Talk:List of Heroes graphic novels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Easter egg for "Snapshots"[edit]

Has anyone found the easter egg in this? I know it's not the Nissan Versa site. Or isn't there an easter egg in this one? --Addict 2006 06:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think there is one. All of the others were fairly easy to find. I doubt one exists. Love to be proven wrong though. Novastarj 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro and Ando picture[edit]

Reference #8 doesn't work proper.

Yes but the image is there, NBC made an error when putting it up.--ParalysedBeaver 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but if someone have this image on his computer, maybe he can upload it to another server and fix the link.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.85.120 (talk • contribs) 22:13, November 17, 2006
It works now.--ParalysedBeaver 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Adding Taglines?[edit]

Just want to get some quick thoughts. Each issue has a tagline that appears below the name on the NBC website. Some of them are kind of interesting. Worth adding? I listed them below so people can see what I'm talking about. Novastarj 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONSTERS - A story from Suresh's childhood haunts him to this very day.

HIRO - To save the world it takes conviction, dedication, and a real Hiro.

NATHAN - A terrible inferno can melt the coldest of hearts.

AFTERMATH - Through flame and fire, a little Claire-ity comes.

SNAPSHOT - Some bonds are too strong to ever be broken.

STOLEN TIME - There's nothing quite like a refreshing desert drive.

CONTROL - Everything is black and white.

ISAAC'S FIRST TIME - You always remember your first time.

LIFE BEFORE EDEN - How Eden found her voice.

TURNING POINT - FBI Agent Audrey Hanson plays a deadly game of cat and mouse.

FATHER & DAUGHTERS - Everything but the guilt.

SUPER-HEROICS - You can't change who you are.

Lame. We're an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. But if it actually adds to the article, it's our duty to include it. I believe it does, but if people tend to agree with you, I'll gladly cede to the majority. Novastarj 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the taglines are redundant with the table's synopsis. Primogen 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PDF links[edit]

I have removed the links to the PDFs. Wikipedia is not intended as a link directory, as free advertising for NBC, or as a convenient mechanism to drive people to content on other sites. Wikipedia is a repository of free content, and these graphic novels, not being free content, should not be so heavily linked. There is a link to NBC's site at the bottom of the article; that is more than sufficient. LowKarmaError 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, but what about fair use content? Furthermore, can you cite a policy or guideline you'd be following/enacting by renoving the links? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:NOT adequately covers it: Wikipedia is not a link directory. Wikipedia is not a repository of, nor a collection of links to, nonfree content. I will not revert you at this time, but I strongly urge you to revert yourself as I believe your decision to revert is not founded on the principles this encyclopedia was founded upon. LowKarmaError 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you mention "princibles"; While I know the links are not vital, I'm opposing you on principle. The statement you're reference refers largely, if not exclusively, to managing external links to various other sites. This right here is linking directly to downloads, not fansites, review sites, etc. We're linking directly to content. I feel you're being overzealous in this respect and perpetuating the "Wikipedians are Nazies" ideology. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel this way. Since you've not only refused to discuss the issue, but in fact compared me to a Nazi, I am afraid I shall have to seek additional input on this issue from the community. I believe an RfC is the appropriate course of action. LowKarmaError 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to file a Request for Mediation instead, since I believe an RfC might be overly confrontational. LowKarmaError 23:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? I said you're perpetualing a ideology. I'm not comparing you to a Nazi, but saying that stances like you one you're taking have led others to think of Wikipedians as Nazies. And I'm not refusing anything. When did I say that? I reverted you because you didn't, and still have to, cite a policy or guideline that directly supports your edit. Furthermore, this is not an issue for formal mediation or RFC. Seriously, this is kind of overzealousness I'm talking about. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both parties should step back for a moment and let this cool down. LowKarmaError, asking for mediation this early in the process, for such a minor difference of opinion, is probably overkill. As for ACS, you could do well to think about what you're saying, before you hit "save". Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept that you didn't mean to offend with the "Nazi" note. However, I think it is obvious that the use of such a loaded term can easily be misinterpreted. Just my two cents worth. --Ckatzchatspy 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all that was needed. I can agree with everything you said, Ck. Too bad LKE already did what they did. It's now up to the mediation commitee to accept, reject and/or formally mediation. Still, I'm taking your advice. I'll reflect on this a bit while I continue my rounds. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, seeking mediation before too many heated words are exchanged is better than letting all parties get entrenched before seeking outside opinions. Let cooler heads help while they still can.Lkinkade 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resetting indent Ckatz, the reason I filed for mediation is to allow both of us to step back and discuss this calmly with a mediator. That's the function of mediation. Frankly, I do not feel comfortable debating whether or not these links should be included with someone who, right off the bat, compares me to a Nazi; I would therefore prefer a neutral referee for any further interactions with Ace Class Shadow.

