it helps immediately clarify that its part of a TV series. EnsRedShirt 22:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree. --Kmsiever 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with EnsRedShirt. --Elonka 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that was random and...uh..."late". I wonder what brough this on... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Standard
According to here if there is no disambiguation needed then the series name need not be included. That said most shows now include the series name by default for two reasons; one it makes it standard across the board and two it prevents future disambiguation issues. So the format I would recomend we use is _(Heroes) on every episode for consistancy and to prevent potential future issues. --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, go against project guidelines for pointless, POV, pre-emptive reasons? Unnecessary. I won't have any part in that. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case the project guidelines are wrong, short sighted, and need a change. It makes no sense why you are so against these being formated similarly so we can keep a constant look across all related articles. EnsRedShirt 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's not necessary. Plus, things don't generally conform to "universal format". Not every comics-related article has "(comics)" at the end of it. Not every DC, Marvel, et cetera property has their at the end of their article. Why should every episode of a TV show have "([series] episode)" at the end of it? Because you say so? No. "Hiros" is the first use of that name. Seven Minutes to Midnight will be the first use of that one. And that reminds me, adding that extra "Heroes episode" will be a bitch with longer episode titles. Honestly, open your mind. I've considered your POVs and the only benefits of your "system" are, as I stated above, pointless, biased, against policy or a combination thereof. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that creating a better looking, easier to read Encyclopedia creates a little more work.. (yea those extra 9 key strokes are killers.) EnsRedShirt 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually only (Heroes) would be appended not (Heroes episode) --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've Posted an RfC
The RfC has been posted, since the issue has come up for Jericho, Heroes and Lost (probably others as well) I have put in a singly topic which you can read and discuss here --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's worth getting as much participation in this discussion as possible. All interested editors are invited to come in and participate in the poll. --Elonka 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Length of the "Short" descriptions
I'm wondering if the "short" descriptions aren't a bit to long. The standard for most shows is one to 3 lines while these seem too average around 6 lines. --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 06:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly think it doesn't matter. Depending on the depth of a show and how many storylines are exploited a summary can vary in size. I mean hardly anything happens in an episode of LOST but a lot happens in an episode of Galactica for example.

Spoiler Warning
Since the episode synopses here are (so far) the word-for-word one that NBC gives out weeks before an episode air, they don't quite qualify as spoilers to my way of thinking. For me, a spoiler is the revelation of a surprise plot twist or a story's ending, and putting the warning at the beginning of every plot synopis or description ruins the point of having a warning in the first place, which is allow people to find out what the story but giving them an opportunity to skip over the biggest surprises. In any case, does anyone object to having the spoiler warning removed here? Primogen 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of episode descriptions
The episode descriptions, which currently are based on the synopses provided by NBC, are nevertheless inaccurrate. It looks like some describe plot points from near the end of previous episodes that aren't really dealt with in the current episode. Since NBC was trying to avoid giving spoilers before the episode air, the descriptions are also a bit coy for an encylopedia. If someone has the time and ambition, could they check these for accuracy against the episode articles? Primogen 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot synopsis length in episode articles
Many of the plot descriptions throughout the various Heroes episode articles are 2-3,000 words long. I think plot descriptions that go down to the shot and dialog level are too long for an encyclopedia. By comparison, I checked the plot descriptions from one episode article each from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Lost, and Battlestar Glactica, and they were all about 1,000 words long, which feels about right to me for a Heroes episode article. So, I'm throwing this out to the Heroes editor community, in case anyone agrees and feels ambitious while there is a break until the next new episode. Primogen 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like i said in the Six Months Ago talk page, you cannot just delete the entire summary and leave three meaningless paragraphs. That does not help to explain what the episode is about. If you wish to shorten the summaries, do so my condensing it, but still leave the neccasary details in there. I think around the look for Fallout seems reasonable. If Primogen is right and it's 2,000 words then so be it. I think it's way better to write more than to not do our jobs and write nothing. dposse 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who believes a nice decent sized summary is a good thing?!? - I mean come on now.. we are building an encyclopaedia.. we should not have artificial limits. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771


