Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive8

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive8 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal. Archive.jpg

Google Chrome

Anyone try out Google's new Chrome browser, yet? It looks pretty cool. You can read about it here. I haven't tried it yet; was wondering what other people thought.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

  • It's pretty fast, but it doesn't have any plugins that can block ads. So I'll be using Firefox until Google can fix that problem. Chrisyu357 06:52, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
    • According to Chrome's help, it automatically stops pop-ups from creating their own window. However, there may be an ad blocker as a Gears extension (I'm not sure cause I can't find the list of Gears extensions; probably cause I haven't installed Gears). I can't use Chrome/Gears as it doesn't run on Windows2000.--MiamiVolts (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
  • I have no interest in it. It's unlikely to gain much traction and is likely just to end up being a fad. Google doesn't have a lot of focus and they put out a lot of projects that ultimately just end up failing, I think this will be another example. Despite the candy they put in there I don't think they have the focus to develop a full-featured, secure, reliable web browser when Firefox is already out there and meets all of these demands already. Google wants to try to leverage their services to provide you the experience they want you to have and I don't think it's going to succeed. Sure some people may use it and some people may think it's neat, but I think the novelty will wear off quickly and people will just return to their stable and reliable prior browser. ...and what are the odds Google's browser is going to let you block Google ads, eh? It would be stupid for them to block their own ads, but it would also be stupid of them to not let people block ads. The only reason Chrome even got any attention was because it was Google putting it out there. It's not really impressive in its own right and as I said I think the novelty (as well as the project) will fade quickly. (Admin 09:52, 3 September 2008 (EDT))
    • It can probably block pop-ups but it cannot hide the ads that are on the page itself (of which most are ads by Google). I've got a plugin in Firefox to do this, so yes, I like Firefox better. Chrisyu357 10:17, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
      • It has some pretty neat features and ideas, but it is missing some useful features and one almost necessity for me (a spell checker). -Lөvөl 17:28, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
        • Since it's open source and has extension capability like Firefox, such features will probably be added eventually. Their idea was to make it simple and secure. The problem for me, though, is that my Win2K machine can't run it and it doesn't look like they've any plans to add a Win2K version.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Soccer Aid

Anyone heard about the UNICEF project Soccer Aid? It's a football (soccer) game with loads of famous celebrities to raise money for charity, and the match is actually being played right now! Only reason I bring it up is because Santiago Cabrera is playing for the Rest of the World team! Though I do of course encourage anyone to donate if they can :) -- Friskymuffin - (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Graphic novel pages

Is there any way we could hide the summery untill say a week after it has come out, with say a Template:Characterbar kind of thing? Just I have to scrole down to read the novel. --Skywalkerrbf 13:29, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

  • I would not be in favor of hiding it. What link are you trying to get to in particular? The PDF or the interactive one by any chance? (Admin 13:57, 9 September 2008 (EDT))
    • Yer,the arobat reader one, its the best quality. Its not normaly a problem as the summery isn't put up for a few days, but it has spoiled me a few times. I would only have it hidden for say a week.--Skywalkerrbf 14:05, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
      • What about episodes when they air? I understand that you're going for the link, so don't look at the bottom of the page. I've been in the same situation, except I look at recent edits when I come to this site. So when I saw things like Evs Dropper clone, it should have spoiled me, but I had no context. I think consistency is important. It's not a spoiler once it's released, so there shouldn't be any hiding of any sort. --Bob (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
        • Exactly. It actually bugs me that a lot of sites still consider something a spoiler after it's been released. However, I understand not wanting to see the summary before reading the novel. A good solution is to click on the Adobe link that's in the GN section on the main page (it's above the little tiny infobox)--there's no GN summary on the main page. Otherwise, if you want the Adobe link, it's actually at the top of the GN page itself. It's in the light blue part of the infobox on the right. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

UK Season 3 release?

