Talk:Heroes (TV series)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Eclipse 2 Main Character formatting 3 Synopsis Links 4 hidden URl for comic 003 5 Don't know if this should be added, but... 6 Peter's Powers

Eclipse

Ok, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about with this, but I wanted to run it by everyone before saying anything on the main page. As much as I'm enjoying this show, I'm pretty sure that they got the solar eclipse in the pilot very wrong. If I remember correctly, every main character seemed to be able to see the eclipse at the same time. First of all, the characters in New York and the characters in Japan saw a solar eclipse at the same time. This shouldn't happen since Japan and New York are about 12 hours apart from each other. Also, I'm pretty sure that the full solar eclipse is only visible in a localized area, so even people in New York and people in Los Angeles would not see it together. Am I right about this? Any astronomers out there?--Radaar 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Noone ever implied it was happening at the same time and it was clearly stated it wasn't a total eclipse in NY/LV, wasn't it? -- 89.172.29.21 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiro looked up and saw it, IIRC, while on the roof doing calisthenics with his coworkers.64.247.206.184 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Character formatting

Listen, what's the point of listing Peter's job as N/A, but listing the other's powers as None? We need to find a common descriptor and stick to it. I'm okay with N/A but only if the dearth of powers is marked the same way.

Also, we don't need punctuation, it's silly to use a period inside a table, unless someone is incorporating a full sentence. --DJ Chair 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First ep: Job. Third ep: quits job. For all intents and purposes, it's N/A. Mohinder and Simone never had powers. Never will, most likely. "None". I'll undo the puncy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Were we to truly quip about proper english usage, N/A is the correct choice for both Peter's current employment, as well as the other's powers.

Check out N/A[1] : not applicable

As opposed to None[2] : not any, as of something indicated --DJ Chair 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis Links

I feel that it would be more useful to link the descriptions in the Synopsis quote to the pages of the characters, not information about the words themselves. Ie, "high school cheerleader" would link to Claire's article, not High School and Cheerleader. I thought it best to ask first, though, just in case there's some particular reason to leave them as they are. --dws90 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently the character's name links to their article. Their occupation/place in society links to what is that they do/are. --DJ Chair 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the text under the "Synopsis" heading, not the table of characters itself. That's fine as it is. --dws90 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

hidden URl for comic 003

Hi... know I'm not supposed to do this, but what's the hidden URl forComic 003 --Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 00:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this should be added, but...

somebody at Heroes the series.com forums named fishypants claimed he is a special effects worker on the show. He claimed that HRG is actually not a villian, but rather a protector of the heroes. Don't know if it's true or not, so I'm not sure if it should be added.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 15:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

While that's certainly within the realm of possibility, that's not definitive enough a source. There's no way to prove that he's really who he says he is, and if even if that was confirmed, I don't place posts on message boards very high on the source list. We should stick to just taking information from the show and official sources (like that TV guide interview with the writer). --dws90 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter's Powers

We cannot claim a hero to have a power unless the show reveals it. We cannot claim that Peter’s power is Mimicry until the show reveals it. There is a source from weeks ago claiming Peter’s power is mimicry. The writing of the show can be changed anytime until the show airs. Therefore, a hero’s powers cannot be indisputably confirmed until the show airs. Until the show airs, Peter’s powers can be anything. Once the show reveals his powers, we can it is no longer up for dispute. Until then, the source might say it, but this is an encyclopedia article about the show itself. It has to be revealed in the show to be official.

The show has revealed Peter to have used Isaac and Nathan’s powers. We can safely assume that his power is mimicry. I’m personally convinced his power is mimicry. But this is an encyclopedia article, and requires the utmost scrutiny.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohinder925 (talk • contribs) at 01:01, October 16, 2006 (UTC)

No, wrong. We CAN, and DO, use citation on Wikipedia. We are NOT a fanboy forum. Reverted.ThuranX 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comments are out of line. Your behavior is out of line. Belligerent behavior is not accpetable, and will be reported. This is an encyclopedia. Articles must abide by proper scrutiny. You must provide valid reasoning for your views. "We are not a fanboy forum" is not acceptable.

