Talk:Main Page/Archive 4

WARNING: Talk:Main Page/Archive 4 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Main Page.

Season One DvD

Anybody know anything about when the season one dvd is gonna be released? Benoni 02:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

• No confirmation on any release date yet (the season hasn't wrapped yet, remember) ... but you can read this to get excited about all the extras. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
• Jesse Alexander also talked about it at Wizard World, including revealing that the DVDs will have exclusive scenes showing what happens to some of the characters after the season ends.--Hardvice (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • When it comes out, should there be an article about it? Heroe(talk) 15:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
    • We'll need to decide that after it comes out. It may be easier to just add info to individual character pages. It depends on the scenes, really.--Hardvice (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
      • I realize the season hasn't ended yet. I just figured they would release the DvDs asap, cuz of how popular the show is. So I thought maybe someone might have heard something about it. Of the extras I've read about I'm looking most forward to the uncut 72min pilot. Benoni 23:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
        • I'm looking forward to the 72min pilot too! I read that the DVD will have things that will satisfy the fans. Citizen
• August 28. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Some details: "Universal Home Video has sent over very early details on the first season of Heroes which stars Hayden Panettiere. This Tim Kring created series will be available to own from the 28th August, and should retail at around $59.98. The seven-disc package will include all 23 episodes - presented in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen, along with English Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks. Extras will include audio commentaries, the original un-aired pilot episode with optional commentary, deleted scenes, a making of featurette, a special effects featurette, and a stunts featurette. A HD DVD release will also be available for $99.98. This will include all of the above, along with additional material (PIP video commentaries, a Genetic Abilities test, and more)." — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