I live in the UK and have heard that season 3 will be simulcast over here. However all the sources i've gone through all say the season will start on different days. Could somebody please clear this up for me?LilRebel616 03:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

  • BBC hasn't officially released a date on their website, but the popular assessment is that it will air Thursday, September 25th at 9pm British time on BBC2.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
    • Thank you very much appreciated LilRebel616 07:10, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
      • it was actually the 1st octoberLilRebel616 09:03, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

autosig malfunctioning

They appear to have gone goofy, linking to the template and not pulling up the formating. what's going on? look here --SacValleyDweller (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

  • Don't know why they're linking funny, and don't know why it's only happening on the main page's talk page. I'll let Admin know. Thx. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
    • The additional ArchiveLinks template at the top of the page is exceeding a transclusion limit on the article I believe. I recommend ditching the ArchiveLinks templates entirely and just creating the archive listings manually. (Admin 11:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT))
      • Nice work doing the top of talk page templates, Ryan.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Episode transcripts

I just received permission from the episode transcriber (kilohoku) to post all of her scripts (with proper credit, of course). This is good news. I've already posted the first season on a blog. After I post the second season (probably tomorrow), I'll make the blog public and we'll go from there.

What this means is that if we want to continue posting transcripts, we'll have to do them ourselves from here on out. I am willing to post them, and to do some grammatical clean up, formatting, and proofreading, but I can't very well spend all my time actually transcribing them. I'll need others to do that. If you're willing, let me know. ryangibsonstewart at heroeswiki dot com. If we get enough people who are willing to help transcribe the episodes, we can organize it really nicely, and divvy up scenes for different transcribers. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Season 2 just premiered in Germany

  • Season 2 just finished premiering in Germany this hour. The people maintaining the German Heroes Wiki do such an excellent job in translating the articles and making the site informative that I'm seeing a huge spike in activity right now thanks to it. Very nice! (Admin 15:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT))
    • Cool, do we go by the American air date? To me thats a bit biased, i think we should go off the country that airs it first.--Skywalkerrbf 15:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
      • First off, I'm referring to Season 2, not 3. :) They're one season behind us. Secondly anytime there is a conflict of information between the US airing and another country, heroeswiki.com takes the US information. This is why all our episodes show their US air dates even though some aired in Canada the day before. On the localized wikis they're free to and encouraged to use whichever source would be most relevent for them. (Admin 15:36, 17 September 2008 (EDT))
        • Oops ok ,sorry!. --Skywalkerrbf 15:40, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
    • I'm very happy for the contributors of the German wiki. They really do a nice job, from what I can tell. (It'd be cool to see some updated statistics from them.) You know, the localized wikis play such a vital role in Heroes Wiki's development, growth, and expansion. As somebody who concentrates on the English wiki, I often forget about our sister sites in other languages. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Here we go again!

  • With season three less than 24 hours away we all have a lot to look forward to. This hiatus has been long, but fortunately the writers and artists have managed to keep breathing life into Heroes week after week with the graphic novels. I don't know of any other television series that puts so much commitment and time into its alternate reality (read: Evolutions) components. Because of their hard work this site has even continued to grow (albeit more slowly) during this long hiatus. With Season Three right around the corner we have a lot of work to do and things are going to start getting a lot busier around here. I've noticed in the past week the site activity has already started to climb again in anticipation of the new season. I'm very excited to see what this season has in store for this site. It's time to get back to business! :) (Admin 22:14, 21 September 2008 (EDT))
    • I bet you're ready to see how much that new server can handle. I doubt it'll get anywhere near its capacity, but all the same.--Bob (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
      • I know the server can handle quite a bit more than we've ever thrown at it (I made sure it was plenty powerful enough for future increases in traffic when I purchased it). Things around here are always a lot of fun when there is a lot of interest in the show. Each season we've grown quite a bit and I'm looking forward to seeing what's in store for us this season. (Admin 00:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT))