 * I'm neither suggesting to hacking the summaries in a haphazard way nor to set an artificial limit at a precise word count. I'm suggesting that the episode descriptions are currently much too wordy and detailed for the purpose of describing the plot, and in looking at other examples on Wikipedia, I think that writing about the plot at more of a "scene resolution level" rather than attempting to do a shot-by-shot description would produce a "nice decent sized summary." Primogen 22:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest: 1) keep the verbose plot descriptions and 2) write a quick plot overview ("synopsis") to accompany (1). This way you get "oh, it's that episode" and you can find the nitty gritty details. Looking at Six Months Ago (and no others thus far) that the verbose plot also be broken down with more headings. Cburnett 00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nice compromise, Cburnett! I like it. dposse 02:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for episode titles
What are the sources for the titles of 112, 113, and 114? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the first two are consistently used by most sites. TV.com, however mentions, Nothing to Lose as "Prod 115". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NBC & Netflix offer special 11-episode recap DVD
Zap2It.com wrote a story on NBC & Netflix teaming up to offer a special DVD which recaps the first half of the season, as well as previews of two new NBC shows. I think it's based on this press release. Should this information appear in this article or the main article? The story also mentions NBC is showing a one-hour catch-up episode prior to the new episode on January 22. Does anyone see a new episode title floating out there so we can add it to the episode list? fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how any of this in important, let alone encyclopedic. "Relevant"? Maybe. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks like good info to me. Most TV show main pages have DVD sections, you could do something like The_4400. - Peregrine Fisher 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really a traditional DVD release, more of a recap. It's like...a homemade tape. You guys can do what you want, but it doesn't seem like something to put in the 'pedia. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Summaries have been copied from other sites
It looks to me like some or all of these summaries have been copied from other sites such as tv.com. Check out these google searches:. Should we remove them all, or can someone determine some of them are OK? - Peregrine Fisher 04:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Check it yourself. These summaries are all widely released and circulated, from what I understand. I doubt TV.com wrote them, let alone copyrighted them. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No excuse to copy the material. Material is by default copyrighted so without a statement of release as public domain or copyleft then it can only be assumed that it is owned by someone and wikipedia doesn't have rights to it.  Summaries found to be copies should be blanked and written anew.  Cburnett 05:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced them all with stub summaries. - Peregrine Fisher 19:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, please restore the production codes - NBC uses those numbers on their Heroes episode pages. --Ckatz chat spy  19:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * - I don't see anything saying production code ... :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out the URL you just posted - "http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/episodes/season1/ 101/". Each episode is under a respective "101, "102", etc. --Ckatz chat spy  19:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a directory, and it means nothing, it could just as easily mean: season1episode01. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Side note: Does it actually add anything to the article either way? Production codes might be useful if episodes were aired wrongly for example, however in this case it just seems trivial (WP:AVTRIV) and if cited would it not be better on the episode page? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I should have mentioned it here, but I removed all the copy vios and replaced them. That's why the summaries are so small and crappy. Here was the edit. - Peregrine Fisher 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The summaries should be longer or the way it was before some one changed them into short summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.200.48 (talk • contribs) 04:35, January 29, 2007
 * They can't be the way they were since those were copyright violations. Feel free to write longer ones, we're all editors here.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting summaries
Why are you reverting the summaries Ace Class Shadow? Have you read the Images section above? - Peregrine Fisher 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For future reference, work on the punctuation. Also, this talk page is best used to address the article and all of its editors as whole. Still, since you asked so nicely, I'll tell you. Several the attempted expansions utilizing poor grammar, spelling and—wait for it...!—punctuation. I try to correct what I can, and I'll gladly leave any good contributions alone. However, when someone, intentionally or otherwise, damages the quality of the article, I feel obligated to do something. Maybe you'd rather have large content over quality, but that's not what makes a good article. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Total Number of Episodes
Another problem I've having here is trying to determine exactly how many episodes there are in Season One. At first I read 11, then 13. Then I read elsewhere that it was 15 (tv.com, I think it was), and now they say 18. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!! This is starting to annoy the crap out of me. Where exactly should I go, or who exactly should I call/write to get a straight and final answer? Sweetfreek 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this interview, twenty-four. Perhaps we should state something to that effect, so people like you won't have to go pulling their hair out. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like either 18 or 23. Sweetfreek 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to read between the lines a little, but trust me, it's twenty-four. (eleven plus seven plus five) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How exactly did u get 24 from 11 + 7 + 5? Z3u2 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He's right thats 23. Bio 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Images
I fixed the first episodes summary and the image was removed. Please spell out your criteria for inclusion Ed. It seems like you think Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 passed, when it was shot down quite thoroughly. The closest to a consensus on this issue is that the above amendment is no good. - Peregrine Fisher 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a sneaking suspicion that he didn't look based on his edit summary. Cburnett 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This exact same thing happened on List of Seinfeld episodes and List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes however the insertion of the images kept getting reverted. If you guys are in support please express your opinions. Otherwise this will probably continue to happen and there will be no images in the lists. I'm not saying to start a revert war but we need a consensus to make our point known. Sfufan2005 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed attempted at getting consensus against it and failed. Cburnett 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly I find his attitude and actions disruptive, I am considering starting behavioural RfC, does anyone support this? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I will note that every image has a fair use rationale. If these aren't sufficient for Ed (or anyone) then I wholly recommend he (or anyone) start discussing why and how to improve them. Maybe start a tutorial for fellow wikipedians so we can avoid reverting. Otherwise having the intention of only reverting on the page is just disruptive. Cburnett 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't really about improving the rationale. When the plot summaries are two lines long, the only purpose the images serve is to jog the memory of someone who's seen the show, and to make the page look prettier. While the former may be slightly helpful, and the latter is aesthetically pleasing, they are not covered by our policy. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction: your interpretation of policy. Cburnett 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The rationales consist of: If you want to add any of the images back they must contain a Fair Use rationale. This must detail how the image adds significantly to the article [FUC#8] (not just it identifies the episode, lots of things, including the title, identify the episode). Remember, Fair Use is for critical commentary, and should be used as sparingly as possible [FUC#3]. I imagine for most of these images it won't be possible to justify them. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it is a low resolution still of a televison episode;
 * True but not sufficient
 * it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the episode in any way;
 * Probably true, but not sufficient
 * it illustrates the episode in question and aids commentary on the plot outline.
 * Many things "illustrate the episode", "[it] aids commentary on the plot outline" is a completely unqualified statement.
 * The copyright is most likely held by the studio that produced it, NBC
 * Irrelevant.
 * Fair use is not only for "critical commentary", it is also for research and educational purposes. An index page which uses graphics to, as someone put it, "jog the memory" of users, is a very useful research aid. Wikipedia is a research tool.
 * IMO, a list of small graphics (less than 10% of the pixels of the original image) on an index page is more appropriate than a large (more than 30% of pixels of the original image) on an episode page. I'm not a lawyer and I ask no one else to take my advice. I have, however, read section 107 of the US copyright act, and my own edits will be based on my own understanding and my own experience as a writer. Avt tor 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think your interpretation is wrong months ago when you tried to get an amendment passed and I still think you're wrong. No one has appointed you in charge of the fair use rationales (or fair use anything) and you have no more authority to say what is sufficient than any other editor here.  Given that your interpretation for "significantly" and "critical commentary" failed to gain community consensus, please, tell me why your preaching here should be given any authority.  Just because you think you're correct doesn't mean you are (and consensus at every discussion I've seen and participated in shows pretty much that you're not).  PS: do you have a US law degree, passed the bar, or have a practice anywhere?  Cburnett 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion of the amendment had barely started when it got turned into a vote. Seeing as this is about our policy not the law, my legal qualifications or lack thereof are irrelevant. Instead of venting your fury at my actions, would you perhaps like to respond to the points I have made, specifically that no one has explained how each screenshot "aids commentary on the plot outline", when in most cases the image is not even mentioned in the text. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Convenient that you forgot to mention here that a long discussion took place elsewhere prior to you proposing the amendment. Convenient that you also forgot to mention that you did not inform the long standing discussion that you had proposed the amendment.  I, for one, was very displeased with your actions and I think the large support against your amendment is obvious.  So, the discussion on the amendment was short because it took place elsewhere.


 * Your qualifications are in direct question to you acting as an authority. It is your interpretation that you are puting forth against all discussions I have seen on the topic.  It is you putting yourself above everyone else by dictating that you are right.  Your qualifications, rather lack of, speaks to your ability to act as an authority.  Since you have no qualifications (heck, you don't even live in the country in which fair use is being used and defined) then you cannot act as an authority.  Since you have no consensus backing your interpretation then you cannot enforce your interpretation.  Ergo, you have no authority to dictate what is sufficient and what is insufficient for a rationale.  Opinions you can have, authority you cannot have.


 * As for the rest, such discussion has already taken place on other pages regarding other images. You refused to see the arguments then and I have zero reason to believe you will now.  Regurgitating what you request has been done before and I have very little interest in entertaining you with another round of the same discussion just on a different page.


 * The merits of screenshots has been discussed and dismissed by you. That only leaves your actions and your interpretations to discuss.