As to the principles here: the principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not, inter alia, an index or catalog of externally-hosted PDFs consisting of non-free content, and such should only be linked from Wikipedia when they are essential to understanding the article in question. This is not a minor difference of opinion, but in fact goes fundamentally to what Wikipedia is.

On top of this, Ace Class Shadow above admits that the links are not essential to the article, but states that he reverted me anyway "on principle". That sounds dangerously close to "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" to me, and in any case is certainly not what I would consider appropriate. And, in any case, I would very much like to receive an apology for being compared to a Nazi, rather than a defense "no, I didn't" response to someone taking offense at such an plainly offensive statement. I am willing to accept that Ace Class Shadow did not mean to cause offense, but I would like to see some acknowledgment that he understands that it is very reasonable for someone to take offense at that statement and apologize for having been so careless and unthinking as to make it. LowKarmaError 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably just my own ignorance of the lingo, but why are these comics "non-free content"? You don't have to pay for them, so surely by definition they are free. Branfish 05:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That also confuses me. Anyone can access this content; there are no restrictions to it. Either the links should remain here or there should be seperate articles for each, just as there are for the episodes. At least that's my opinion

RFM result[edit]

LKE and I have come to the agreement that the links should go. I hope that's cool with everyone. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on... was the RfM to discuss the links issue, or to resolve the differences between the two editors? If it's about the links, that should probably be debated here or on the main Heroes page instead. I would presume that there are probably editors who might wish to voice their opinions on the link issue, but who would have stayed out of the RfM. (Personally, I think this is a case where the links are actually useful, and enhance the article.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Well, I guess it's good I brought this up. So, as I your comment as a very polite "not cool", I'll open the floor for further discussion and search for consensus. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued debate[edit]

The links violate policy; specifically, they violate the external linking policy. These particular links are to "rich media", and the policy with respect to rich media is "[i]t is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media." In this case, NBC has graciously provided the public with such a page, and that page is already linked at the bottom of the main article. If nobody else removes the links in the next day or so, I'll do it myself. LowKarmaError 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely certain that the links violate the WP:EL guidelines. I think it could be argued either way. What should be linked does seem to include a site hosting a copy of the work, and the NBC pages for the graphic novels are free and without registration, though most (all?) of them contain an advert in the first page. Direct links to documents that require external applications are discouraged, but not ruled out. The rich media section says that if rich media is appropriate, then "an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content" is necessary.
IMHO, I'm inclined to say the links should stay, with a notation that they're not pure HTML. I was about to add the PDFlink template when I noticed the links are no longer to PDF documents but to rich HTML pages with embedded Flash (noted on the index page as Flash 8). Now I'm uncertain as to which versions should be linked. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rich HTML pages with embedded Flash content are dramatically less viewable on numerous platforms to straight PDF files. The PDF files are viewable on dozens of completely different architectures, and the Flash-containing HTML pages lack any cross-links to the PDF versions. WP:EL specifically notes Flash as a bad format in item 8 of the Links Normally to be Avoided section. Discuss removal of the links entirely, but converting them to the Flash-required versions reduces the usefulness of the list. 65.91.54.170 14:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the links. It's a pointless, poor "compromise" and less convenient across the board. I'd prefer to have the PDF download links, but it's more important to follow policy. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The external linking policy in question I believe is superceded by the fact that this entire list is about the individual on-line webcomics which are, by definition, rich media items. Item #8 of the master list of links normally to be avoided explicitly states that pages discussing rich media items may link directly to the corresponding rich media. I don't see any reading of that wording that wouldn't say that some form of direct link to the comics is warrented, and as I agree that the PDF versions are superior to the Flash versions for general linking purposes I've reinstated the links. 208.65.181.109 10:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF links should stay, clearly marked by the appropriate template, per What should be linked #2. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree: the external links should definitely stay. —Lowellian (reply) 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easter egg for Wireless Part 3[edit]

There's none for that either? --Addict 2006 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a "no egg every fifth of ten" deal? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The URLs for the first, second, and fourth easter egg images are:
http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/hana_ee.jpg
http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/hana2_ee.jpg
http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/hana4_ee.jpg
There is a corresponding image at "hana3_ee.jpg", but it is the same as "hana_2.jpg". It could be that somebody uploaded the wrong image, or maybe there was a problem getting the image they planned to use (legal clearances, formatting issues, etc.). --ΨΦorg 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"hana2_ee.jpg" and "hana3_ee.jpg" give the same image to our eyes, but if you examine the file, the filesizes (and hence the bytes) differ. It is possible that comparing the different bytes gives a steganographically hidden message, in line with the various puzzles of Heroes 360. —Lowellian (reply) 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

I noticed in the last graphic novel, "How To Stop an Exploding Man", that the guy who talks to Ted Sprauge in the Nevada store, looks EXACTLY like John Goodman from The Big Lebowski. Any thoughts on adding a trivia section to the page? PureSoldier 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the latest "Behind the Eclipse" article in comicbookresources.com, someone asked this and the writers said it wasn't in the script, it was the artist idea to put him. Or maybe he read wrong.
Vicco Lizcano 17:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (Hey! Listen!)[reply]