DPL deprecation

  • The load on the server has been pretty high since the premiere. I did some testing and found that the DPL extension is at fault. When I disable DPL the system load decreases so dramatically it's not even funny. It just adds way much overhead and is going to prevent growth. I'd like anyone who's used DPL to re-evaluate the benefit of it in each place it's used (especially on any templates that might be widely transcluded). I want to remove it entirely, but if it will cause a massive amount of work to maintain a particular section of the site then I am slightly open to the possibility of using it in a very select number of places (like 1 or 2) if it still results in the load returning to an acceptable level. (Admin 15:52, 23 September 2008 (EDT))
    • Have you tested as to whether caching the DPL would reduce the server load? Maybe you could alter the DPL code to turn caching on by default? I think I can set up a few examples on the test server if that would help you. Also, it looks like DPL is on roads to become mainstay in the next wikimedia release so if we can work out any way to keep it, I think that would be good. DPL makes maintaining a lot of the portals much easier, and most production staff articles are using it for auto-updating. --MiamiVolts (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
      • When the load is higher later on I will see if turning on cached results improves performance significantly. I believe I can set the default globally rather than modifying all the DPL templates. It's promising... I didn't know DPL was bypassing the page cache each time by default. Good idea. (Admin 00:48, 24 September 2008 (EDT))
        • Load crept up again tonight, so I enabled the caching and it's back down to a much nicer level. That seems to have done the trick at the moment. Good catch, Miami. (Admin 21:30, 29 September 2008 (EDT))

5000+ users!

That sounds like great news! Can you check the stats and let us know how many of those users joined before the finale of Season One and haven't logged in since? That might give us some perspective.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

  • If I'm correct, about 1300. (Admin 14:41, 24 September 2008 (EDT))

BBC

Note when referring to the BBC as an entity in itself, it should always be preceded by the definite article. There's a lot of content on here which doesn't do this and it just looks and reads odd to someone from the UK. On the other hand, individual BBC channels (BBC Two (BBC2) and BBC Three (BBC3), or indeed people, departments or other features of the BBC do not require the definite article. Mintz 20:24, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Thanks, Mintz, that's terrific information. In America, we refer to NBC without a definite article ("Heroes is shown on NBC," not "Heroes is shown on the NBC.") so it sounds like a language usage thing. If I come across any misuses, I'll certainly correct them. You might want to copy your note to Talk:BBC. Thanks so much for the fixes and the enlightenment! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Anyone want to help raise some money for my scout group with no cost to them?

All you have to do is use [[1]] as your search engine and for every search you complete the group gets 0.5p which might not sound like much but it adds up! I know this isn't really aloud as it is advertising but it is a easy way for you all to help some kids out.--Skywalkerrbf 07:06, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

About characters?