 * On a side note, I have no problem with expanding the summaries on this page &mdash; or any episode list page &mdash; and to incorporate the image into the summary. Furthermore, it's very hard to incorporate a screenshot into a summary when the images are persistently being removed and time & energy must be devoted to an argument rather than editing.  A very nice catch, if I may say.  Cburnett 17:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When I see one editor declaring themselves sole arbiters of policy against the views of all others, I sometimes make a practice of reverting that editor's deletions. Avt tor 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How do they aid commentary? Well, the images identify the subject of each episode, and specifically illustrate relevant points and sections within the text.  The same as all good images on wikipedia.
 * Also, I was fixing the text and images when you reverted. I've seen you remove over 200 images in one edit, with no regard to how each image individually matches it's summary.  Mentioning the image doesn't seem to effect your edits.  Please gain some consensus for these extreme edits; start up Fair use/Fair use images in lists or Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 again, if you want. - Peregrine Fisher 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"and specifically illustrate relevant points and sections within the text" - pray tell how an image of an arm and a phonebox illustrates in any way the text "Matt and Audrey Hanson investigate a murder. Peter asks for Nathan's help in finding a painting." Until such an explanation is provided on the image talk page, they are in clear violation of FUC#10. By no interpretation is that image and that text linked. Such a claim is frankly absurd. ed g2s &bull; talk 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to quote the policy, you may note the 48-hour notice piece of the policy, emphasis on "notice". (As an example, I note the graphic in question does not appear to match your objection, so it has already been corrected.) Avt tor 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The 48hr rule applies to deletions. It is not relevant here.
 * Also, Peregrine Fisher asked you explicitly about the first episode and its image. I think he deserves an answer before you start questioning other episodes.  He attempted to rectify the first image and you reverted.  He asked you point-blank to "spell out your criteria" and you refused and reverted further.  I'm noticing a pattern here.  Your only desire here is to see that no images are on this page regardless of what effort is put into appeasing your complaints.  You ignore direct questions and blanketly remove images.  All you are doing here is disrupting wikipedia and its users.  Cburnett 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is factually incorrect. PF beefed up the summary, he was reverted by anonymous editors to the version with short summaries and all the images. Upon seeing this version I reverted to the version without the images. Each image needs an explanation of how it is relevant to the text. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You never did spell out your criteria. Pasting FUC doesn't count.  Cburnett 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC: "we may permit some non-free material for critical commentary" - if you add an image without commenting on it, referencing it or mentioning its contents, then there is no critical commentary of it. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your complete lack of cooperation is damn infuriating. Pasting and making some generalist comment doesn't count.  Explain, EXACTLY, why YOU THINK the image for 113 doesn't belong.  Cburnett 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the uploader, it is your responsibility to demonstrate why it does belong. Why, in that particular case, does the "key moment", so fully described by "It is believed that Sylar is dead but Mr. Bennet finds to the contrary face-to-face." require "[a] visually aid and ... critical commentary [to] describe [it]" (as you stated), and furthermore, how does a tiny picture of one man's face and the back of another's head add so significantly to those dozen words. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so this has nothing to do with the rationale or the FUC, but back to your interpretation about "signficantly" and "critical commentary". It has been shown that your interpretation is wrong, that you have no authority on fair use, and you have no authority to act on your interpretation against consensus.  Cburnett 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The rationale would explain how it provides critical commentary - you have not attempted to do so - you have merely stated matter-of-factly that it does. "It has been shown that your interpretation is wrong" where? how? "that you have no authority on fair use" this is not about Wikipedia policy, not US law. "you have no authority to act on your interpretation against consensus" nobody needs authority to enforce policy. And yes, my interpretation of "critical commentary" does not include 12 words of loosely related text, does yours!? ed g2s &bull; talk 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. The answers are pretty much covered above and I'm not repeating them.  Cburnett 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point to the text in this discussion where it was explained how each individual image was relevant to its accompanying text... ed g2s &bull; talk 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, "critical commentary" is not the sole justification for fair use (under section 107 of the copyright law [Title 17], etc.). No single individual is the sole arbiter of policy. Avt tor 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, this is not about the legal definition of Fair Use - so quoting law won't get you anywhere. The passage about critical commentary is from our policy. As far as you care concerned that is all that matters. If you want to change our policy to include "making lists look pretty and providing visual cues" then bring it up at WP:FU. ed g2s &bull; talk 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, based on consensus, I'm not taking your opinion as being an authoritative interpretation of policy. I rarely have to put things this way, but as an American I have a civic duty to help the community defend the rights of individuals, and fair use is a right which belongs to individuals; it arises from the constitutional right of freedom of speech, which includes the right to talk about things one is interested in. A lot of people have some fairly imprecise ideas of how fair use works. As such, legally it is generally understood that non-legal descriptions by individuals or organizations of fair use (or copyright in general) are merely descriptive, not prescriptive or restrictive. WP:FU is a guideline, not a legal contract term between me and Wikipedia, and as a guideline it is surely subject to interpretation by the community, of which I don't see you expressing anything like a consensus opinion. The guideline is inherently illogical if you think about it; "critical commentary" is, pretty much by definition, POV. It is not Wikipedia's function to offer subjective commentary, it is its function to provide information useful to researchers, and by researchers I mean people who seek understanding of a subject. Any guideline on fair use must apply to the actual legal principle of fair use, not to some oddly-worded interpretation of the law.
 * As none of us in the discussion have authority over others, we have to be guided in our interpretation of policies by the majority of opinions expressed. Avt tor 09:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FUC is a policy - it takes our restriction of Fair Use beyond that of US law. We are restricted by the limitations of law and the policy. The policy is not "use any image if it is Fair Use". If you think you are on some crusade to protect the Fair Use rights of US law you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia does not want to allow all material that legally qualifies as Fair Use. ed g2s &bull; talk 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:FUC states "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." which greatly mitigates its authoritativeness. Further, WP:FU itself is a guideline, not a policy. Further, Wikipedia Foundation is an organization, and organizations are obliged to operate in a legal context.
 * When you say, "If you think you are on some crusade to protect the Fair Use rights of US law you are in the wrong place." your statement inherently contradicts itself. The violation of rights is an inherent challenge which requires people to stand up. US law is in fact not inherently the point; the Bill of Rights does not define the rights of individuals, it is only an attempt to codify such rights as are inalienable. That's why other democracies have similar legislation under the terms of Article 10 of the Berne Convention. (It happens that my actual university course was in Canadian business law; I'm not claiming expertise, just saying that my reading of it is not dissimilar to US law on this particular point.) As for "Wikipedia does not want...", well, you don't speak for Wikipedia any more than anybody else, no matter how often you revert. Avt tor 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have also misunderstood the term "critical" - it can be both netural and objective - or as 'critic' puts it: "a reasoned ... analysis ... or observation". ed g2s &bull; talk 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your ellipses in this quote (humorously) omit the word "judgement" (twice); at any rate, there's nothing here that requires or implies neutrality. Avt tor 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Ed, again you revert to a page with no images. Does this mean you won't look at List of episodes pages entries and judge them one by one, but only remove all images at once? - Peregrine Fisher 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, please don't canvass. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Inviting the opinion of one interested person to a discussion is not canvassing - this is not a vote. Also with regards to your edit summary I couldn't possibly think I OWN this article - I've never made a content-based edit to it, and IDONTLIKEIT is an essay (remember WP:EANP) that has clearly been created by a pro-Fair Use user, it in no way is representative on any policy - nor addresses any of the issues here. ed g2s &bull; talk 09:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, I must advise you to self revert as you have violated the three-revert rule (and this is, of course, not the first time)[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Heroes_episodes&diff=104471584&oldid=104464989] thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I advise you stop violating FUC#10. This is not a content dispute. ed g2s &bull; talk 10:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument has no substance, consensus on this talk page plainly states that you are the only one who believes they violate the FUC and that the rest of the users believe they perfectly comply with the FUC. You are being disruptive, now stop it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus on this page reflects the opinion that the editors of this page think the screenshots look nice, and so do I - but the consensus on this page does not overrule policy. The image talk pages contain no reference to their specific use on this article. That is what FUC#10 requires. If we allowed generic statements such as "it identifies the episode" then we wouldn't need the policy, just a template. ed g2s &bull; talk 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that your interpretation is wrong, therefore it is not a consensus against policy (as you keep putting it) but a consensus against your interpretation. Two wholly, and drastic, differences. Cburnett 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'll note the next topic on this talk page, more than one editor think the images don't "look nice". On an index page, the images serve an index function, making the document as a whole much more useful for research, because it helps explain which episode the mini-blurb is talking about, while also helping to guide users to more detail if they wish. Avt tor 18:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a version with only some images in? If so revert to that one - not the one with them all in. As yet none of the images have an explicit rationale for the context of this list. This is clearly required by WP:FUC. ed g2s &bull; talk 09:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading this entire discussion there has yet to be one comment about a specific rationale claim from anyone but myself. No-one has attempted to justify the images beyond the image talk page claims of "it illustrates the episode in question and aids commentary on the plot outline" which are, by any interpretation, unspecific. FUC#10 requires a "For each article for which fair use is claimed [a] rationale ... which is relevant to the article in question." - even when I have presented image and text which are clearly unrelated (episode #7) no one has addressed the issues, preferring instead to let out cries of "but we have a consensus!" ed g2s &bull; talk 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to give Wikiproject:Heroes time to put a fair use rationale for the images. It's on our to do list, and i'm trying my best to make it our number one priority so this issue can be resolved in a way that allows everyone to get what they want. dposse 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the episode descriptions were rewritten recently and need to be updated. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way - the images should have the proper rationales when they are uploaded. The images should only be added to the page as and when they comply with policy. As it stands the majority of images still do not have specific rationales for this page. They can't be used. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so some images do yet you keep removing them. Cburnett 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If they do not have correct fair use rationals, then we will add them as quickly as we can. Yes, it does work that way. Go read the templates that wikipedia created for this kind of thing. Wikipedia does give uploaders the right to add fair use rationals if they did not already have them when the images were uploaded. The newly created wikiproject for Heroes will do this. We just need a little bit of time. dposse 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems all the screenshots have been deleted (not by me) but I'd suggest not uploading anymore. In light of a recent announcement most screenshots on Wikipedia will probably be phased out over the coming months. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears a friend of Ed has deleted all the images, unilaterally, if someone could undelete them (Cburnnet?) that would be great. I intend to open an RfC on Ed and possibly Cyde soon. I believe I have backups of all the images as well if they are needed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed, you need to pay more attention to what you read:
 * Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
 * Nowhere in that link nor what I quoted says screenshots are going away. There is no reasonable replacement for screenshots and, thus, the email all but SUPPORTS their use.  Please read more carefully in the future.  Cburnett 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyde is no more my friend than yours - I have had no recent contact with him. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, he seems to have deleted a bunch of images with no prior discussion or notificiation that I can find. I'd support getting these undeleted - the recent foundation proclimation is very vague and I think it's a very bad idea to start using it for a basis of deletion before it is clarified.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cyde's rational is inline with Ed's: Deleting image with invalid fair use claim; it was only being used as page decoration and was not critically discussed. Cyde has the same interpretation as Ed.  The relevant policy here is Criteria for speedy deletion which says:
 * ''Invalid fair-use claim. ... Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after July 13, 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader.
 * I find no such notifications therefore Cyde's actions were unilateral, against consensus, and in tune with personal policy interpretation. I believe a Deletion review is in order for Cyde's deletion actions.  Even though two images had thorough rationales they were still deleted.  You will also notice Administrators' noticeboard that Cyde also incorrectly interpreted the email Ed linked above.  I believe that was his motivation for the deletion. Cburnett 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that while the "not used for critical commentary" issue is currently being heavily debated for use in lists, each of the images deleted was also used as an identifying image for an individual article on each episode. Such use is clearly endorsed for fair use images -- in fact, it's pretty much the definition of "critical commentary" as far as screenshots on Wikipedia is concerned -- which makes the deletion of all the images even more suspect.  I think a deletion review is clearly in order. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dark images
Most of the images here are very dark. (#1, #3-#5, #7-#11) It would be nice if someone could either adjust the way they are capturing these or choose more visible frames; the research utility of these images is reduced if a reader can't quickly figure out what they are. I don't have convenient access to original source for these. Avt tor 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see them fine. Also images should not be lightened as that makes them look fake and crappy and (obviously) the shows producers/etc did not intend the show to be viewed like that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The much larger versions of the original files are easier to look at, but they don't all reduce well for the purpose of list icons. (They're also pretty large for fair use, i.e. they contain a large percentage of the information from the original image, but that's a minor quibble.) Television itself is a moving-picture medium; viewers obtain information from motion that isn't available in a still frame. A web page is a different medium; images that are going to appear on a white background can't be mostly-dark rectangles (this is a long-established methodology among book photo researchers). I'm interested in what other people think. Avt tor 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Less then 50% of the original size I find to be web resolution, we don't actually have a set-in-stone limit, I however always resize my images to around the 680px mark, I find that to be a good resolution, generally most images don't need to be rendered higher then ~300px, but if your like me when you click the image you expect it to be larger so you can see the frame better. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Avt tor - many of these images could either be improved or changed for more suitable ones. Matthew, keep in mind that the producers/directors/editors etc. composed the images for viewing on a typical television screen in a living room setup, not for viewing as a postage-stamp-sized object on a smaller computer monitor. Resizing the screen grabs for Wikipedia lists changes how they appear, and we have to tke that into account - even if that requires getting different images specifically for this article. (BTW, I'm looking at the small images on a properly adjusted, well-maintained pro monitor right now - and they're definitely dark.) --Ckatz chat spy  18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see some of then lightened as well. If not simple brightening then perhaps some curve adjustment to get more dynamic range in the colors to bring out the contrast.  Doesn't have to be a lot... Cburnett 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Addressing only the point about size: I agree that the graphics should be larger than what appears in the list, merely because an editor can't be 100% certain of the eternal look of a particular page. My opinion is that an icon which is going to be 125 pixels wide does not need to be much more than 200-300 pixels when it's uploaded. If I were involved in a show, I might feel slightly stepped on for anything more detailed than that. However, this is a small issue, most people aren't going to click on the image, and for myself, I would not bother to change any existing graphics just because of size. Avt tor 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone replace Image:Heroes s01 e05.jpg? It's supposed to be an image of D.L. sneaking into Niki's house, but it's too dark. There must be a better frame to capture. - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I protected this page to get people talking on here instead of in edit summaries. Please work this out using dispute resolution if necessary. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No dispute resolution is needed, we have a consensus, one guy does not wish to abide by it, hence disruption. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been discussed at great length on this very page if you look above. There's a clear consensus and a single editor unilaterally editing in opposition to it.  I'm not exactly sure where a single editor violating 3RR and reverting a number of other editors resulted in a page protection instead of just blocking the disruptive editor.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Requested unprotection. Cburnett 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Images again
Looking at WP:FU, it seems the clause Cyde and Ed are concerned about is "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." As long as the image identifies the subject of an article (the image identifies that specific episode) and/or specifically illustrates the text, there's no reason to delete it.  If/when the image is deleted, we need to make sure it meets this criteria, which may mean adjusting either text or images to make sure that one unquestionably illustrates the other.  Cyde and/or Ed, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your reason for removing images (so far Ed has refused to answer questions about this on his talk page).  If either of you could provide an example of an article that uses a fair use screenshot in a way you feel meets fair use well, that would be much appreciated. Thanks Update - obviously this applies to all article screenshots as well as this page, please take a look and make any required updates. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A thing to do instead of adding (as shown in the image above) would be to move the image into context with the plot like they do at Doctor Who. I did try this once however another user reverted me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's something we can try, although if the text discusses the image that would seem to be enough, FU doesn't seem to say that the text it illustrates must be right next to the image. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, all we have to do is to rewrite the episode descriptions here to illistrate what the picture is showing us? That shouldn't be too hard. It might mean a slightly longer description, but it's possible. dposse 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have zero problems with longer summaries. Cburnett 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not many of the screenshots on Wikipedia are being used properly (for proper encyclopaedic critical commentary), probably <1%. I expect forthcoming clarifications to the wording of our policy will result in many of these being deleted. ed g2s &bull; talk 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, you are being disruptive now stop, you may decree that because you believe them to be invalid fair use then they must be, however that does not make them so and the general consensus is you are wrong. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is so disruptive about expressing my opinion on a talk page? You can shout consensus for as long as you like but it's not going to stop the inevitable. ed g2s &bull; talk 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact that you are causing problems instead of working with everyone to help solve one? Nothing. dposse 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again - I fail to see how that last comment caused any new problem. Unless you are voicing a general "stop it" towards me trying to enforce our Fair Use policy, in which case: no. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it's your interpretation of policy that has been REPEATEDLY stated that you are wrong about. If policy were wrong this would obviously be the wrong place to discuss that.  Cburnett 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, could you provide an example of a screenshot that you consider to be used correctly in terms of fair use? I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet, there may be many deletions in many categories of media, but there certainly are cases where images improperly used may have their use corrected instead of being deleted.  The decision on whether a given image is being used properly or not isn't to be made by one editor, but is something that requires judgement and therefore consensus.  Current policy says that screenshots are fine if used properly, and the latest edict from the board doesn't seem to contradict that.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like the screenshot on Citizen Kane is a good example of an academic use of such material. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh stop pretending to be the victim and acting like all you've done here is discuss on the talk page. All you've done on this article is disrupt it with your interpretation of policy (to which the majority agrees that your interpretation is wrong).  Cburnett 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was clearly referring to that comment only - to which Matthew protested "stop it". ed g2s &bull; talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he called you disruptive. Clearly your revert warring on the article is what he was referring to. Cburnett 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So, the pictures for the episode articles for Lost (TV series) and 24 (TV series) are also somehow against the rules as well? If that's so, why haven't they been deleted or taken down as you claim they should be? dposse 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Give Aways
I think the hints about what happens next episode should be a little more vague. For example, one episode says that a female charater dies. This seems to be giving away just a little much, as the episode has not even aired yet. Bio 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do not wish to be spoiled do not read past the warning. Really I keep telling people this repeatedly: Wikipedia contains spoilers, do not look if you do not wish to be "spoiled"! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Contains spoilers, yes. Has to have them everywhere, including places people might not expect them to be - no. There's nothing unreasonable about keeping the text vague for an episode that hasn't aired yet. (Especially given that until it airs, we don't necessarily have verifiability for the details.) --Ckatz chat spy  22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the text should be changed to simply "A hero dies", or something similar? Bio 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That'll still pee-off a fair amount of spoiler trolls, the only way to please them I expect is to write "Some stuff happens.. and some major stuff." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing unreasonable about not wanting to get spoiled about FUTURE episodes in an article call "List of Heroes episodes". If you want to include spoilers, put them in the article for the episode where someone would have a reasonable expectation of getting information about an episode that hasn't aired yet. I don't understand why the "spoiler sluts" on Wikipedia insist on ruining surprises for everyone else. 65.121.137.134 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be here if you do not wish to be spoiled, simple as, Wikipedia is not censored. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew, "censorship" is very, very different from what we are discussing here. The censorship guidelines are with respect to social and moral values, as well as "good taste". This discussion is about revealing plot details for a television show before it airs. --Ckatz chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly censorship, if it is accurately cited and factual then it belongs here, if people do not wish to be spoiled then they should not look at the pages, after all, they do contain big honking spoiler warnings. Complaining to try and get stuff removed for personal dislikes is censorship. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And in this case it's not accurately cited so we have no way of knowing it's factual. Removing it isn't censorship, it's just cleaning up potential OR.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * and the operative word there is: if. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a spoiler warning and a reasonable person would expect spoilers for *only what's aired*. It's not about censorship; it's about being a douchebag who's intent on ruining other people's enjoyment. 65.121.137.134 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply: WP is an encyclopedia not a tv guide. I've been advocating for a while now that the list of episode pages should contain a longer summary of the episode as a whole and not a tv guide synopsis. The whole debacle of fair use image use just ephasizes this need to discuss the episode instead of providing teasers. Cburnett 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from the spoiler issue, what's the source for the summaries of future episodes? A paraphrase of the official summary is probably fine, but something from a rumor site wouldn't be RS.  Seriously, listing potential characters who could be the one who dies?  NBC says there's a death in the promos, where does "female" come from?  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. Future summaries should be limited to what's known.  (I think that almost goes without saying.  WP:OR & WP:NOT.) Cburnett 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reruns?
i missed heroes this monday (the 28th, a week after the finale) and i just wanted to know if their airing reruns now or the heroes origins mini series. cuz the whole thing on origins didnt quite explain itself too much.--Late Leo 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