"Page Type" buttons

• Actually, they've got a really great idea, if you ask me. When you add a new page, they provide a buttons with choices for what type of page it is (character, episode, actor, etc.) Clicking the button drops in a blank page in the needed format--it has all the necessary templates and section headings. It's basically the same as subst:-ing, but it removes a step and is a heckuva lot more user-friendly. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  • We could do that here, too, if we want. Would just take a quick edit to MediaWiki:Newarticletext. The mechanism just uses the preload variable in the request string to populate the edit box with a Template. (e.g. http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=SomePage&action=edit&preload=Template:welcome) (Admin 20:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT))
    • Obviously, I'm all for it. I think it's a great idea. Basically, we already have the pages in place to be dropped in (with some tweaks). I think it would help a lot of misformatting, or using templates that are missing variables (when people just copy a similar article, though it might be a bit old). It would even help with things like standard capitalization in headings--even though every character page has "Character History", when people write new articles they (myself included) sometimes write "Character history"--a small mistake, but one that would be fixed using those buttons. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
      • Go for it then. :) All administrators can edit the "articles" in MediaWiki namespace. (Admin 21:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT))
        • Standardization and automation are good things....gives us more time to research theories, powers, and super-geeked crossword puzzles! --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/20/2007 21:30 (EST)
          • I think that's a good move to add thoose buttons. But why do we only have PLACE and CHARACTERS ? What about other type of pages ? And I know it's meaningless but I don't like how thoose buttons look, they are too big and too... ugly ? :p Can't we edit them to make them smaller and fit the actual graphic template ? -- FrenchFlo (talk)        08:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
            • I only added two so we could get an idea of what they would look like--I didn't want to go ahead and add 15 or 20 buttons if the community decides to not use them. I'm not sure what you mean about fitting into a graphic template, but yes, I can shrink them really easily. I'll go ahead and do that and you can tell me if they look better. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
              • Okay, I added two more buttons just to get an idea of how it would look, although the buttons don't do anything (I'll do that later). I also made the buttons a bit smaller, but I fear that they're smaller than other buttons (Save page, for instance). I also tweaked the colors a bit. Whaddya think? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • My only concern is that some people who join this site only do it to edit existing pages and just add small content (ie a link to the fan link page). If it became super easy to add something like a fan page, my only fear is that new users would be more inclined to just making an article with very little content that would probably get deleted a week later. But I doubt it would be a large enough problem to not be helpful to others.--Bob 08:53, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
    • It does make it a lot easier to add a page, and that's kind of a double-edged sword, isn't it? Sure, it makes it easier for us to do what we need, but it also invites more vandals, I suppose. What I would suggest in that we see how it plays out--we really haven't had too many problems with vandalism on this site, or even with needless articles. If we see a surge in articles with pointless content, we could always get rid of the buttons of course. Would that help? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
      • You might want to add "noeditsection" to it. ---- 11:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
        • I'm not sure what you mean--MediaWiki:Newarticletext can only be edited by sysops. The templates for the buttons (template:Newpage character, for instance) is an included-only page, so there's no editing to be done. Where exactly would you add a noeditsection? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
          • My concern is that the page type buttons will lead to lower-quality articles. I think something about the setup will causes people to sorta rush through it. Heroe!(talk) 16:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
            • So far, they seem to be leading to better (or at least more consistent) articles. I love them. I want a link for welcoming new users now.--Hardvice (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
              • I really like the new buttons and think they're working out well. I agree Hardvice, I have seen more consistent articles, which is nice. In fact, I feel like before, there were a lot of articles that basically had an infobox and a stub tag--maybe a description if we were lucky. Again, if there is a rise in crap articles (which is always something to look out for anyway), we can take the buttons down. Oh, and the new user button: genius! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
                • Thanks! We can do the same context-sensitive buttons for others with their own namespace or pseudonamespace (episodes, graphic novels, Heroes Interactive, etc.) if we want. Now if only we could have Clippy pop up and say "It looks like you're writing an article about a graphic novel"...--Hardvice (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
                  • Ok, I hate these buttons. Pretty much every article I've seen made with the buttons is extremely poor, at least by my standards. Take a look at Future Claire. Heroe!(talk) 10:09, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
                    • Or Chiro for that matter. As I said before, new users don't even try to look at other pages to see how they're made. They just jump right into the content. It's great to get the contributions, but not if it's cumbersome to go behind them and clean up their mess, then explain to them what they should be doing. I like the new user button a lot, just not the other ones.--Bob 10:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
                    • Content is much easier to fix than layout, which requires you to look up how things should be. There's no point in making things unnecessarily difficult just to discourage editing. That's mean-spirited and elitist. There's nothing anyone can contribute that can't be corrected, and all contributions are welcomed and appreciated.--Hardvice (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
                      • I feel like this week there have certainly been some articles that have had to be edited, but no more than ever before. I'm wary of attributing not-perfect articles to the buttons. I would much rather edit out empty Notes sections or fix cat sorts than have to write all new content. From another perspective, I always felt hesitant to contribute to other wiki sites (and still do in some cases) because I don't know their layout standards. By handing the layout to new users (and experienced users, too), we encourage contributions. If that means we get some contributions that are, oh my golly, less-than-perfect, then so be it. So many of us say we appreciate contributions, but if we do things to discourage those contributions, then we're really being hypocritical. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
                        • Yeah, on reflection, it does more good than bad. It helped me out doing the few cast pages, so it's definitely something that should stay around. I expected a lot more of the bad articles, but seeing how little happened, I'm ok with it.--Bob 00:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
                      • Hardvice and Ryan hit the nail right on the head. We want to make it convenient for people to add articles and not have to worry quite so much about the structure. Over time we've developed standards for articles and there's now a larger learning curve for new users when it comes to creating properly structured articles. As Ryan mentioned this often discourages new users from contributing for fear of being criticized which is also why we need to always realize that newcomers may make contributions that break the standards, so we always need to deal with them cordially. We're familiar with the guidelines and policies and they aren't necessarily. The buttons help create articles which are at least on the basic level structured properly. We want to encourage contributions since layout is easy to fix by experienced users, but content is the real meat of the articles so having as many contributors as possible is really beneficial. Superfluous pages can always be reworked or deleted anyway. (Admin 01:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT))

Cut the "did you know" section?

The Main Page looks bad with the "did you know" extending way down below the empty other column. The trivia is old, and we not only have a new episode for people to look at, but a new GN. I say we axe it until the summer. ---- 16:09, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

• The GN section was moved under the summary. It looks more even now. Problem solved I think.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I think the GN looks terrific under the AOTW (at least for now). If the trivia in DYK is old anybody can feel free to change it here. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Your way of using the wiki (as an editor)

Well, here is the thing, I often see admins fixing pages that had'nt been used for awhile (and can't be seen in the recent changes (500)) and I just wanted to know how you get onto this page ? How do you surf on this website ? Do you "link-travel" from page to page ? Use the Special:Random ...? I personnaly only check Special:Recentchanges and Special:Wantedpages so I create pages when they are need and I mostly correct other people edits. What's your way to deal with the wiki thing ? -- FrenchFlo (talk)        16:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