Can someone explain exactly how the groups of Main, Supporting, and Recurring characters are decided? I mean Arthur Petrelli's just appeared in this one episode and he's already a recurring. Both Maury and Zimmerman have appeared in two Season 3 episodes, yet they don't even make the Characters list.Radicell 07:09, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Main characters are designated by NBC--certain actors are principal actors, and the rest are not. I personally think we should do away with the "supporting" characters, and simply make it "main", "recurring", and "minor" (or "guest", if we're talking about actors). Then we could very clearly define each category: Main characters are designated by NBC, minor characters only appear once or twice (or three times, if that's what we decide), and everybody else is recurring. I think it would lead to a lot less confusion and a lot less speculation about who would be considered recurring and who wouldn't. Plus, the term "supporting" is very loaded. I say do away with it altogether, then clearly define each category. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I think the main reason for the supporting category is that it is the more common term used in Hollywood, especially at awards shows. I wouldn't mind merging the categories/portals of supporting and recurring, but only if we could agree to use "supporting" as the merged name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I don't care what we call it, though I'd prefer to call the actors "supporting" and the characters "recurring", sort of the way we call the actors "guest stars" and characters "minor characters"....But yes, I'm itching to simplify and define the designations. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
        • That makes sense. I'll second that suggestion.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I have to second this merging of recurring and supporting terms into one term. I would support going from minor to "the other category" after a second appearance. Yet, also we have to define what we mean by appearing, because we have these same categories for graphic novels as well. We already say the first appearance of a charcter is where they first appeared either on a GN or episode. Whatever we decide, I would suggest that we place these "rules/policies" on an article within Help:, I would suggest Help:Characters. I was looking around and saw Help:Layout/Characters (I updated it too, since it was a little old.) Maybe a subpage under Help:Layout might be find too, but it just needs to be somewhere that everyone can easily find the information. --Pinkkeith 14:18, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Making the criteria for being a recurring character (or supporting actor) be only appearing twice is too few times. That means people like Lynette, May, Kin Egami, Mark Spatney, and the CDC crew member (II) would all be considered recurring characters--and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I would make it three appearances to start, and see what we get. If we need to reevaluate, we can always move it to four. I don't think we should include graphic novel appearances--otherwise Bianca and Gael would be considered recurring characters, and they really aren't, are they? When we're talking about the episode minor character portal, let's just stick to episodic appearances...but great questions, and that's exactly the kind of stuff we should be considering and discussing. And yeah, we would add this information to a help page, I totally agree. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
        • My opinion is that 2 appearances would be better to be considered as recurring/supporting to start. If there are too many, we can always trim back. Also, it is important to note that being in a photo/painting or an actor's/character's voice being in a story doesn't count as an appearances. I'm not positive what we decided about being in a video such as the television news pieces, the wrestling and cooking shows, and Hana appearing on computers.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
          • From what I can gather, photos and paintings and voices don't usually count as appearances (though of course a mention of the photo would go in the character's history, like the German in I Am Become Death). Videos do count (like Kaito's appearance in The Second Coming) and so do televised segments (like Angela Bromstad's entire appearance). I don't think Hana has ever appeared in a computer in an episode--and as far as I'm concerned, when she appeared in the computer in The End of Hana and Drucker, she was still alive. As well, dream appearances count--like Adam in Angela's dream from The Butterfly Effect. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
            • In response to what RyanGibsonStewart said, then, why is Arthur Petrelli automatically a recurring character, then, with just one appearance? Didn't Micah only appear in one S3 episode, yet he's not on the list, neither is Maury, and he's appeared in two of them.
              • Well, under this definition, he wouldn't be a recurring character until he's appeared in X amount of episodes. We've never had a definition for these designations, and we still don't. We're brainstorming ideas and putting it out the the community before we make the changes. I didn't put him there, but I think Arthur was considered a supporting character way back in Season One, before he even appeared in a graphic novel. That's why we're discussing this--to come up with definitions and get feedback on how we're going to move forward, not on the mistakes and disorganization of the past. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

How it would look

If we say that four appearances is a recurring character, then the portal would include:

Characters with four appearances
Season One Season Two Season Three
Total=24 Total=17 Total=2 (for now)

If we say that three appearances qualifies as a recurring character, then these are the people who would be in the portal. The bold ones are the ones who were added from the four appearances above.

Characters with three appearances
Season One Season Two Season Three
Total=37 Total=21 Total=7 (for now)

If we allow anybody with two appearances to be considered a recurring character, then here's how it would look. Again, the bold ones are the people that were added from three appearance table above.

Characters with two appearances
Season One Season Two Season Three
Total=54 Total=32 Total=13

Note that I only included named animals (sorry, cockroach...hello, Mohinder the lizard!). I did not include future characters at all--though Hiro (explosion future) and Peter (exposed future) make the most appearances, with 4 and 3, respectively. I also only counted appearances for each season--that means that at the new season, the count would go back to zero. That's why Maury and Linderman's counts might seem off, or why somebody like Kin Egami isn't here at all. That also means that some people might be considered recurring in one season, but not in the next. Also note that some people (Sylar, Ando, Angela) were not main characters in earlier seasons, so they would be considered recurring. Likewise, somebody like D.L. is no longer a principal cast member, so he is included in the list for Season Two. This would apply to Elle, assuming she appears in another episode in the near future.