information
please put the names of the directors + writers 89.217.24.134 06:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, please put the director names....so we don't have to keep clicking the episode titles for the directors.... Sstrieu 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why aren't the director names listed yet???? Sstrieu 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw that the directors are now listed. Thanks! Sstrieu 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ERRORS
There is an error in the next episode date of 2/26/07, its listed as 2/25/07. I cannot change it for some reason
 * Not an error at all, airs tonight in Canada, see citation given next to date. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But is this true for everyone? Unless it airs everywhere on the 25th, it probably should be changed to the 26th. PureSoldier 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would it be changed to 2th because "it doesn't air everywhere", you do realise "it doesn't air everywhere" on the 26th? The field is for original airdates, not "Original American airdates", we go by what's verifiable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to get hostile. However, if it's airing on both dates, it should be stated as so, and where. I'm looking for a source to verify it for the next day as well. PureSoldier 23:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then put a note on the episode page. You ain't seriously suggesting however we list every worldwide air date for episodes though, here? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am seriously suggesting that if we are to state the air date, then we should be correct about it. Showing Canada's air date is not correct for the United States, and showing the United State's air date is not correct for Canada. So, what would be the best way to be the most correct? Show both dates. PureSoldier 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Canada's airdate is correct, the cell states (like every other LOE), "Original airdate", Canada *is* the original, regardless. A note on the episode page would probably be appropriate. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't conform to one nations views, it represents a worldwide view, as such the original (ala première airdate) is correct. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I misread the original air date as only air date.PureSoldier 02:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The date for epidsode 17 (Company man) appears to only have been viewable on the 25th in eastern canada. Am i correct?