The following might have been stated outside of the show, but is not confirmed by the show itself. (Powers must be confirmed by the show.): 1. Peter's Powers 2. Niki's Powers 3. Micah's Powers 4. DL's Powers 5. Isaac's powers induced by heroin.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohinder925 (talk • contribs) as of 01:24, October 16, 2006 (UTC)

No. This has been repeatedly discussed here. the fact that you chooe to ignore the talk page till it suits you shows your lack of regard for wikipedia. Finally, this is NOT a fanboy forum IS a reason to remove information. The page will not become a repository of rumors and anti-spoiler based fannish reporting. Finally, I gave a clear reason before the fanboy comment, "We CAN, and DO, use citation on Wikipedia.". that's why it was reveted, plain and simple. Please read the entire comments.ThuranX 02:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole "if it's not stated with in the fiction itself, it's not canon!" philosophy is, in and of itself, a fan thing. Wikipedia needs to be verifiable above being "canon" or "truthful". We cannot accept truthiness-fueled speculation, but if the TV Guide—a famously accurate source—says Peter's power is mimicry, that's what we'll write.

Furthermore, to the ultimate end of this canonicity policy, we'd also be barred from including the factual data of DL's powers, if not his whole character. We'd lose more than we'd gain,—what would we gain, anyway? Happy fans? Bah.—and I can't go for that! No, no! No can do!

Oh! BTW, don't forget to sign your comments the next time you feel like telling to us about policies and standards, k? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Chill out, X. Explain your points clearly and without overt insults. ;) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(funny, funny.) ThuranX 02:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, since you brought it up, a lot of stuff has been stated, argued, etc. Let me set some things straight:

• We are not including the occapation field anymore, period.

• We are not speculating about powers, but we will include cited information which hasn't be stated/confirmed during a television broadcast.

• • I repeat, we are not speculating, no matter how much we feel we understand their powers. Powers such as those of Niki Sanders would be a breeding ground for theories if we did.

• Perceived antagonist(s) will not be added to the main character section. Their very status as antagonist(s) is questionable and they are not protagonist(s) either way.

• We will no rehash the non-lead characters in Heroes article as part of this article. The short summary we have here is enough.

Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have the dead tree version of TV Guide on hand, but a quick look at the online version doesn't show any official mention that Peter's power is mimicry. There is a speculative article, though, at http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700008929 - so while this is citable, I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. Oh, never mind - someone transcribed the right article here (post 53). :) And for good measure, a scan of the page with Peter here.

That being said, however, Milo Ventimiglia has admitted in an IGN TV interview that Peter's power is not flight, but he is an empath - whether this means that he's an empath to other people's powers in general or just to his brother is not particularly clear in the interview.[3]

Oh, and Mohinder925 (talk • contribs), you can sign your posts (and please do!) by typing ~~~~ at the end of your posts. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you went out of your way to agree with me? Nice! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, schmagree... I'm all about the verifiability, man. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My original description was not clear. I apologize. I want to state this as clearly as possible so that we all can understand and discuss how facts about fictional characters must be referenced in a reputable encyclopedia.

Fact and Fiction seem to be getting mixed up. The objective is to point out the facts regarding fictional characters according to a fictional story. The TV Guide or any interview is not part of the fictional story, but outside of the fictional story.

• Please refrain from bashing fans and insinuating objective standard of information has anything to do with fans. Comments such as:

"Happy fans? Bah.—and I can't go for that! No, no! No can do!" I see no point or productivity in this behavior. This has no relevance. An objective depiction of facts in an encyclopedia has nothing to do with pleasing anybody. What is in question are the facts regarding the powers of these characters according to a completely fictional story.

• The character descriptions in this article are descriptions of fictional characters according to the fictional story.

• The TV Guide is not an academic journal. The TV Guide provides us evidence of article of an interview. This means that the only fact you can gather is that the individual in the interview made the claim that Mimicry is Peter's power.