• Most days I do what you do, but on slow days (for me or the site), I just hit Alt-Shift-X and just surf to see what I can find. Generally with random pages, I'll go through about 5-10 pages before I find something I can fix. Everyone does such a good job of cleaning up newer articles it becomes difficult to find the smaller pages, so random helps a lot.--Bob 16:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
• A lot of the admins patrol recent changes (I'm not sure if you can see unpatrolled edits if you aren't an admin or set up to patrol changes). When you're looking at only unpatrolled edits, recent changes can go a lot further back than 500 changes (since many of the last 500 will already be patrolled) ... and as you mark old changes as patrolled, even older unpatrolled edits pop up. Personally, I spent more or less all day yesterday checking unpatrolled edits.--Hardvice (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks for that work, Hardvice. Yesterday, to say the least, was a bad day for me. FF, some other good pages to check out are all the special pages--particularly all pages (which is not easily navigable, but a good way to focus your randomness). You can also update old pages or check out all the new pages. Hope that helps -- that's pretty much the long and short of it! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Old News is Still News?

The news template still has stuff from .07%. Are we supposed to archive the old news somewhere before replacing it? I was thinking we could replace those 3 articles with the following news:

• EW article regarding the Season Finale
• Heroes Season 1 DVD Release Date Announced
• The Hard Part Preview Trailer--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

• Generally, we just rotate it. In other words, if you add those three links, just delete the three oldest. FIFO.--Hardvice (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Ok, I updated with the links. I took out the first three links and added 3 to the bottom of the list.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Thanks, good additions! Generally, the newest items have gone at the top of the list. The ones you deleted from the top were appropriate to delete, but I restored the wrap party item. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
      • No prob. But how come you pulled The Hard Part's preview trailer and left in the one for .07%???

Also, is it okay I include the latest Behind the Eclipse CBR interview?--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

• To date, we've been including previews and interviews on Links because they'd otherwise wipe out all the news stories pretty quickly. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to add a link to links to the news box.--Hardvice (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

My plan for the season one histories

Hi. I've been noticing some talk about the wiki about condensing the season 1 histories into a few paragraphs once the second season comes around. While I too think this is a good idea, I think it would also be good to have the full season 1 history as an article to, for reference. An idea of what such an article would look like is here. Thanks. Heroe!(talk) (contribs) ^{Random Page!} 20:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

• It may or may not be required depending on how they handle the seasons. As far as I know season 2 is supposed to introduce an entirely different plot line with new characters. If there's little overlap with the characters then it might be ok to leave them more or less as they are. (Admin 21:50, 4 May 2007 (EDT))
  • My understanding is that they will be standalone seasons, but the main cast of characters will be the same. I think Greg Beeman likened it to the Harry Potter series--each book stands on its own, but they all come together to make a bigger picture. In any case, yes, if the same characters are featured, we would probably just drop the existing history into an article called something like "Peter Petrelli/Season One" and summarize what happened in a well-written "About" section or "Season One" section on his main article space. By the way, I like the addition of pictures to the history. One single picture to sum it up--very nice. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
• That was kind of the plan all along. Archive the old history to a new article, and summarize it in one section on the character pages.--Hardvice (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

New section idea - "body count" or "death tally"

Just wondering if others here would like to see a "death tally" of characters (both from the series and graphic novels).

Not so much an obsession about death, but just to keep a running body count (as seen on some 24 sites). --The Sledge 12:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

• Have you checked out Category:Deceased_Characters? That may have what you're looking for. (Admin 12:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT))
  • Death also has a pretty good list, plus a bit more information. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Lag ?

