Talk:Portal:Characters/Season Three - Revision history

imported>Tanderix: /* Recurring? */

2010-02-15T19:40:43Z

Recurring?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 15 February 2010
(No difference)

imported>Tanderix: /* Recurring? */

2010-02-15T19:40:43Z

Recurring?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 15 February 2010
Line 35:		Line 35:

	How many appearances make a character recurring again? --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 14:36, 15 February 2010 (EST)		How many appearances make a character recurring again? --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 14:36, 15 February 2010 (EST)
			* In season 3, 4 appearances...see [[Help:Characters#Recurring_Characters\|here]] --{{User:Tanderix/sign}} 20:40 (italy), 15 February 2010

imported>Mc hammark: /* Recurring? */ new section

2010-02-15T19:36:13Z

Recurring?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 15 February 2010
Line 31:		Line 31:
	* It's been discussed in the past, especially when we were designing and setting up the wiki a few years ago. Ultimately, there are two schools of thought, and neither is more correct than the other. Personally, I have really grown to enjoy the episodic summaries, as I find it really hard to find the information I'm looking for on a site like Lostpedia or Battlestar Wiki, when the summaries are chronological. When I watch an episode, I want to remember what happened in a previous episode, and it helps to have those episodes clearly delineated. It's not a perfect system, but it works if you know how to use it. It's also very helpful for people who might not be "caught up" with the series yet--either they live in other countries, or they're watching the series on DVD, or they record the show on DVR and watch it several weeks later (''Heroes'' is one of the top 5 DVR'ed shows, I believe). That way, people won't be spoiled with a bunch of backstory if it's given out of order, they can simply read the episodes that have already aired. Additionally, ''Heroes'' has alternate futures (something ''Lost'' decidedly does not have), and very much follows a nonlinear storytelling format (something it has in common with ''Lost'') but the timeline is not very exact (unlike ''Lost''). Alternate futures make it very difficult to put things in chronological order, and since the timeline on ''Heroes'' is not very exact, it's sometimes hard to place past events in chronological order. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 10:54, 6 January 2010 (EST)		* It's been discussed in the past, especially when we were designing and setting up the wiki a few years ago. Ultimately, there are two schools of thought, and neither is more correct than the other. Personally, I have really grown to enjoy the episodic summaries, as I find it really hard to find the information I'm looking for on a site like Lostpedia or Battlestar Wiki, when the summaries are chronological. When I watch an episode, I want to remember what happened in a previous episode, and it helps to have those episodes clearly delineated. It's not a perfect system, but it works if you know how to use it. It's also very helpful for people who might not be "caught up" with the series yet--either they live in other countries, or they're watching the series on DVD, or they record the show on DVR and watch it several weeks later (''Heroes'' is one of the top 5 DVR'ed shows, I believe). That way, people won't be spoiled with a bunch of backstory if it's given out of order, they can simply read the episodes that have already aired. Additionally, ''Heroes'' has alternate futures (something ''Lost'' decidedly does not have), and very much follows a nonlinear storytelling format (something it has in common with ''Lost'') but the timeline is not very exact (unlike ''Lost''). Alternate futures make it very difficult to put things in chronological order, and since the timeline on ''Heroes'' is not very exact, it's sometimes hard to place past events in chronological order. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 10:54, 6 January 2010 (EST)
	** Thx, I didn't know that and I understand why it was decided three years ago when the series had 10 episodes instead of over 80. But now there are too much informations to handle it that way. If you want to know wheter Angela was on Adams side at first 30 years ago you realy have to searach for a while until you find that information in [[Powerless]]. Even if you want to find basic information like why she was willing to kill Nathan before s1 or how she managed to "kill" Arthur the first time you realy have to look hard till you find the episode. If you want to remember what happened last episode you read its summery. It maybe hard to put the timeline in the exact order in some cases, but overall it should be clear. Even on Lost some events are not exact dated and their order is unknown. And despite Lost does have alternate pasts they handled it very well. Lostpedia topped Wired's list of best non-Wikipedia "pedias" in June 2008... I don't want to annoy, but maybe that decision should be reconsidered after all those years... --[[User:Sebi\|Sebi]] 12:18, 6 January 2010 (EST)		** Thx, I didn't know that and I understand why it was decided three years ago when the series had 10 episodes instead of over 80. But now there are too much informations to handle it that way. If you want to know wheter Angela was on Adams side at first 30 years ago you realy have to searach for a while until you find that information in [[Powerless]]. Even if you want to find basic information like why she was willing to kill Nathan before s1 or how she managed to "kill" Arthur the first time you realy have to look hard till you find the episode. If you want to remember what happened last episode you read its summery. It maybe hard to put the timeline in the exact order in some cases, but overall it should be clear. Even on Lost some events are not exact dated and their order is unknown. And despite Lost does have alternate pasts they handled it very well. Lostpedia topped Wired's list of best non-Wikipedia "pedias" in June 2008... I don't want to annoy, but maybe that decision should be reconsidered after all those years... --[[User:Sebi\|Sebi]] 12:18, 6 January 2010 (EST)