Use of the term "Graphic Novel"[edit]

I'm a little surprised to be the first person to be bringing this up, but "graphic novel" doesn't strike me as the appropriate term to use for this article. These are 7-page documents, the first page of which is an automobile advertisement. Shouldn't they be called "comics"? I realize that NBC is trying to use the more respectable term "graphic novel" to gain some legitimacy, but I don't think that justifies use of that term in the article title. Thoughts? -Bindingtheory 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're called graphic novels, because that's what they've been released as on the NBC website. PureSoldier 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if NBC jumps off a bridge, then we should too? They're not graphic novels. They're not even graphic novellas. They're barely even graphic short stories. They're comics. Don't get me wrong. I like them. I read them. But just because NBC calls them graphic novels doesn't make them graphic novels, and it certainly doesn't mean we should call them such in the article title. It does make sense, however, to say in the article itself that NBC refers to them as "graphic novels" on their website. -Bindingtheory 03:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, calling items what they were called by the persons that created them, not renaming them to suit the article author's whims. PureSoldier 14:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite, in fact. Creators don't get to redefine standard terms. Had NBC called these comics "Albums by Aerosmith," it's doubtful (I hope) that we would be titling this article "List of Albums by Aerosmith." We would be calling them comics, and then stating in the body of the article that the creators refer to them as "Albums by Aerosmith." It is in fact the role of the Wikipedia to describe things as they *are*, not to perpetuate falsehoods. We are not discussing the "whims" of an article's author(s). We are discussing, if anything, the "whims" of NBC. These are comics by anyone's definition, but they are "graphic novels" by nobody's but NBC. You could make a reasonable argument that, taken as a whole, the comics comprise a graphic novel (especially since NBC calls them "chapters" even if we call them "issues" for some reason), but each one alone just doesn't qualify. Clearly nobody else here agrees with me, which is fine, but I thought I should at least bring up the point. Perhaps I will add an explanatory note at the beginning of the article, which would probably nearly serve the same good as retitling the article, which would be inappropriate without general agreement. -Bindingtheory 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never: Actually, the article would be called "Albums by Aerosmith (Heroes comics)". And that would be fine, because the publisher would not have defined them as "graphic novels", but as "Albums by Aerosmith". Metao 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. " WP:V

We have a reliable source that states that these things are graphic novels, the publishers (NBC). You're entitled to your own opinion that these are not, but your opinion doesn't really mean much here on wikipedia without a source to back it up. dposse 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to create dissidence simply for the sake of it - I actually disagree on principle. These are not graphic novels. Why not look at our very own Wikipedia article? In the Definition section, it lists graphic novels as having a beginning, middle, and end, as opposed to ongoing characters. Futhermore, they are "more serious, mature, or literary than traditional comics". Surely you are not going to tell me that the Heroes comics are serious, mature and literary? They are no Dickens.
Other sources? I'll list a few from a simple Google "Define:" search. HAZE glossary claims that they can not be read in one sitting. The Comic Book Awards Almanac defines it thus: "In the comic book industry, the term is sometimes used to refer only to self-contained stories of 48 or more pages that has not been previously published serially.". Merriam Webster lists that it is "published as a book" which this series most definitely is not.
Finally, I see at least two people here claiming that NBC is a reliable source. Erm. How? Are they reliable on Heroes info? No doubt. On terms provided by an industry? Nope. They are trying to do what many have done: Use a fancy term to make these sound more refined. This is not "renaming them to suit the article author's whims", but an attempt to be accurate. This not pushing a POV or trying to smear NBC. This is fact: 8 pages of panels does not a graphic novel make. Ask sources OTHER than NBC and you will see that it is so. Valaqil 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NBC is the publisher of this materal. Is Scholastic suddenly not a relible souce? Should i now go through every article about Harry Potter and remove all mention of any infomation gained from Scholastic? This is your opinion that these are not "graphic novels" and putting that in this article is not encyclopedic and violates WP:NPOV. This article holds a bias against NBC because it calls something a "graphic novel" which you, a wikipedian who has no other job but to report, disagrees with. Your opinion that 8 pages doesn't make a graphic novel might be right, i don't know. But the thing is, according to wikipedia guidelines, it does not matter one bit what the truth is, it only matters what we can verify. dposse 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NBC might describe an upcoming episode of Heroes as "the most gripping hour of television you'll see this year." Are we obliged to state that as fact? No, of course not. The text is neutral - it doesn't claim that NBC is wrong, it doesn't make any false claims (they are comics, and NBC does describe them as "graphic novels"), and it's not judgemental. --Ckatzchatspy 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dposse, would you be more comfortable with a reworded version? Right now, it reads as follows:

"This is a list of issues of NBC's Heroes webcomic, which supplements the television drama of the same name. The comics, which NBC refers to as "graphic novels", are made available on their official website each Monday."