 * Global Television Network aired the episode a day early to make room for a new show. I believe they have affiliates as far west as Winnipeg, though someone more in tune (ha!) with Canadian television should feel free to correct me.  →<em style="color:green;font-variant:small-caps;cursor:crosshair">Bobby ← 14:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to their web site, Global has affiliates from Halifax to Vancouver Island. They don't necessarily have the same air time in every market. Avt tor 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I live in Vancouver, BC and it aired here on the 25th on Global. Gary Steinke


 * I agree with the statements above that this is not a US centric site, but a world site. However, a date is specific to a time zone.  You can't just put a date down without putting a time zone or time.  Is there a standard that Wikipedia uses for dates?  Perhaps UTC Time (the new way of saying Greenwich Mean Time)?

Protection
I have gotten this article semi-protected, hopefully this will prevent (at least most) people from changing the air dates. -- Will Mak  050389  22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary length redux
"Distractions", "Run!", "Unexpected", and "Company Man" (and even "Six Months Ago") all have excessively long plot summaries. I agree that it is importinat to ,mention all of the significant occurrences in a given episode, but Wikipedia is not the place for scene-by-scene verbatim reproduction of every episode. Pages such as "Godsend" and "The Fix" are examples of reasonable-length articles. We should work together to ensure that we don't go overboard in our episode summaries. - SigmaEpsilon → &Sigma; &Epsilon; 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

episodes number
i think that season 1 has 23 episodes planned for so should we post blank entrys to show that?