Personally, I think we should look at each season individually. Season Two was short, so we can one set of criteria for that season, and another set for other seasons. We really shouldn't have more than about 20 people in a portal (and those multi-page portals are really not very fun--they work well for the minor characters, but wouldn't be at all conducive to a recurring characters portal). I would say four appearances in Season One makes you a recurring character (which would mean 24 people would be in the portal), three appearances in Season Two makes you a recurring character (which would mean 21 people would be in the portal), and in Season Three it'll probably be four appearances...or maybe we'll decide to do it by volume. We can cross that bridge when we get to it.

The other thing to consider is the people we would now be considering recurring characters, and those we wouldn't. Hana Gitelman doesn't make the cut at all. And since we're not including graphic novel appearances, neither would Gael or Bianca--and that's probably a good thing, since those three characters are mostly graphic novel characters anyway. I'm not crazy about the campaign manager's four appearances (same goes for Sheriff Davidson and Mr. Zern's three appearances), but I suppose that if we're trying to set rules and definitions, those characters do fit the bill.

What think you? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

  • I actually don't mind a multi-page portal for the previous seasons since it's not going to change, and cause it can easily be constructed using DPL after the categories are fixed (though using a fixed version is okay too since it only needs to be done once). Also, I think we should have recurring/supporting always mean 2 cause that's makes the most sense to me (recurring normally means more than once) and that's how Wikipedia defines a recurring character/actor.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Hooray!! Finally there is some sturucture coming to the characters portals!!! And RGS's suggestion sounds fine to me. Yay, I'm happy, if this goes through :) Pierre 20:18, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I am not a fan of multi-page portals--they completely defeat the purpose of an all-in-one stop-and-shop for navigating. Adding extra clicks using navbars that are hard to understand for newcomers and casual HW viewers is just not a good idea. Plus, I'm not crazy about calling actors who portrayed the likes of Officer Smith, the Odessa deputy, Linderman's cop, or the LVPD deputy "supporting" when they barely appeared in Heroes. I couldn't even remember who some of those people were without looking at their articles, and some of them barely had lines. Some of those actors don't even list themselves as recurring on their resumes! I don't think there's anything wrong with being a bit discerning and making the cutoff at three or four appearances....Pierre, I'm glad this makes you happy. Me too. I think we've needed some structure in character designation and categorization for quite awhile now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
        • I think 54 recurring characters for one season is a bit bizarre. In my opinion, three or four appearances should be the cut-off for recurring characters. However, these characters should have a name, and unnamed characters really shouldn't be "recurring" since their impact on Heroes is ridiculously small (and by "unnamed" i mean people like Campaign Manager, not like The Haitian. However, characters like The German should be recurring, since they do have a part in the story. In my opinion, the recurring characters should be like this:
Characters with recurring appearances
Season One Season Two Season Three
  • I agree with you, Radicell, on making the distinction of three or four appearances for a recurring characters. The number should be somewhere around 20 or 30 tops--not up in the 50s. The problem with excluding unnamed people--especially excluding some unnamed people and not some others--is that it gets into that slippery slope of speculation. And that's evident even above--the German is definitely an important part of the story in the graphic novels, but he's only appeared twice in the episodes. Now inside information says he'll be back, so he may be considered a recurring character if he has more appearances. Regarding unnamed people, the Haitian was originally credited simply as mysterious man, Kaito was just Hiro's father, and Noah wasn't even called Mr. Bennet until somewhere around the sixth or seventh episode. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Sorry to brake it to you Ryan but I am pretty sure that the German will not be back. This this idea would be be getting rid of Supporting Characters? And should Lynette not be on this list as she has appeared three times and in a book.