We could reorder the text as follows:

"This is a list of issues of the Heroes webcomic, described by NBC as "graphic novels". The comics, which supplement the television drama of the same name, are made available on the Heroes website each Monday."

Would that help ease your concerns? --Ckatzchatspy 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Remove the quotes from graphic novel and i guess that's fine. dposse 18:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to take sides, but using quotes is grammatically correct.PureSoldier 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using "quotes" like "that" is completely "unneccasary". dposse 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the way you example, you're right. It is unneccessary. However, when showing that a person, group, etc is referring or defining a term, it is neccessary to use quotes. PureSoldier 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't what is happening in this situation. The sentence flows better and sounds less like an attack upon NBC without the quotes. I've tried to compromise, how about you try to do the same so this argument can come to a close? dposse 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Too much indenting for me.  :) I don't see the "attack" nature of the sentence. It's certainly not how I intended it. It doesn't say "which NBC propagandistically refers to as 'graphic novels,'" or even "which NBC incorrectly refers to as 'graphic novels'." I think you're reading a tone into it that's just not there. It's just a simple factual statement. The truth of the matter is that they really aren't graphic novels; they just don't meet the definition. The sentence simply acknowledges that NBC officially refers to them as "graphic novels." (although it also refers to them as "chapters" in some places). The quotes are acceptable (and even necessary) here because, as PureSoldier points out, "graphic novels" refers to the term that NBC uses, and not to the comics themselves. -Bindingtheory 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. NBC are welcome to call them what they like. They could call it the Heroes bicycle stand if they wanted. It wouldn't make it anymore of a bicycle stand though and would need to be described as: Heroes "bicycle stand". Calling it graphic novel doesn't make it so. I have also changed the category to something more appropriate. (Emperor 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I also agree...these are simply not "graphic novels," even if NBC calls them such, and therefore Wikipedia must indicate that they are only called such by NBC. —Lowellian (reply) 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't anything in the WP graphic novel article that would necessarily preclude these being called graphic novels. It notes the term evolves, is not strictly defined, the publishing industry often extends the term to material that you might not typically see as a "graphic novel", and that the term itself is criticized for just being a marketing term. There isn't a commonly accepted or agreed upon definition of "Graphic Novel" to simply assert that something is or is not one. They arguably are graphic novels and since that's what their creators are calling them, I don't see any reason not to take them at their word. 209.180.36.94 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the collection is actually being published, I suppose this debate is somewhat moot. Aexia 17:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful, people seem to enjoy complaining about anything. They'll probably want to refer to it as "the compilation of Heroes comics, or as NBC calls them, 'graphic novels'". Though this collection would be more accurately called a graphic novel, considering the parts are called "chapters". In short, you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.195.207 (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The single volume collection would more accurately be called a hardcover trade paperback. "Graphic novel" is often used as a marketing term for trades but it still doesn't make them one. (Emperor 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Independantly[edit]

Is it worth noting that chapter 31 spelled "independently" wrong as "Independantly"? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct in international English, so probably not. Metao 08:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nod to fans? how?[edit]

How is the higher quality picture from #29 (which is in fact an easter egg in #30) a "nod to fans"? --Addict 2006 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It contains the nicknames of users of the Heroes 360 Experience.Vicco Lizcano 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (Hey! Listen!)[reply]

Aspen Comics ref[edit]

This has been bugging me for a while now. Quoting the article: "Written by the show's writers and drawn by Aspen Comics, they are generally 7-9 pages long..." I take issue with the concept of a company 'drawing' something. Artists from/working for/hired by/etc. a company can draw, but the company itself can't. Am I making sense? It's like saying that Highbrow Entertainment drew Savage Dragon, instead of saying that Erik Larsen did. The cited article [1] states that the art is "provided by packager Aspen Comics." I get that "provided by packager" got paraphrased into "drawn by" for the article, but I'm hoping that someone will be able to think of another word/phrase that give more of the flavor of 'providing' as opposed to 'drawing.' (I don't seem to be able to.) Apologies for so many words on such a simple turn of phrase. Fitfatfighter 07:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be accurate though? Assuming that all the people who worked on the graphic novels all work for Aspen. Sort of like how Ben Ten was created by Man of Action, which is just the group name of three guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.195.207 (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links in the list[edit]

I am removing the external links from the list for a few reasons:

  1. Wikipedia is not a directory of links
  2. Lists should strive to reach featured list status. This will never happen if it's a list of external links- a featured list must list articles, events via a timeline, or a defined set of items (such as brief plot summaries)
  3. The graphic novels are linked on NBC's site.
  4. Let's not forget each comic starts with a one page spread advertising the Nissan Versa. We might as well start the article off with "Say, why don't you drive a nifty NISSAN VERSA!"-Wafulz 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
did you miss the debate about this above? self-important editors abound. all of these changes to this page are screwing with the formatting and is making it practically unreadable. Someone from Wikipedia itself needs to make a decision about this before the page devolves into nonsense. --Allegate 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the change, based on the earlier discussions. However, Allegate, please keep in mind that there is no need for comments such as what you just wrote. You'll get a much better response from Wafulz (or any editor, for that matter) if you keep the discussion civil, rather than confrontational. --Ckatzchatspy 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just really frustrated that all of these changes are causing the pages formatting to get messed up. As for the comment, it was slightly appropriate seeing as there ARE several conversations about deleting said links and then he took it upon himself to delete them anyway on top of requesting deletion for the page for seemingly no reason.Allegate 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one discussion. How has link-removal affected the format?-Wafulz 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My 2c on this is that the external links are valid, mainly because the NBC site is fairly difficult to navigate. It is true that, ideally, each episode link would lead to a wikipage about the episode (or more likely a page about each arc instead), which would then contain the direct external links. The step towards that would be to stub those pages out now. Is creating 10+ stub pages containing little more than external links a lesser wikicrime than a list of external links? There is no guarantee that those pages would be fleshed out in a reasonable timeframe - especially the one-shot arcs. Metao 05:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
seems to me that Wafulz has a grudge against this page. he tried the whole delete the page thing, but was shot down in flames. he removed his request for deletion a mere 13 hours (and 47 mins) after he requested it. now he's at it again, trying to remove the links!! did everything that was said in the delete debate go over his head?? i must note, that no matter how many times Wafulz tries to get rid, there will always be someone to revert back! i do believe that the page does give brief plot summaries, so why list that as a reason for you deleting the links?? the argument regards the nissan versa advert is a bit lame, it's one page out of 7/8. also, no where on that first page do i see anything that says you should go buy one, it says introducing the versa, after all. for all we know, maybe that's how the Heroes get about!! (because, you know, they do have to get about...) to be honest, i find advertising pointless, because it doesn't mean i'm going to go buy the product. you like what you like, advertising won't change that (but maybe that's just me...) and also, i bet half of the Heroes fans can't drive (due to being underage!) all in all, the amount of Heroes fans will override everything Wafulz does on this page! maybe Wafulz should take the advice of his own user page, first sentence... Don't be a dick... *nod* 194.221.133.211 09:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know the real demographics of Heroes, nor do you understand how advertising works.-Wafulz 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, don't make this personal. This discussion is not about Wafulz, it is about the article. (By the way, it is important to note that Wafulz hasn't been rude, or aggressive, or insulting in his/her actions regarding this page.) --Ckatzchatspy 09:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ckatz. I'm extremely uncomfortable with this entire article because it feels very promotional. There are no independent sources (the only sources are NBC and DC Comics) and it's effectively a directory of external links, which sets a bad precedent and gives free webspace to NBC and Aspen. Notability is not inherited from parent topics, and this topic doesn't do much to establish independent notability- this article is very poor outside of the context of Heroes (TV series). There's no way to get around that it is just a directory for fans to reach the comics without going on NBC's website. Considering this is an encyclopedia, this article is really straying from the project's goal- it's great that we can provide a convenience for fans, but that's not what we're here for.-Wafulz 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is encyclopedic. If Wafulz doesn't see the merit in the article, he doesn't have to look at it. It's like me ranting that a television show should be taken off the air because I don't see the merit in it personally. Wafulz needs to go look at something that interests him, not spend all his time trying to take away something that interests others because HE personally doesn't find it interesting.Crazydiamond1to9 05:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wafulz is not (currently) debating the merit of the article. He is debating the use of external links. Please assume good faith, talk about the issues, and refrain from making personal attacks. Metao 07:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wafulz is making good points, and he is working in the best interests of Wikipedia. I agree with almost everything he is saying, I just think that having the page is better than having no page, and having the links is better than no links (as was decided in the previous consensus). There is no reason to be offensive. Metao 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Perhaps we should all have a Donut and relax. Or perhaps Waffles.
As for the links. WP:EL, the External linking policy, includes a list of links to be avoided. Part 9 states as follows (emphasis mine):
Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
In my mind, this article is about "such rich media", and the links are justified. That's my take, at least. I am curious, though - have we changed something to make the links more objectionable since we last had consensus on the issue, or did we just let the issue drop? I remember a RFM somewhere in there as well. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, I look at the article's purpose relative to the goals of the project. I don't see much beyond "it's easy for fans to find the comics." The article is not more objectionable since the last MfD- I just didn't know about it back then.-Wafulz 20:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another item to consider, though - Does NBC plan to host these items in perpetuity? Or will some of last year's begin to come offline as printed volumes are published (as is currently planned)?. I'm not necessesarily in favor of a page for each issue, mainly because we'd have an article for comics with fewer than 5 pages of content - they'd never reach much past stub length. Some of the events of the novels can and should be referenced in other articles (Character pages, for example), especially where they cross over or impact the events of the show itself. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons[edit]