 * Where did you here that? I haven't seen anything saying there would be 23 episodes, and besides, most tv shows only have 20 episodes.  Arwen undomiel  17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Entries should only be placed once there is verifiable information, i.e. TBA cells are unneeded. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * actually, the first season will have 22. it was announced when they said they would pick heroes up for a full season... -Xornok 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, shows tend to have 22-24 shows per season. Sci-Fi has done a number of 20-episode seasons, for Stargate and BSG, but the major nets usually go a bit longer. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In an interview from Wizard Universe (TV Q&A: HEROES—TIM KRING), Tim Kring states Volume I (which spans all of season 1) will have 23 episodes. Jeff Loeb adds in another Wizard Universe interview (TV Q&A: HEROES—JEPH LOEB) that NBC wanted more episodes but there wasn't enough time to produce more than 23.   - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct. There will be a total of twenty-three episodes this season.  Thus it makes sense to post TBA entries for the final five of the season.  I know how much trouble it was for me to find out when the season finale was.  Having the info on Wikipedia makes it a lot easier. -alongwaltz 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

119 Air date
The list has the Air date for 119 as April 23 but the two referencing pages both list episode 119 as airing next week, I'm wondering if anyone has a reference for the delayed air date? It doesn't seem very appropriate to show that kind of break in the schedule without any reference. -Tomaszkolo 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any sorce for the airdates of episodes 19 - 23. I recommend stating "no airdate released" until one of the official websites states otherwise.-L_001_002 03:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. It is April 23.     Arwen undomiel  03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode 20
There is some information avalible about episode 20. We know that it takes place at least partially in the future (5 years hence) and that most of the heroes will be dead in this possible future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.155.40 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * ..... -Xornok 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to believe it, but he's right. At least about the future bit. Jack Coleman and Greg Grunberg have both said it. The Coleman bit is second-hand(from a radio interview), but Greg's statement is word for word. Huh. Five years later. Weird. Valaqil 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * in perspective it's not really the weirdest or least plausible thing on the show. it's likely the future hiro is now visiting.130.126.130.178 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take your word(s) for it about episode 20, however if anyone can find the reference this information comes from can they citate it in the main article because after a quick search I couldn't find anything to back up your claims about episode 20. Valerieg 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

heres the page about it being in the future for episode 20 - http://spoilerfix.com/heroes.php

.07%
It is not just TV.com giving information about .07%, so would people please stop removing info on the episode? http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/photos/general/ and many other reliable  sites have talked about .07%  Arwen undomiel  19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added references to official photos from NBC and the news report from CBR. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Series
when does the first season end and when it does well there be others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.89.117 (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The first season will end with the next episode, ".07%". A second season has already been announced by NBC. dposse 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? I'm presuming you meant after five more episodes... the next batch starts with .07%, followed by four more. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct--the season finale isn't until May 21.  Arwen undomiel  20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New episode titles
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=40615

According to Sci-Fi Wire, see link above.

Episode 22: "Landslide" Episode 23: "How to stop an Exploding Man"

http://www.herosite.net/herositespoilers.htm

and from HeroSite.net

Episode 20: "String Theory Episode 21: "The Hard Part" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heroesfan40 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Spoilerfix.com cannot be considered as a reliable source. I think we have to remove the entries. -- Magioladitis 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we need to remove them. There are now several reliable sites naming the next four episodes, the sources cited in the article are just a few.   Arwen undomiel  01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found a reference at heroestheseries.com which redirected to scifi.com. Scifi.com is a fairly reliable source, I would say. Valaqil 13:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Can someone make a general icon for the future episodes like the one in the List of Jericho episodes? -- Magioladitis 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Screen captures and fair use
Ed's trying it at List of The Wire episodes now (removing them), he's also trying to get the FUC reworded to effectively "ban" screen captures, Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. Matthew 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes
There is discussion at WP:AN/I, and an AfD at Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. - Peregrine Fisher 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Peregrine Fisher and User:Matthew are attempting to vote stack this AfD by telling other users that this AfD will effect unrelated episode articles. This AfD is only about this set of articles, and stands on it's own. AfD is not a vote. Editors coming here to support a different show's set of episode articles should take the time to comment on Articles for deletion/Kept Man situation individually. -- Ned Scott 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Usage of images in LOEs
There's presently a discussion at WP:AN in regards to image usage in LOEs. With several having gone as far to edit war in the hopes of removing images. You are invited to participate and give opinions, so that another consensus (of many) may be reached, again. Matthew 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, this looks so empty now.--156.56.151.21 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it looks kinda depressing.Toxic Ninja 00:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone please give me a link to the discussion? Jakk55 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 2
The summary for season 2 is wrong, the reference link cannot be followed because it says "http://http" and even after following it,to Kristin's blog, nowhere does it say anything close to the summary given. Can some admin correct this? And Why is the page protected, I mean the season is over and I am guessing there will be less vandalism, isn't it? eZio 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The season ends on May 21, as far as the comment above this page, the page was protected so people stopped editing the air dates. Vicco Lizcano 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (Hey! Listen!)
 * Oops! Wonder why I thought that the season is done! eZio 14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed the http://http typo. Cburnett 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you also fix reference link number 4, it doesn't point to anything eZio 09:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Cburnett 12:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

typo
At the bottom, under season 2, I think it should be "M.O." or "MO" and should link to "Modus operandi" instead of the current "m.o." HOwever, I cannot edit. DrIdiot 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen it abbreviated as m.o. in the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. I'm pretty sure it could be abbreviated either way, but it should be abbreviated to MO to ensure continuity with Modus operandi.   Arwen undomiel  00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Cburnett 12:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see the link to "Modus operandi", or has it been reverted?

I would also think that the "'cause" should be changed to "because" as per an attempt at some sort of formality in the writing. Thanks! Michaeloz 17:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

New Episode....
could someone update the first sentence to show 21 episodes aired? thankee you..... Purples 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll unprotect the page. Please do not add the images back without project-wide consensus. CMummert · talk

Done. Cburnett 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you admins! - Purples 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops
I messed up the bottom of the page where it lists the characters, episodes and etc... I really didnt mean to, could someone fix it back [Admins]

Episode titles (105 and 119) revert
Edits were made in good faith. Sources: http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/episodes/season1/105/ http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/episodes/season1/119/--unsigned
 * Those links don't make the titles wrong, just shows the NBC web team didn't proof-read. Matthew 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode Summaries and What Wikipedia is not
In 5 days (June 25, 2007) I will be redirecting any Heroes episode articles that do not have "real-world context and sourced analysis" as per WP:NOT to List of Heroes episodes. I also posted this notice to WikiProject Heroes talk page, please comment there to keep the discussion in one place. Thank you. --Phirazo 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refer to Gwinva's note here. There is a proper process for reviewing episode articles, as defined through WP:EPISODE. Five days notice plus blind redirection will only cause problems, especially since the Heroes project already has plans for improving the articles. Thanks. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Smith will direct the pilot episode of Heroes: Origins. It will premiere on April. In Heroes there will be a new female character named Monica from New Orleans. Heroes will also be released as a comic I think by DC. It is confirmed that Alex Ross and Jim Lee will do the art for some of the covers. I read all this in a reliable site and I didn't know if you were aware of this new info. I hope I was of help.

Tim Kring Interview With The Guardian
The part under Season 2 about Tim Kring's interview with the Guardian is totally false. There has been no such interview. I've checked.