--Skywalkerrbf 09:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I don't generally check spoilers, and so have no info, but I heard what Ryan suggested was going to happen as well. It definitely could, though it would be likely that it would be in a 'flashback' sequence. As for the overall topic, I like the idea, but I think that onscreen airtime should be a factor as much as # of episodes. People like Elle, shouldn't be on the same page (or even a lesser one) than a guard who is onscreen for 3 seconds in 5 different epsodes. Stevehim 11:54, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Skywalker, when I spoke with Ken Lally last week, he said there's still a big story involving the German and that he will most likely be returning later in the season....Stevehim, Elle won't be in the same portal as a guard since she was a main character in the second season, not a supporting character. However, if she only appears once in a season (like Micah), she's a minor character since she's no longer a main character. If she appears X amount of times (whatever number we decide), then she would be a recurring character this season--she can't be a main character unless NBC makes that distinction. However, I totally agree with you, Steve, we should avoid putting guards and the like in the recurring portal. The best way to do that and still be fair and equitable is to make the cutoff at 4 appearances (3 for the Season Two). It doesn't make the portal "perfect" but it's at least using a well-defined criteria--plus I don't think any two users here would ever agree on what is "perfect"! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Heh, I'm pretty sure Admin and Adminbot would agree rather often. ;) Anyways, based on the changes, I guess the discussion is over now. Is it okay to add this decision to the portal help now?--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
  • A lot of good discussion since I last checked this. I do agree that the number should be kept rather small-ish, maybe 20 or so. How about we look at it from the standpoint of the top 20 non-main characters with the most appearances rather then a cutoff number of times shown during a season? --  PinkKeith (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Please keep spoilers off of regular talk pages. I almost hit the text going through the recent changes where spoilertext does NOT work. (Admin 22:30, 22 October 2008 (EDT))
  • I'm all for the change to the character portals but the I'm a bit wary of the recurring category. Recurring means that they have been in a few episodes then disappear with the chance of appearing in another later down the track. Personally I think it should be supporting since supporting are in roughly the same amount as mains but don't have their own storyline. take Daphne for example, she has been in every episode this season bar one. There's nothing recurring about that. Keep the Main and Minor categories but rename the Recurring one. --  Seclusion  talk / contribs 21:59, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Well, you're a bit late to the discussion since so many changes were made in the past few days...but changes can always be reverted if needed. However, I don't see the need. I've never heard of the definition you're using for recurring--I understand the word to mean "showing up again or repeatedly". That would include anybody who has been in a certain number of episodes. We also could have called it "supporting", but that's a much different word. For instance, I think Chandra is a supporting character because so much of the storyline still can be traced right back to him. However, since the guy has barely appeared, he's not recurring, and that's the difference. On the other hand, somebody like Mark Spatney has appeared three times already. He's by no means supporting very much of the story, but he's definitely recurring. In the end, if it's a matter of definition and word usage, we can simply define the word the way we need to for our purposes. I think "recurring" fits the bill. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I know I'm kinda late on this discussion, but can someone remind me why we can't have supporting and recurring like we used to? That way, the number of supporting appearances could be enlarged to five or six, to indicate the presence of characters like Ando, Sandra, Zach and so on in Season One, and if recurring was three or four appearances, it would represent the difference between Ando and Campaign manager who would otherwise appear in the same category. - Tristan0709 talk 18:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Upcoming ad layout changes