I suspect the justification for these edits was that "comics" Season Two began when the last episode of "TV" Season One aired. I agree that there is no indication of seasons in the comics and it should not be included on this page. Although, an "associated episode" might be useful if/when appropriate... Metao 06:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date first published might be enough to cross-reference each comic with an episode, as they are published on Tuesday mornings (the morning after the episode airs in the US). It would also tie novels published during reruns with the context (over the christmas break, for example). ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that 1 - 34 are described as 'season one' in the article itself (the information having been taken from this page), I don't think it's unreasonable to describe 1 - 34 as season one and 35 onwards as season two. John Coxon 13:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, we don't know if that is official or just DC's marketing department. We'll have to wait and see what the actual collection says once it is published (unless, of course, there's something announced prior to that). --Ckatzchatspy 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cover art on Amazon has Heroes across the top of the book, with Volume One at the bottom - which would appear to match Volume One of Heroes. Not sure if that changes anything or not, as far as this list goes. You know, next week's issue will be the 52nd, being one year after the series premiere. In the absence of any direction as to which issues are volume one, volume two, season one, or whatever, we could organize them by year. Calendar dates are a firm and verifiable standard - We know which ones were published in the first year, and which ones are not. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, we're still guessing, improvising, presuming what the actual organization is. The only facts we know are that the issues are numbered, 1 through 51 (so far). We also know that the first 34 have been published in a collection titled "Volume One". We do not, however, know if "Volume One" in that context has any connection with "Volume One" for the series. It might, or it might just be the use of similar terminology to be consistent. (I know this sounds nit-picky, but it is how we are expected to do things. Applying our own system of categorization doesn't meet that standard.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - in the absence of a firm standard for organization, we're left guessing. We should note that comics 1-XX were published as "Volume One", ISBN such and such, but that doesn't mean we should sort the list itself by that criteria. I mention calendar dates and a "year one" heading simply because a list this long (and growing weekly) will only get more cumbersome. Unless we can trick one of the creators into clarifying matters, we may need to sort based on some other criteria - and we cannot do any sorting by subjective criteria, as you say. The only things we know for certain are the names of the comics (we could sort by letter!), the order in which they were released (Comics 1-50, 51-100, etc), and the dates on which they were released (Year One, etc.), and their creators (Alpha by Author? By Artist?). Anything else is guesswork. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Based off of [2] the season switched to #2 with novel #52. Everything before was considered Season 1 and after 2. It may reduce some of the clutter by separating the two into two different pages. -- Marcsin | Talk 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with separating season 1 and 2 here, I'm in the UK and havent seen any of season 2. I've been flicking through links and clicked on the 'Photo of Nathan Petrelli' that goes with #56, and its somethng I really didn't want to see yet. adrianprice1 : October 29th —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianprice1 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With what appears to be an accurate and official reference to the season one/two split of the graphic novels, I have gone ahead and split the article, per WP:BOLD. Season One graphic novels are now found at List of Heroes graphic novels (Season One), while the main article lists season two. Please double check the split, but I think I did it without screwing anything up. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The location of the split looks fine at first glance. Although may have been better to have moved the page first and then created a second season page, just to keep the page histories together. As a secondary thing, the bottom link template should also be updated for season 1 and season 2 pages. Do we want to rename this page to "List of Heroes graphic novels (Season two)"? -- Marcsin | Talk 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I didn't think about the history. If it's critical, we can always back up the changes and redo it. As for the name of this article... I believe that we need a main article under this title. If the article were just the opening paragraphs, though, it wouldn't make much sense. For now, at least, I'd recommend that we keep the main article as is - maybe redirecting List of Heroes graphic novels (Season Two) to the main article, and list the current season's graphic novels. It's also possible that they'll break up season two's novels by Volume 2 and Volume 3 (which begins after christmas), in which case we need to redo everything anyway. So long as we have a main article that clearly shows where the season one novels are, I think the template can remain as-is. There's only one list for Episodes, after all - though, that'll probably change before long, as well. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the redirect from the Season Two list to the main article. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does 'List of heroes graphic novels' redirect to series 2? Wouldn't it be more sensible for it to revert to series 1 because this is the beginning, from there the user can click forward but starting in the middle seems odd.Tony2Times 16:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a legacy of how I did the move. I removed Season One from the main article and archived it in its own. The main article was later renamed to Season Two. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The published graphic novel collection actually ends with The Death of Hana Gitelman, so I would assume volume 2 would start with chapter 35 and end with 62, as that was the comic posted online the day after the last episode of volume 2.71.115.3.71 (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animated videos[edit]

Here are the links to the animated versions:

-Lөvөl 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC), 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC), 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Can someone please tell me the corresponding order to read this with the episodes?--CyberGhostface 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably just look up the original air dates for the season 1 episodes. Many of these were posted between the end of the first season and the beginning of the second, and thus don't correspond to any episode in particular. ♪Xazy♪ 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Order of Release -Lөvөl 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another list, based on data scraped from Wikipedia. 83.145.237.151 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could this perhaps be added to the article’s external links? I probably shouldn’t do that myself to avoid self-promotion. 83.145.237.151 18:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Goose[edit]