			== Recurring? ==

			How many appearances make a character recurring again? --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 14:36, 15 February 2010 (EST)

imported>Sebi: /* Articles hard to read */

2010-01-06T17:18:30Z

Articles hard to read

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 6 January 2010
Line 30:		Line 30:
	--[[User:Sebi\|Sebi]] 10:05, 6 January 2010 (EST)		--[[User:Sebi\|Sebi]] 10:05, 6 January 2010 (EST)
	* It's been discussed in the past, especially when we were designing and setting up the wiki a few years ago. Ultimately, there are two schools of thought, and neither is more correct than the other. Personally, I have really grown to enjoy the episodic summaries, as I find it really hard to find the information I'm looking for on a site like Lostpedia or Battlestar Wiki, when the summaries are chronological. When I watch an episode, I want to remember what happened in a previous episode, and it helps to have those episodes clearly delineated. It's not a perfect system, but it works if you know how to use it. It's also very helpful for people who might not be "caught up" with the series yet--either they live in other countries, or they're watching the series on DVD, or they record the show on DVR and watch it several weeks later (''Heroes'' is one of the top 5 DVR'ed shows, I believe). That way, people won't be spoiled with a bunch of backstory if it's given out of order, they can simply read the episodes that have already aired. Additionally, ''Heroes'' has alternate futures (something ''Lost'' decidedly does not have), and very much follows a nonlinear storytelling format (something it has in common with ''Lost'') but the timeline is not very exact (unlike ''Lost''). Alternate futures make it very difficult to put things in chronological order, and since the timeline on ''Heroes'' is not very exact, it's sometimes hard to place past events in chronological order. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 10:54, 6 January 2010 (EST)		* It's been discussed in the past, especially when we were designing and setting up the wiki a few years ago. Ultimately, there are two schools of thought, and neither is more correct than the other. Personally, I have really grown to enjoy the episodic summaries, as I find it really hard to find the information I'm looking for on a site like Lostpedia or Battlestar Wiki, when the summaries are chronological. When I watch an episode, I want to remember what happened in a previous episode, and it helps to have those episodes clearly delineated. It's not a perfect system, but it works if you know how to use it. It's also very helpful for people who might not be "caught up" with the series yet--either they live in other countries, or they're watching the series on DVD, or they record the show on DVR and watch it several weeks later (''Heroes'' is one of the top 5 DVR'ed shows, I believe). That way, people won't be spoiled with a bunch of backstory if it's given out of order, they can simply read the episodes that have already aired. Additionally, ''Heroes'' has alternate futures (something ''Lost'' decidedly does not have), and very much follows a nonlinear storytelling format (something it has in common with ''Lost'') but the timeline is not very exact (unlike ''Lost''). Alternate futures make it very difficult to put things in chronological order, and since the timeline on ''Heroes'' is not very exact, it's sometimes hard to place past events in chronological order. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 10:54, 6 January 2010 (EST)
			** Thx, I didn't know that and I understand why it was decided three years ago when the series had 10 episodes instead of over 80. But now there are too much informations to handle it that way. If you want to know wheter Angela was on Adams side at first 30 years ago you realy have to searach for a while until you find that information in [[Powerless]]. Even if you want to find basic information like why she was willing to kill Nathan before s1 or how she managed to "kill" Arthur the first time you realy have to look hard till you find the episode. If you want to remember what happened last episode you read its summery. It maybe hard to put the timeline in the exact order in some cases, but overall it should be clear. Even on Lost some events are not exact dated and their order is unknown. And despite Lost does have alternate pasts they handled it very well. Lostpedia topped Wired's list of best non-Wikipedia "pedias" in June 2008... I don't want to annoy, but maybe that decision should be reconsidered after all those years... --[[User:Sebi\|Sebi]] 12:18, 6 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Articles hard to read */