Is that me or does the wiki lag since 4 or 5 days ? I wanted to help categorizing the character's images but they were soooo long to load that I had'nt be able to. I've one of the fastest private connexion you can have in France exept some cities that have 100Mbps but that's not the problem, everything was perfect until 1 week.. I noticed this problem only occurs when I'm loading pictures page, with any others page it seems as fast as before, but with picture's one, it's a looong wait before I can see them. About 10seconde each... Am I the only one to feel laggy ? -- FrenchFlo (talk)        16:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

• Mine's been a bit slow lately as well. Doing those image categories took longer than it should have. I think it may have to do with the new wiki software. Admin?--Bob 16:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
• Me, too. I was blaming my connection, but other sites seem fine. I wonder if it's related to the new caching? That would be odd, since it should if anything make page loads faster.--Hardvice (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I've been noticing more lag periodically over the past week. I was pondering if there were scheduled backups that are running now at certain times?--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Ditto. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
• Do you know exactly when you noticed the lag? We've been getting a lot more traffic in the past few weeks so that's contributed to some of it during busy days, but I've also made a few changes at various points in the past few days that may have caused it, too. Also is the lag only in images, or articles as well? and have pages like Special:Recentchanges been slow, too? (Admin 17:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT))
  • Is it only when loading pages that start with Image:? I think I see a ~10 second lag on those pages for some reason. The other articles all seem pretty snappy. Is that the lag you're all seeing? (Admin 18:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT))
    • I've noticed it mostly with images (and pages with lots of images, like Isaac's paintings) and with difference pages, oddly enough, and not so much with normal articles, recent changes, or talk pages. But it's really slow, particularly today.--Hardvice (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
    • For me, regardless of the computer I use or the speed of my internet, it's on every page, images or no. I think it's been a couple of days -- maybe since Friday or Saturday? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
      • I've noticed it the most when editing, and I agree it's slow today but that could be due to the finale.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
        • Traffic load isn't very high at the moment. I have an additional cache in place currently because I think we're going to get pounded once the episode airs. Problem is the cache is in a different part of the country from the server, so cache misses incur a higher than normal round-trip time. I want to see how the site does tonight after the episode airs and then I can probably pull that extra cache out tomorrow and we can see if there's an improvement. I'll see what I can find. (Admin 18:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT))
• I've tried it even without the cache in place and it's still slow. Probably related to the MediaWiki upgrade. I'm looking into it. (Admin 19:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT))
  • Oh, so it's happening to everyone? I assumed it was my stupid computer again. :P What exactly is caching? Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 20:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
    • As a verb, "cache" means "to hide or store in a cache", which is a hiding or storage place. In a nutshell, in computers "caching" means storing data for later retrieval as a means to speed up acquisition. Your browser caches pages, meaning that it stores a local copy; the next time you go to the page, it checks to see if it's been changed, and if it hasn't, it loads the local copy instead, which is much faster. Server caching means that the server stores a compiled page so that it doesn't need to recompile it the next time somebody requests it. It looks to see if the page has been updated, and if it hasn't, it sends the cached version rather than recompiling it each time someone requests it.--Hardvice (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
• Well I first noticed this problem while wanting to +cat images of characters. Using Mozilla I did as I always do when chain-editing, open every page with mouse3 click, edit them all then chain-validate them. It seems I only have this problem with the images.. Other pages seems as fast as usual, or maybe a little less but not as less as the images' one. -- FrenchFlo (talk)        06:09, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm not sure, if this helps, but I got the following Lag-related error today:

    Database error From Heroes Wiki Jump to: navigation, search A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "SiteStatsUpdate::doUpdate". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (<clipped my IP for my own protection>)".

    --MiamiVolts (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Yeah, when things get particularly bad it takes too long for some updates to complete and they get aborted. This is separate from the lag issues earlier which appear to be the result of the new MediaWiki code. The db error is purely because the site is overloaded with traffic right now and there's very little free memory and cpu time left. I'll hopefully have something in place by this evening to make things better. (Admin 12:42, 22 May 2007 (EDT))
    • Ok, there were two sources of lag the past few days. The first issue reported regarding loading pictures should now be fixed. I found what may be some inefficient or leftover code in MediaWiki that was involved in managing the Squid cache. This code has been there for a while so things probably got worse once I turned on caching. I've taken care of that code for now so the image pages load up much more quickly for me. Let me know if you see the same. The second issue was caused mostly by the volume we received this week due to the season finale. That I believe I've also taken care of with APC handling opcode caching for php. With these two changes in place things should be much better now in general. Let me know if you notice an improvement. (Admin 01:25, 24 May 2007 (EDT))
      • Thanks for the fix. It definately seems like there's less lag now.--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

    Translations / Please don't use Babelfish...

    Reading the Chinese translation is quite painful, as it decided to render "NBC" as "Biological/Chemical Weapons" among other gaffes, just on the front page, first paragraph.