I read through the newest comic, and while the man in the comic has the same ability as Bob Bishop, there is no confirmation that it is Bob Bishop. Please do not label him as such until there is verification. QuasiAbstract (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only does he have the same power, He looks exactly the same. The easter eggs don't say who they are a picture of, does that mean they can't be labeled with their names? -Lөvөl 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, its ridicilous, but that's the way the cookie crumbles over here apparently. There's a discussion about this at WP:HEROES if you're curious. Apparently since although all evidence points to him being Bob Bishop, because he's not called Bob Bishop in the story, we can't say that its him.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of comics[edit]

Shouldn't we use the same descriptions as given on the NBC website? QuasiAbstract (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'd probably be considered a copyvio.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yet they're correct, it's not copyvio. we've got to get past this rubbish. it's technically the tagline to the comic, you can't change that. can you imagine wikipedia changing the Jaws tagline?? get over it, use the tagline, otherwise we're going to have the continuing problem of you two (QuasiAbstract and Ghostface) arguing over what gets put in there, like what happened last week. it's bloody childish! 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC) :::on a separate note, Quasi, you updated the page today, without checking, and there were table cells missing. i had to put correct info. why submit if it's wrong?? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself. If you want me to stop acting "childish" then you should probably stop acting in a deliberately inflammatory and confrontational way. All that's going to do is cause more trouble. And for the sake of argument, it'd be more informative for an encyclopedia to have a description of the story rather than some vague tagline, copyvio or not.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that it was wrong, it was left out. QuasiAbstract (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it was still wrong! left out or not, the page was not right, therefore wrong. i didn't actually see you correcting it! it is childish, ghostface, the fact you've just retorted the way you have, proves it. i wasn't being inflammatory (the fact you can be angered by this is worrying) or confrontational (i stated true facts) so get your facts right mate! i'm an outsider looking in on your agruements/debate and i'm only saying it how i see it. you can't take the criticism, then YOU get over yourself. you're ruining this page, going back and forth. it'll probably lead to the page being scrapped. you're only 2 people out of however many heroes fans that use this page. think about the rest of those users. agree on one method and stick to it, simple as. we all can't have our own way, especially here on wikipedia. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to be proactive with the addition of the comic, however I did not have all the info at the time. I'll gather it all first next time. (Not sure about the method comment you made, 194). Please, try to be a bit more civil in the future, even if someone else is not.QuasiAbstract (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. Even though I disagreed with Quasi's actions (I still do) we were both for the most part civil with each other. I have not reinstated my edits and I will not unless I find a reliable source. The discussion has since ended a while ago, and if the page were to be ruined by an argumentative discussion, then Wikipedia is beyond repair. (And its ridicilous to think that the page will be deleted because of it) Jumping in discussions and saying "Get over it, you're acting bloody childish, you two are ruining the page" is only going to make things worse in the long run. I think if anymore "outsiders" came in here, they'd see the only one throwing the fit here is you. So there's no point to be dragging stuff that has long reached its conclusion, "mate".--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, um... I don't know if this has much to do with this particular discussion, but I recently spent some solid hours cleaning up the links and grammar of the description and easter egg sections for both season's graphic novel pages. The format had gone a little off-track as more issues were being added, that is: "character's name" for descriptions and "actor's name (character's name)" for easter eggs. Also, every character is mentioned with their surnames (it doesn't really seem appropriate for Wikipedia to only state a fictional character's first name). Anyway, my main concern was to just clean things up a bit so I hope I haven't done anything wrong in the process! 58.7.93.76 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the article. :) Its appreciated. --CyberGhostface (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we supporting HeroesWiki?[edit]