If we were disputing whether or not Mr. X had ever claimed that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese, we can cite TV Guide interview where he made this claim as evidence -We can use the TV Guide as evidence that Mr. X made the claim. -We CANNOT use the TV Guide as evidence that Mr. X’s claim is true.

Because this is fiction, and not an aspect of real science or history, we have to site the area within the fictional story something was revealed. 1. The TV Guide might cite Dan Brown as stating that Mr. X really wrote “The Da Vinci Code”. 2. The TV Guide might cite Dan Brown as stating that “The novel was about traveling into outer space to visit Aliens.

• 1. 1 cannot be verified to be true or false by citing the actual fictional story.
  2. 2 Can be verified to be true or false by citing the actual fictional story.
  3. 2 CANNOT be verified to be true or false by citing the TV Guide interview with Dan Brown.
• The fact that Dan Brown made the statements can be verified to be true or false by citing the TV Guide interview.

The TV Guide “does not” prove that Peter's powers are Mimicry. The TV Guide “does” prove that somebody made the claim that Peter's powers are Mimicry. These are very different facts.

The fact that the individual in the TV Guide interview made the claim regarding these powers is not what we are disputing. We all agree that the TV Guide is evidence that the individual made these claims. Whether these claims are true or not is what we are disputing. The evidence has to be verified by documenting the “published” fiction story. In this case, it is the TV episode that aired.

In order to prove that our statement in a legitimate encyclopedia regarding a fictional character is correct, we have to cite the area of the fictional story as evidence. If we post a claim about Peter's Powers, we have to be able to provide the evidence by referencing the episode/scene in which it is indisputably revealed that these are his powers. Unfortunately, that episode/scene has yet not been aired. The same goes for many facts about the rest of the characters as well as any other form of speculation that remains up for dispute. Mohinder925 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That was a pretty long winded tirad. Okay, now let me explain it to you.

Just because the story is fictional does not mean the fiction itself is that only valid medium. First off, tell us, please, how you would go about citing television as the source of your information. Second, why is anything outside of TV invalidated, exactly? Because you say it is? Sorry, that's where the "fan policies don't count" talk comes in. Because it could be wrong? As I stated above, Wikipedia is about verifiability. Like Sebastian Shark said, truth is relative. This does not count obvious jokes, which you're referring to. No one is going to cite TV Guide or TV as proof that, say, Lisa Simpson is the future president of the United States.

Now, please try to get this through your head: like X said, we can and will cite sources outside of a television broadcast as proof of a fictional character's abilities. Look at comic book articles. More and more, citations are popping up there. Is the whole Wikipedia Comics Project wrong?

(These are not all rhetorical questions, BTW.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And to add:

To limit sources purely to "canonical" sources is way, way too narrow. As a legitimate encyclopedia, we cannot limit ourself to fan-pleasing sources. Real world sources need to be considered, and surely the views of the people behind the creation of those sources have to be taken into account - and in this case, the possibility of the article being wrong about Peter's powers is infinitesimal. At worst, it's still verifiable that the article has said so, and I don't really think it's untrue (especially not as the episodes in question have already been recorded). You're being way too pedantic in this instance. I'm even willing to put good money down on Peter's power being mimicry as true and correct. Any takers? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I'm glad that most editors commenting on this issue are aware that citation is important to wikipedia. Mohinder, you need to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies, especially verifiability. Thank you.ThuranX 03:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I never said anything about citing Television itself. A fictional account such as a character's super powers can be evidenced according the fiction in which it took place.

2. Not necessarily anything out of TV. Even Heroes adds image tidbits on the website to add to the story. I claim that the protagonist in a fictional story jumped off a cliff. The only evidence of whether this is true or false is within the fictional story. Events that took place and aspects described within the story. Perhaps a related addendum to a story like some fantasy writers use. But a third party article on the story is quite dubious.

3. Your use of "fan policies don't count" is invalid to this discussion. This discussion is about verifiability. Discontinue using evidence that is unrelated to a discussion about encyclopedia verifiability. As you stated, “Wikipedia is about verifiability”. I never said that it was not. Please do not misinterpret my comments or put words into my mouth. I have never made the statement that this is not about verifiability. The whole argument is about what verifiability is. I cannot understand how you make comments that have nothing to do with this argument.