    And if you offer "simplified Chinese", you should also offer "traditional Chinese". Else, leave it out entirely. Badly translated page is worse than untranslated page, and machine translation is not good enough to render pages related to this series.

    If you use &langpair=en%7Czh-TW for traditional Chinese the translation is actually better than if you used the simplified Chinese. But still nothing to smile about.

    As an example, here's the first paragraph, to traditional Chinese, then translated BACK into English

    Original: Welcome to Heroes Wiki!

    Translation: Wiki歡迎英雄! (ooops!)

    Reversed: Wiki welcomes hero!  :-P

    Original: Heroes Wiki is a reference fansite for NBC's popular sci-fi drama Heroes.

    Translation: 英雄wiki是一個參考fansite為nbc's流行的科幻劇英雄 (okay)

    Reversed: Heroes w iki LYOKO is a reference to nbc 's popular science fiction drama heroes (?!?)

    Original: Heroes Wiki currently has 1,168 articles.

    Translation: 英雄wiki目前擁有1,168物品. (okay)

    Reversed: Hero now has a wiki. 168 articles. (argh!)

    Original: Come here for the latest information on the show and its characters.

    Translation: 前來演出的最新資料與人物. (lost a bit of the sentence)

    Reversed: performed to the latest information and figures (!?!)

    
    Original: Anyone who wishes to add information needs to register and confirm their email address first, but can then contribute anything relevant to Heroes .

    Translation: 有意加入的信息需求,並確認其電子郵件地址登記一次,但可以有所貢獻相關英雄. (almost, not quite)

    Reversed: interested in joining the information needs, and recognizing their e-mail addresses to register once, But can contribute to related hero. (argh!)

    Original: You'll only get emails from this wiki if you ask to be emailed when someone modifies a particular page.

    Translation: 你只能獲得電子郵件從這個wiki如果你問被emailed當某人修改某頁. (darn it!)

    Reversed: You only get e-mail from the wiki if you were asked em ailed a person modify a page.

    Well, you get the idea. I'd love to do translations, but I am afraid my Chinese typing skills absolutely sucks. I am far better at typing in English (I type 80 WPM) and at proofreading translations.

    -- Kschang 02:37, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

    • Are you able to read the Chinese Google translates it to, or are you reading it by having Google translate it into Chinese and then having them translate their Chinese back into English? (Admin 03:10, 24 May 2007 (EDT))
      • I read Chinese just fine. I wrote "my Chinese typing skills absolutely sucks", didn't I? :) --Kschang 17:48, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
        • Ok, just wanted to make sure it passed the eyes of someone who can read the Chinese translation itself. :) I'll take it down off the translations list. (Admin 17:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT))

    Question about layout

    I know that wikis always have the standard layout on the left, but I've always found it rather... weird that in order to find the "meat" of the content on this site I have to scroll at least a screen down to find it. Shouldn't we have, uh, I dunno... A mini menu on top like "episodes" "graphic novels", kinda like the articles icon list, but words only, on the very top, or another set of box on the side? -- Kschang 21:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

    • Check out the "Article portals" link in the navigation sidebar. Is that what you're referring to? (Admin 21:28, 27 May 2007 (EDT))
    • In terms of the main page layout, however, it really is designed to present some of the most relevant information first. Excluding the fact that most of our visitors come here via links to particular pages, most people visiting the main page want information on the most recent episode, so we have that up near the top. Others may want to just browse the information here by topic, so we have the portal links almost right below that. I don't think the main page is too long, though, so it shouldn't take too long for any visitor to find where they want to go from there regardless of its position on the page. (Admin 21:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT))

    Article of the Week

    Now that the season is over, I think we should switch the AotW. I recommend a well-developed reference article-maybe Evolution or Cockroach. Thoughts? --Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 17:56, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

    • Well, we could go back and use the GNOTW template. I thought that was the plan.--MiamiVolts (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Right, I'd much rather see the latest GN--it's much more current and not as subjective. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
      • But we now have the Current Graphic Novel template. I would like to see something other than an episode or GN be an AotW. --Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 22:39, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
        • Well, we could do latest Heroes 360 happening/event when it gets going again. I thought they would have started something by now.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Does anyone else care to join this discussion? --Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 10:18, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
      • As long as there is a new Graphic Novel, I think it's worthwhile to address new content for the show on the homepage. If we reach a point where we're not getting new story material each week, then we can go on to promoting our other content. --Ted C 14:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)