  • I wanted to let everyone know about some upcoming changes to the ad placements here and get any feedback ahead of time. There will be two new ad placements: a 728x90 leaderboard at the top of every page and a 300x250 rectangular unit on the main page only (where "Next on Heroes" is currently... the "Next on Heroes" will be moving down one spot on the main page). The skyscaper ad down the left side and the 3 units at the bottom of every page will be going away. If this happens then the number of ads on the main page will remain the same and on every other page it will be reduced from 4 to 2. I can't go into too many details quite yet (so don't bother speculating), however I can say this change will be accompanied by something else very good for us. I know the ad placements will be a little more intrusive than we're used to. I purposely designed the original layout to be as discrete as possible while still maximizing the impressions we'd get per page. If anyone absolutely cannot stand the new placement then ad blockers are always a possibility, however leaving ad blockers turned off really helps benefit the site. Since we don't ask for donations or anything I figure it's a small price to pay in general. Plus when you see what accompanies these new ad placements I don't think you'll be disappointed. :) (Admin 14:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT))
    • I know what this is going to be, someone sent me the wrong email.--Skywalkerrbf 14:05, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
      • If so, do not disclose it. Thanks. (Admin 14:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT))
        • Do not worry I will not. I was thinking of suggesting it myself.--Skywalkerrbf 14:14, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Admin, I think the new layout will be good. The large leaderboard at the top is not my favorite, but it's a small price to pay for a reduction in the amount of ads. You're very right, you have done a lot to maximize ad space without ever compromising the wiki. Ads have never been intrusive here, especially compared with other wikis and their growing amount of ads. I think this will be a very good thing. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I'm not much of a fan of the leaderboard too, but I don't really know what the content will be. I think the ads at the bottom were very nonobstructive, which is what I liked. Do what you have to do.--Bob (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I made a correction to my original message. The skyscraper will also be going away which means that we'll have 2 ads on the main page, and 1 (the leaderboard) on every other page. (Admin 17:16, 17 October 2008 (EDT))
      • I don't really know much about this but why not keep the ones at the bottom as well? They don't bother me at all.--Skywalkerrbf 17:23, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
        • With the new leaderboard and 300x250 ads that are a little more obtrusive I'm trying to compensate by removing other ads to hopefully provide a cleaner look with less advertising. It's possible they may come back at a later time, but I'm going to start it off clean. :) (Admin 17:27, 17 October 2008 (EDT))
        • OK ok, do they look a bit like they do on the wiki wiki sites?--Skywalkerrbf 17:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I just took a look at this with and without my Firefox Adblock Plus. With Ads: Looks alright. "leaderboard" ad at the top is live-with-able. I think the skyscraper add could stay, as it isn't very intrusive. Without: there is blank space where the "leaderboard" ad was. (consequently that exposes a nice new background pic!) One thing I'd fix would be to put the line that says

Username   My talk    My preferences   My watchlist   My contribution   Log out

below the "leaderboard" ad. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Moving the links all the way at the top to be under the leaderboard ad is a good idea. Admin, is that possible? ... Incidentally, the new background pic was designed by Joe Tolerico himself, I believe. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Hey like I said before I think the links at the bottom might as well come back. They really didn't bother me and more money for the charities wouldn't hurt!--Skywalkerrbf 06:06, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

IMDb begins online showings of Heroes episodes

  • IMDb is now streaming the latest episodes of many current and past primetime shows. So for those of you overseas who have trouble watching at NBC.com, Hulu, iTunes or YouTube, you might want to try there.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Heroes Wiki partnership with NBC