4. When referring to the validity of the whole Wikipedia Comics Project, I have stated how to prove what is true and false in each article. If an assertion within an encyclopedia article is about a fictional event or aspect, that assertion must be supported by evidence according to the fictional story.

5. The fact that you “can and will” do something does not mean it is correct or proper for a factual article. I was not aware that Wikipedia was a bully forum. I see no reason or point regarding this attitude. State your position about whether or not the evidence has to be in the story. Then support your position about this topic. What is the point of bully comments? All that talk is nothing more than abuse of authority and corruption. “I can and will do it anyway so there is no point in anything.” Whether you can and will do something is completely irrelevant from the question of whether or not that something supports objective truth and fact. Such arguments make no sense, and do not belong in an objective discussion. Nor are they in anyway reasonable. You can do something as in have the ability to do it. You can do something as in it is correct. In terms of being correct, you cannot post false information or information that cannot be verified. These are the terms of this discussion.

Must the facts we put in our articles be verifiable by a cited source? How can we determine actual evidence? This is what the discussion is about. These discussions are not remaining on topic. People are making comments that have nothing to do with coming to a proper conclusion regarding the topic. People are bashing fans and making comments about fans when fans were never mentioned.

6. Comments about “fan-pleasing” sources are completely irrelevant. Claiming that “citation is important to Wikipedia” is irrelevant. None of this is up for debate. Nobody ever said that citation is not important. Nobody ever said an objective article with accurate information is about “fan pleasing”. These insinuations are not part of a reasonable logical debate. Not only is unverifiable information being used in an article, people are not adhering to the topic of this discussions, and going off into tangents that are not being discussed. What really is the point of commenting on “fan-pleasing” when the subject is about accurate information regardless pleasing anybody. This is no how a correct encyclopedia works. I do not think that bullying, infantile bhavior, and irrelevant discussion should be a part of Wikipedia like it is in many discussion forums.

Proposition: Evidence for accounts within a fiction story should be cited witin the fiction story. Until the story itself reveals that Peter's power is indisputably Mimicry, we should not be posting articles claiming that his powers are indisputably Mimicry.Mohinder925 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You should have a look at the Wikipedia guideline page WP:Writing about fiction and pay particular attention to this section as well as the "Guideline in a nutshell" at the top of the page. In my opinion, TV Guide is a very reliable source for TV shows. As Ace said, writing about fiction doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be limited to the fiction itself. I can only speak for myself when saying that I do appreciate your drive to make this article better; however, the consensus of the editors maintaining this article is to use TV Guide as the source for citing Peter's power. Let's just hope that they clear it up in tomorrow's episode so we can all finally be happy. :) Aldryd ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I "went off topic", as you perceive it, because you seem be applying policies, systems and philosophies used by fans, not Wikipedia. As Al stated, Wikipedia's policies support the citation used in this and related articles. That's all. The I don't so much see "bully", but rather attempts to explain things falling on deaf ears (or weak eyes). Fiction is fiction; A story's a story. there's only so much a TV show can explain in an hour while still an having a plot and being interesting. This is where out-of-story information comes in. Press releases, interviews, et cetera. I, personally, don't believe in using a medium outside of the story to explain things, even now. I hated it with SPD—obscure reference. Ignore it.—I would still prefer it otherwise now. However, that's just not the way it's done all the time. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not applying polcies and systems used by fans. That did not seem to be off topic. That was off topic. If you would like to start a topic about whether or not I am using systems and policies used by fans, please do so in another article. The policies do not support that citation. It is not logical to use unverified. What qualifies as verified information is that it has to come directly from the story.

The "I can do it and I will do it" attitude has nothing to do with explaining and proper etiquette on this website. It is a bully attitude with no regard to the discussion at hand.

Unless it can be verified as part of the story, and cited as evidence within the story, it is subject to change.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohinder925 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)