I kind of feel like 4 or 5 episodes before the end of the first season is the wrong time to start a show thread.

With Sci-Fi's crazy scheduling, though, almost all of their shows are like that.

We have no thread dedicated to a single Sci-Fi channel show. I'd say the same about any show like that. What's your point?

I have no idea of the general appeal of Supernatural--is it different for you too?

I don't watch Supernatural.

Actually, I do think that Supernatural and Eureka could definitely justify/sustain their own threads... but that's not the battle I've chosen to fight. The first is a harder sell than Heroes (IMHO) especially as it's not as close to the historial genre focus of this community. (If we were the X-Fileistas, it would be.) The latter is on an extended hiatus (until sometime, hopefully, this summer?) so I don't see being able to drum up enough enthusiasm to get a vote won.

What I see differently about Heroes is the broadness of its appeal, to a very wide swathe of Buffistas, so that it gets easier to maintain a conversation about and ties our common experience together in a pretty genre bow.

Having a show in its own thread makes it much easier for a historical retrospective, by members who have held back because they for some reason weren't following the show as it was broadcast -- I know that from going back over watch-n-posts in other shows.

As for when to start having a thread about a show -- well, it would have been damn premature to start a thread about a show of semi-unknown provenance (i.e. no Whedonverse or Whedon-adjacent creators). Wonderfalls, other Minearesque projects, for sure -- but I was barely whelmed by the Heroes pilot. It takes a while for a show like this one to show its virtues off when so much depends upon sustainable worldbuilding and plotting.

FWIW, did the Veronica Mars thread start with the first show?

(Also, did we ever have a Joan of Arcadia thread?)

My only concern with the timing is that we would open the thread, have a flurry of activity and then have it sit dormant all summer. Which would not be terrible, and may not even happen if the season finale leaves enough to dicuss/speculate on for the inter-season hiatus. It's just a concern, not an objection.

VM came about after it had been renewed for a 2nd season. Lost, I believe, as well. Notably, Supernatural is still on the bubble for a 3rd season, which is one reason not to propose it its own thread at least for a few weeks yet. Heroes got picked up for its 1st full season in October last year, and renewed, like, when's the first day you're allowed to renew a show?

(I think the generally-accepted lesson of Wonderfalls et al. is that a thread doesn't get a show until we can project it to survive into the next season; that's why Tim's show Blonde v. Serial Killer (memfault the real title) was talked about in Minearverse (until it was cancelled).)

Interesting list of shows; Dresden Files and Torchwood, I’m unfamiliar with. Are folks here not watching Jericho? I'm not terribly familiar with it, but I'd think it was a natural fit here. I didn't know House and The Office discussions sometimes went on in Boxed Set. Cool! Huh, Sci Fi channel = premium cable where I live. The Boxed Set blurb doesn’t mention Eureka; I thought it was on Showtime. No premium cable at my house, as you can tell.

My main point is to say that I, and perhaps others, who knows, are part time Luddites. I will not be back at a computer until Monday late afternoon, so whatever happens, please be sure to keep voting open ‘till Wed.

I didn't know House and The Office discussions sometimes went on in Boxed Set.

They don't. Neither are considered genre tv. Discussion of both should go in Natter (though I've gotta be honest, where are people talking about The Office? I haven't seen it, but I'm also a brazillion posts behind in Natter...)

I'm watching Jericho -- which came back from hiatus better. And we've had very brief discussions of it in Natter.

Actually, I do think that Supernatural and Eureka could definitely justify/sustain their own threads...

SPN, maybe, though I don't watch. I like Eureka, and love Colin comig around but I wouldn't see it as a thread - there's some character continutiy, but not show wise, which is key.

Also, since it came up, as one of the TAR, Survivor, etc. watchers, I'm perfectly happy for that to stay in Natter. GA, House, Bones too.

I don't watch Heroes, so it's tougher. But I mostly stay out of Boxed Set anymore, because there's just too much going on there.

I'd be on board with a SciFi thread, but I want a more specific description for whatever the other thread would be - Heroes, Lost?, are there others were talking about - so that if new shows erupt, there's some good sense of where they go.

Hey, lightbulb thread is open! Well might as well drop in my two cents while I'm poking my lurky head in.

For me any tv thread that isn't specific to a particular show is going to be about as useful as Natter for discussing tv episodes. Because all I'm going to do is threadsuck and word-find to read discussion on whichever show(s) I'm watching, and it's unlikely I would be watching every show discussed in the thread (with the exception of Minearverse). In fact, I prefer non-thread specific shows to be in Natter so I don't have to bother subscribing and reading multi-show threads. In short, grouping shows together by genre, channel, or demographic is not going to do anything for me (or the 400 lurkers who think just like me).

That being said, I appreciate that the board must struggle between the proliferationists and anti-liferationists in order to keep thread sprawl to a minimum and only after a reasonably strong showing of support. I just wonder if creating mash-up threads as a concession to both sides merely ends up satisfying the few while causing much teeth-gritting of the many.

FTR, my selfish vote is yay because Heroes is definitely Buffista thread-worthy.