  • Great news! And a well deserved nod to the HW contributors! --Pierre 19:51, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Totally agreed. It says a lot about a site that it makes an entire studio sit up and listen. There's a lot that Admin is being modest about, like the fact that this decision was discussed in the very high ranks of NBC....Out of curiosity, does anybody know of any other instances in which a television studio or movie studio partnered with a fan site? I know the production crew for the Lord of the Rings trilogy worked closely with theonering.net and a few other fan sites (and even credited a hobbitload of users from the site in the extended version DVDs), but I'm not sure they were ever partnered with them...at least not in the way that NBC will be partnered with Heroes Wiki. Does anybody know any similar instances? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
      • WOW! This does kinda feel unprecedented, doesn't it? I wonder how the head folk at NBC came to the decision to involve us. I wonder if we're gonna become the Official wiki soon. <tongue in cheek> Might the fact that I've been calling this place "The Real HeroesWiki" in my sig at 9thwonders.com had something to do with it? </tongue in cheek> Seriously, How lucky can a fansite get?! :) --SacValleyDweller (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
        • The folks at NBC are fans of the show like we are and have known about the site for some time. They're excited about this partnership, too, because they've never done something like this before. We can't really say we're "the official wiki", however they're interested in promoting this site heavily so expect to see links from nbc.com/Heroes. The NBC hosted wiki will probably be going away, too, now that they can link to and promote this site. (Admin 23:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT))
      • I can't think of anything specific either (I also don't think the LOTR thing was a partnership..if it was, they probably wouldn't have butchered the story so bad  ;)). The only thing close to this that comes to mind was when tvtome was bought out (by cbs, I think) and changed to tv.com, but that's a bit different. Congratulations to Admin, the rest of the staff, and all of the contributors here at one of the best sites on the Internet! Stevehim 23:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
        • We really should be careful about calling ourselves the "official" anything. I'll let Admin talk more about this, but the way I understand it, we'll be more like the 9thwonders.com: kind of "official/unofficial". You'll notice that the Site Disclaimer is not on the Main Page anymore, but it won't be replaced with anything calling us an official site. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Perhaps this'll go far enough for us to be referenced in the show? *Sort of half kidding* --Aburu 23:50, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
            • I doubt it would be referenced in the show nor would I want to see that, however it's possible you may see it on a commercial during the show. We'll see! :) (Admin 23:56, 18 October 2008 (EDT))
              • Heh, I can see the placement in the show now. To sate his hunger for how things work, Sylar logs onto Heroes Wiki instead of killing people! --Aburu 00:06, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
              • THat'd be sweet! :) --SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
                • Realistically, I think the most viable direct interaction (other than interviews and the such) would be to somehow be included in Heroes Evolution. Maybe a future batch of messages by the likes of Hana/Evs dropper could be posted directly here by that source, under a created userpage, or something like that. <jk> Of course, this brings up an interesting question...is Heroeswiki now a credible (and maybe near-canon one day) source, that can be cited when we post things? I smell paradox...</jk> ;) Stevehim 00:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
                  • That last part sure would make debates about ability names interesting...--Aburu 01:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
                  • Stevehim, you mean something like Interview:Evsdropr? There wasn't much "new" information in there, but it gave some good background on Evs, and we did learn that Evs was on the Company payroll. If Heroes Evolutions content is released on this site, we can certainly reference it. We would also probably need to update the article about Heroes Wiki...but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
                    • I just meant that some of the messages EvsDropper sends each week could theoretically be 'sent' on the site somehow (but that interview was unknown to me and is pretty cool too), or something like that. Or maybe even set up a page here similar to the Primatech, Yamagato, Pinehearst, etc. But even if none of it happens, it's still pretty cool to be offered a partnership with the network of the actual show, and maybe it'll give some of you guys direct interview taps. The canonical referencing stuff was just a joke.  ;) Stevehim 11:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
  • This is very cool. I sent you a email about it. --Skywalkerrbf 04:25, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Maybe they read my user page and thought "God damn, that's a great webisode series in the making. Let's partner up with the wiki to get closer to this guy right here." Or I had an amazing dream, then woke up. --DocM 12:00, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Just saw the links from the official site and cant help but feel proud of our little site. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Pretty nice, aren't they? :) (Admin 21:04, 20 October 2008 (EDT))
  • Sellouts. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 23:50, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Okay, kidding. That's awesome. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 23:50, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Assignment tracker

Is anyone else finding the assignment tracker a bit buggy? (i'm english and have a mac, which may be the problem) LilRebel616 09:10, 20 October 2008 (EDT)