I'm noticing all these links for HeroesWiki. Are we supporting HeroesWiki? Didn't we determine that HeroesWiki fails WP:EL? I can't remember. Padillah (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Links don't imply any "support" of the site, but where a link is appropriate and useful we should use them. The current consensus was that the site does not fail it. That being said, you also want to weigh different aspects of a given site separately even if it did rather than lumping all content of a site in the same category. It looks like the links that were added here were to biographies of crew that may not be notable enough for inclusion here, but are notable enough for the other site. Checking out the links they were actually pretty useful, so I'd recommend we either change them from links to plain text if we don't feel the people are notable or resume using the Heroes Wiki biographies where they have them. Also since they're interwiki links they're a little different than regular external links and seem, to me at least, to be more appropriate. --Centish (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. I reverted them because it looked like they were put there in place of WP links and if we have a WP link then I think wee should use that instead. Padillah (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. In fact, I found an instance earlier where we did indeed have an article and I replaced it with a regular link here. I personally think the page looks a lot better now without all the invalid links and is an even more useful resource now. --Centish (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we used a template that linked to a page if it existed here and linked to Heroes Wiki if it didn't, I looked for a while but couldn't find one that would work, does anyone know of one? We also probably need a way to clearly mark that the links go to Heroes Wiki, maybe adding a note? -Lөvөl 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we need to mark the links or not since they're interwiki links but I love the template idea. =) So this way it switches to using a Wikipedia link if a page is ever created here for the person. That's fantastic. =) --Centish (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those muliple links clearly all should be removed. A single link to heroes wiki could be appropriate in the external links section if editors believe it meets WP:EL. 2005 (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous discussions that have taken place on the main Heroes page, the consensus is currently that the heroes wiki does satisfy the requirements of WP:EL, so if there's interest in providing biographical information on the various writers/artists that do not currently have articles here it would be appropriate to link to the heroes wiki. Aside from the current method in use which you feel is inappropriate, do you have any suggestions for how we could provide a singular equally valuable link in an external links section that would allow people to view information on the different artists/writers? --Centish (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a cursory look makes pretty clear it doesn't have hundreds of contributors, so it seems not very likely it meets the EL criteria, but I suppose that is minor. Perhaps it can have one link at the end of the article/list explaining that covers the topic in whatever ways it does, but the multiple links are just way, way over the top inappropriate. So, the links throughout the article/list should be removed and one link at the end should direct people to the wiki for more info. 2005 (talk)
Regardless of the guidelines (though I'm not advocating freely ignoring guidelines when I say this) I think the current structure of this page presents the information in an ideal and useful format for people who are looking for it, so I don't personally advocate changing it to a less useful format simply to conform with a general guideline. My personal view is that it's a shortcoming of the guideline itself rather than an issue with the article, but that's simply my opinion and probably isn't shared by enough other people. That being said I managed to find a link at the aforementioned site that would probably be the best place for people actually looking for info on the graphic novel crew to start if there aren't direct links from specific crew members. --Centish (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Useful" is not a criteria when it runs into "encyclopedic". When someone isn't notable enough for an article, we don't link to their crappy personal website from their name. That would be more "useful", but we simply don't link them. Additionally, the blizzard of links in this article is mind-numbing. A single link at the end is more likely to actually not have people run from the article. As for the idea of guidelines, whether they are flawed or not isn't something for every article to decide or not. We don't have a different style guideline for each article. That would make for a very mucked up encyclopedia. Nothing of value is lost following the guideline here if the wiki is linked in the external links section. 2005 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

external links bbq[edit]

I brought up this article's abundant usage of external links at the apropos guideline's talk page; see and discuss here (Wikipedia talk:External links#inline external links). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup[edit]

This list article has several major cleanup issues that need to be addressed. Primarily it has external links in the body of the article which violates the external links guideline: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; this applies to list articles as well." Secondly the quality of the external links also violate that guideline: links normally to be avoided include... "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace..." and "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors...". Third, "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." Fourth, year dates are wikilinked in what appears to violate the style guide. Fifth, some of the inappropriate links are even duplicated, which also violates the style guide of only linking something in its first use rather than every single time the word is used. In short, a very large number of hyperlinks should be removed. 2005 (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Taking a good hard look at the page I have to ask; Does every occurrence of MiB need to be a link? And every occurrence of the authors? And the dates? Few readers will come here with the idea of finding out what else happened on the same day NBC published a web comic. I'm going to be bold and get rid of a few of the completely extraneous links to everything. Padillah (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the Mebibyte links were added automatically by a bot. To me it looks like the Manual of Style suggests dates be linked so they could easily be read by others, but I could be wrong. -Lөvөl 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By dates I specifically meant years... we don't need to link 2008 once, let alone thirty times. 2005 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. I cleaned-up the date links and the Story and Art over-links. Next is every link to every Heroes character. I think we can get that down to one a piece. padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Graphic Novels[edit]

Either remove them completely, (because apparently links are bad) or keep on updating, because I come to this wikipedia page every tuesday to read the latest graphic novel. If you guys 'clean up' this article and remove the links, please leave an external link so I can find the graphic novels. 'Cause I've been to the NBC Heroes website, and I get lost everytime. Dragon queen4ever (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep the links. I see no harm in linking to freely published websites. I hope we are not linking directly to the PDF, that just seems like we're doing an "end-run" around NBC. Having said that I second the feeling of being lost on NBC's web site - that thing is poorly designed. Padillah (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easter egg of chapter 30[edit]

It seems too big for only one picture. Maybe there is another file or several files hidden or embedded in the 41.6MB .pdf file? I tried changing .pdf to .zip and to .rar, it doesn't work. Video or audio file(s) ? I tried also .avi and .mpg, error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.0.45 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Links[edit]

NBC has removed the comics from their website, so all the links (which look like they were decided to stay) no longer work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.83.56 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of Heroes graphic novels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of Heroes graphic novels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Heroes graphic novels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Heroes_graphic_novels&oldid=1203648270"