Uwaisis 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)uwaisis

Never Before Aired Piolot and Deleted Scenes
Hi, I'm new. I was just wondering if there should be a plot summary page for the unaired pilot on the season one DVD. Also, I was wondering if there should be a list and short description of the deleted scenes, perhaps on the pages of the episodes they were deleted from. --Lord of Narf 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The unaired piolot could be of some interest on the main Heroes page and maybe this page, however deleted scenes arn't needed.--Wiggstar69 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

wtf?
Whoever wrote the episode info for season 2 episodes 3-5 is clearly about 11 years old. Can someone please delete all that garbage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.212.61 (talk) 05:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

New Season Episode 1
It states, "Takezo Kensei (new series regular David Anders)" Please remove that, I doubt that David Anders will be playing Takezo Kensei. Also, other sites state that his character will be named kane? ?????? I guess it was correct afterall But wtf, why does the good asian guy always turn out to be a white guy? (ie, the last samurai)...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.8.182 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Maya J
LOOKING FOR HEROES TRIVIA. 70.48.242.206 04:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Season 2
I removed all that writing for season 2 because it isn't needed anymore. We now have the table of all the epsidoes and most the information is already in the episode summaries. (Wikirocks2 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Please stop adding the information for season 2! Whoever is doing it: STOP!! It is no longer needed! The season has started, and all that information is useless now. We do not need it! (Wikirocks2 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Speaking of, I'd like to point out a couple things. Because of the table format, you cannot cite episode titles, because the cite gets stuck inside the quote mark of the episode title. I put in a request at the template for a change so that the quote marks need to be added manually, which would allow for citations to exist beside what they are citing. Anyway, moving on to season two...the source for the title "Lizard" is nonexistent. It goes to an NBC search engine, and when you hit enter zero results pop up. And Wikirocks, we aren't a current events source, we should keep all relevant history on the development of the show that we have verification for. If you had a source that verified an airdate, you should not remove it when the episode actually airs.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I have no problem with you deleting the table and making a new table format. Be my guest. Anyways I believe we should delete all that information under season 2. We do not need it. Why don't any of the other TV shows have info in the "List of Episode" pages?? I just believe we should delete the information. But of course I am sure you [Bignole] will find something wrong with what I have to say and discredit it! I look forward to your response.... (Wikirocks2 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Different articles do things different ways. Look at Lost (season 3). It's a "List of episodes" page, that looks nothing like this page. Though, I think relevant info should be moved above the table, because from what I read it looks like information discussing events leading up to season two, and then beyond. But I'm not the authority on anything, merely expressing my opinion. Since Ckatz reverted your removal, there's obviously objection to its non-existence, which means further discussion from as many people as can be found.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

here is a LINK FROM NBC that confirms the title of LIZARDS for episode 2 http://nbc.epk.tv/view.aspx?request=show&show=heroes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.220.243 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I must say, this page is certainly looking better... (Wikirocks2 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

The link for the episode titled "lizards" currently redirects to the artice on lizards, can someone fix this please? --Lord of Narf 04:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Matt seeks allies against the new Hero killer" is under Lizards. I don't understand this statement, I saw no evidence regarding this in the episode. --Mjrmtg 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out why the plot summaries to the unaired episodes keep getting deleted. I've put them back up, but feel like I'm missing something. 124.170.122.209 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the text beneath the edit window that you see each time you edit an article can provide a clue:
 * "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted."
 * It's a core policy. You are still free to add a summary, but you will have to rewrite it in your own words. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody changes the season list for Season 2? Season 2 only has 11 episodes and then Season 3 starts.Mlooijen (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Volume two is over... we don't know about season two, and won't until there is some official announcement from NBC. (Think of the volumes as creative groupings for storylines acording to the creators, whereas the seasons are production groupings per the contract with the broadcaster.) --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Future episode sources
Hello. I am new. Not sure how to sign. Anyway, someone keeps deleting the chart with the episode titles and sources that I have been reposting. I am assuming they delete it because I have not cited a source. So, here is my source. Can someone please tag it on to the chart so that it wont be deleted again. My source is from NBC.com and has episode titles and previews and blurbs and list who will star in that episode. here is the link from nbc, http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html

http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html

http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.220.243 (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, your sources are to the Futon Critic. Which mentions only one episode title. Which I've reverted multiple times. So stop it. Will (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If u look at the links above, u obviosly can see that the sources are nbcmedia village. it is the site where nbc releases it press packages and press releases. so i am changing the chart back. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.220.243 (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

can someone unprotect the page. i have stated my sources so i dont understand why i can not make my edits. my source is from nbc.com. so, whats the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.220.243 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry i havent been signing. still not sure how to sign. --76.168.220.243 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At the end of your statment type 4 tildes together (~) and it will sign it for you Mjrmtg 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

episode 6 title and details
episode 6 will be called

the line

the source is http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html

over AT NBC--76.168.220.243 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Kindred- Sylar returns
write it down in the plot box thing.also, there needs to be a better link to the episode summary. the title of the episode is "kindred" not "kindred spirits" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Season != Volume
If I recall correctly, Tim Kring or someone else stated that Volume Two will not comprise the entirety of the second season (additionally, Vol. 2 technically began in HtSaEM). Based on this, I don't think we should be equating seasons to volumes by stating their titles in the contents box. I think there is a place for the Volume information, but I don't know specifically what it is. --iTocapa t 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Volume three began in the last episode, did it not? Or perhaps the one before it. Matthew 07:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Volume two started with both HtSaEM and FML. If you hadn't noticed, Heroes overlaps its cliffhangers and episode starts a lot. Will (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Color
The second season's color is currently grey, which blends into the page. Can we get a new one? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to metallic gold (I'm trying to replicate the eclipse). Will (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've updated the colour again as I don't believe that the "replication" went very well with the page. I've used a pastel black. Matthew 16:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are the colours so emo? Could we make em like blue and green? (Wikirocks2 06:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Because we write crappy poetry, wear girls jeans and listen to FOB. Will (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, very funny! (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Revert explanation.
Edit box was too small:

I see no reliable/official sources on the article that indicate that either Season/Volume 2 will end on December 3, 2007. The strike may not even effect Heroes beyond Origind being shelved; we cannot speculate the length or effects of the strike. Will (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Season 2 consists of volumes 2 and 3. Season 2 was picked up for 24 total episodes with Volume 2 coming to an end after 11, which airs Dec 3.  Regardless if there is a strike or not volume 2 ends Dec 3.  However, its unclear when volume 3 will resume again due to the strike. Grande13 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source. Will (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

episode summary format
I think there needs to be a general guide for the episode plot summary. Some are in the order of character plot events while other are in chronological order for the episode. At best can it be decided what format to use when posting the plot summary on an episode page? Macgyver Tape 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about individual episode articles, it should be noted that work is on progress to overhaul all of the episodes' plot summaries, but it isn't yet very far along. When I was condensing them, I tried to condense each character's story into a single paragraph. For the most part, I ordered them by first appearance in the particular episode, except where it needed to be done otherwise to mesh well with the entire summary. --iTocapa t 03:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes: Origins
...I just thought that since this is a "List of Episodes" page, Heroes: Origins isn't needed. The summary already is on the main page...why repeat it? Since there is no longer going to be any episodes (in the near future anyways) I think it should be removed. (Wikirocks2 08:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually, point taken. Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance is only mentioned once in the BSG LOE, not ten times. Will (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. (Wikirocks2 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I've restored (and rewritten) the text. Sorry, but it is directly relevant to the article. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why we need it. It is just repeating info for no reason. (Wikirocks2 08:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Why are we repeatig the origins info soooooo much? i mean, it is on the main page and then it has a seperate page.  it needs to be removed. honestly, if someone needed info on origins, why would they come to the episode page when they could just click the origins link on the heroes template.  on the main page, their was a discussion to more origins from the plot summary section to production and the change was made.  same change here.  especially since the info on origins is word for word the same as the main page.  I say delete the information.  pointless info on the wrong page.  no eps have been produced, therefore, it is irrevelant to this page.I say delete the information Agree or disagree?--Chrisisinchrist 04:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There, it's been rewritten to focus directly on the connection to season two, the desire to avoid the ratings slide in season one, and the fact it is now on hold. Details about the series itself are removed, as the main article covers them. This should address any concerns voices above, while retaining relevant, sourced information. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  10:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The rewording is much much better. Now the section serves an encyclopedic purpose, rather that just repeating info. great compromise user: CKATZ.  I think this is better.--Chrisisinchrist 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Volume Three: Villains.
That source was obviously wrong. The third volume will be called "Villains", not "Exodus". Anyone who just saw the ending to "Powerless" saw this to be true. Once Greg Beeman gets a new blog post up, then we can source it properly. dposse 03:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ratings table
I have noticed that for a lot of new shows, a ratings table for individualy episodes has been put into the "list of episodes" page. I think this would be great for Heroes. Most of the individual articles already have the ratings and sources ready, so all we would have to do is insert them in the table. We may not be able to find ratings for all episodes straight away, but I believe if we work together we can do it.....wow that sounded so inspirational! ;) Well what do we think? (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Looking at the episode articles, there seems to be no sources for the ratings. :( Now we have double the work. :( (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
 * they usually have ratings section per season. like a season one ratings, season two and so on and so fourth.  we have only had one complete season of heroes, so it probably would be wise to wait until at least the end of season two.  put if you are talking about an episode by episode ratings chart, i like that.  but, i dont know if anyone would support it.  maybe you should take this conversation to the main page of the project page so more people can repsond and give their opinions on the matter.  --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that I had already responded to this. Maybe I forgot to hit "save page"…  Anyway, I can get on this in the next few days.  Do we want an extra column or a separate table?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the seperate table is more clearer and concise. It makes comparing ratings easier. Thanks for doing this and if you need any help I'm always here. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Always? Well, that's kind of creepy.  ;)  I prefer an extra column, but let's hear what others have to say.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe always is a bit exaggerated, lol. I guess we should wait until we get more of a consensus. Oh yeah, and thanks to you, I Wikirocks now! No more being number 2. :D (Wikirocks (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC))


 * It seems like this is going nowhere. What should we do?  Wikirocks  02:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yesterday (or two days ago Wikipedia time), I added the ratings for the second season. I just have not gotten around to do season 1 yet.  And please, other editors, let us know that you are there.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I didn't realise you insterted them. It looks really good! Good job. ( Wikirocks  04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Each rating now has a citation. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, cool! We did it! ...or rather you did it! lol. You did do most of the work....but I think I can take 1% credit. ;)  WikiRocks  02:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Page format
I love with what has been done to the page. The whole lead in is fantastic and it really is looking good now. Well done!  WikiRocks  05:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When I finish rewriting the summaries in the next couple days, I will be taking this to WP:FLC. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...I don't know what it is, but the summaries are wierd. Some are an overview of the episode, some state the storylines of the featured characters, and others have spoilers which aren't really necessary. I think we should chose one way to write all of them.  Щіκі RoςкЗ ( talκ ) 05:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've only rewritten up to "Godsend." It's a work in progress.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now rewritten each summary. I will read it over and edit some more.  I would appreciate feedback from other editors.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the summaries very plot spoiling orientated, and you know how I feel about spoilers. I am not very fond of the summaries, but I guess another editor will the they are excellent, as everyone has different views. I commend you on rewriting all the summaries and I think you did a good job.  Щіκі RoςкЗ ( talκ ) 14:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The FLC is here. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Truth & Consequences
Did I miss something? Because it seems the page for this episode has been deleted. What happened?  Щіκі RoςкЗ ( talκ ) 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD result due to notability concerns. Will (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but that's so random. Most of the other individual episode pages are like that too. Why just randomly delete that one?  Щіκі RoςкЗ ( talκ ) 12:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've established the notability now. Will (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for that. :)  Щіκі RoςкЗ ( talκ ) 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode Summaries
None of these episodes fall under wikipedia's notability clause, and we should delete all of the page long summaries. They fall under the category of something in the heroes wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.113.158 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the section above this one. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Colours
Demonhog must you insist on having colours that look like barf? I agree that white isn't a really good colour, but at lest make it blend in with the rest of the page!  Corn.u.co.pia  Discussion  06:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was trying to get an orange that didn't look like the new messages banner. Feel free to change it.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Season 3 episode titles
Found the first four here. I'd edit them in myself, but it's late, so I don't feel like messing with the table code right now.-Jeff (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but do not edit in these titles. We need confirmation from either NBC, a producer or an actor on the show.  For all we know, those titles were made by a fan, gained popularity and have become popular around the Internet.  Are they true?  Probably, but inclusion would violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS.  Sorry, – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake then, I saw the same site linked in anther article so I thought it was a reliable source.-Jeff (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then what about the titles cited to "Official Heroes Magazine: A Heroic Event"? This is a subscription magazine and I can't find a way to verify the information. Is this the actual official Heroes magazine or mightn't this be considered spam? padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the informtion in the first place so I can verify that it is what it says in the magazine. However, the magazine listed the first episode as "The Butterfly Effect", so …  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  13:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Series overview table width
I liked it when it was 98% because it matched the other tables. – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No hostility here, but I like it better now. It is clearly distuinguished from the actual episode lists, and there is no point in having it too large.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  06:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is too large and is still clearly distinguished from the other tables because it is a different colour and title. Input, please, – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I know of at least one other editor who likes it small. I don't really mind the size of the table, but I think we should find consensus as to whether it should be big or small.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  05:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you changed it back. Well I'm not going to argue this time, because it doesn't really matter. Make it however you like it. :-)  Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ  Disc.us.sion  02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mwuahahaha! – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  02:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't laugh demonhog, this isn't the end of it. I WILL GET YOU BACK!!!! Mwuahahaha!  Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ  Disc.us.sion  02:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heroes Episodes for Season 3 Titled
Hey I just found some possible titles for the first 4 episodes of Season 3 of Heroes. Here is a link to the source-

http://www.tv.com/heroes/show/17552/episode_guide.html?season=3&tag=season_dropdown;dropdown;2

I started to edit the page, but had no idea and would probably end up here anyway apologizing for goofing up the page. So there's a link I found. Glad to be of help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlman27 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see above discussion. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode summaries
What's up with the "first/last appearance of [insert name here]" lines in the summaries? Should they be removed... I think so.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  11:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They have been removed.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  08:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Volume Four
Has anyone heard that Volume Four's title is to be 'Fugitives' ??? --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome! ...where's the source?  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we should give each volume a different color (right now, it's going by seasons, and volume four is the same color as volume 3)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.66.231 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think we should show the different volumes in different colors as Mikey said . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.96.236 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually planning on that, as evidenced by the overview section at the top. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  05:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

note: 26th reference "press release" is not found when following the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.178.224 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Future Episodes
Here are the full reviews of the next two episodes.

http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20081124210000.html http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20081201210000.html

Nothing here yet, but there will be soon:

http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20081208210000.html http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20081215210000.html

--Cngodles (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah For Sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.240.218 (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Heroes: Destiny
This is crap, episodes don't need to be sourced once they are released. The Muffin Man has moved to Broadway 00:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, yes they do! Once an episode has aired, the episode served as it's own source. Web episodes however, need at least a link to prove their existence, so they defenitely do need to be sourced. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, by being released on NBC.com they aired which was the source for their existence. If the release had been third-party, then I would agree, but since it was not, no additional source was needed. And even if it was, I fail to see why you had to remove information from the page instead of just sourcing it. The Muffin Man has moved to Broadway 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:BURDEN. I agree with Edokter that the webisodes should be sourced—they are just so obscure.  With the episodes, it is obvious to the average reader that the implied sources for the episodes are the original television broadcast and can also be verified with a DVD set, not to mention that they probably remember watching the episode him or herself.  But the general public is largely unaware of webisodes, so a citation is certainly helpful.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the link(The WP link, not the source) we were both wrong in our actions and I accept I was wrong, acknowledge my error, and apologize for it. I still believe that they do not require a source, but I now know I should have provided one after the first removal. The Muffin Man has moved to Broadway 05:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)