2010-01-06T15:54:08Z

Articles hard to read

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 6 January 2010
Line 29:		Line 29:
	I don't know where to put these and I am not sure whetere this was discussed before: Don't you think that the chrakters biographys should be chronological? If you just want to read the backstory of Sylar you have to read all the episodes he appeared in to put his past together. It is realy hard and annoying for newcommers like me to read it. On Lostpedia it is chronological so that you can read the history of any person from birth to death. Compare the articles of [[Angela Petrelli]] with the article of Juliet ([http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Juliet]). It is much much better to read.... I wanted to make Heroeswiki like Lostpedia in that aspect but didn't want to start without permission ;-) Sorry for my english :-)		I don't know where to put these and I am not sure whetere this was discussed before: Don't you think that the chrakters biographys should be chronological? If you just want to read the backstory of Sylar you have to read all the episodes he appeared in to put his past together. It is realy hard and annoying for newcommers like me to read it. On Lostpedia it is chronological so that you can read the history of any person from birth to death. Compare the articles of [[Angela Petrelli]] with the article of Juliet ([http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Juliet]). It is much much better to read.... I wanted to make Heroeswiki like Lostpedia in that aspect but didn't want to start without permission ;-) Sorry for my english :-)
	--[[User:Sebi\|Sebi]] 10:05, 6 January 2010 (EST)		--[[User:Sebi\|Sebi]] 10:05, 6 January 2010 (EST)
			* It's been discussed in the past, especially when we were designing and setting up the wiki a few years ago. Ultimately, there are two schools of thought, and neither is more correct than the other. Personally, I have really grown to enjoy the episodic summaries, as I find it really hard to find the information I'm looking for on a site like Lostpedia or Battlestar Wiki, when the summaries are chronological. When I watch an episode, I want to remember what happened in a previous episode, and it helps to have those episodes clearly delineated. It's not a perfect system, but it works if you know how to use it. It's also very helpful for people who might not be "caught up" with the series yet--either they live in other countries, or they're watching the series on DVD, or they record the show on DVR and watch it several weeks later (''Heroes'' is one of the top 5 DVR'ed shows, I believe). That way, people won't be spoiled with a bunch of backstory if it's given out of order, they can simply read the episodes that have already aired. Additionally, ''Heroes'' has alternate futures (something ''Lost'' decidedly does not have), and very much follows a nonlinear storytelling format (something it has in common with ''Lost'') but the timeline is not very exact (unlike ''Lost''). Alternate futures make it very difficult to put things in chronological order, and since the timeline on ''Heroes'' is not very exact, it's sometimes hard to place past events in chronological order. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 10:54, 6 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Sebi at 15:05, 6 January 2010

2010-01-06T15:05:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 6 January 2010
Line 24:		Line 24:
	* Alright that's fair. Sorry, I'm just getting into being a Heroes Wiki editor or whatever, so I guess I shouldn't be saying what is and what isn't used.--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 17:08, 3 October 2009 (EDT)		* Alright that's fair. Sorry, I'm just getting into being a Heroes Wiki editor or whatever, so I guess I shouldn't be saying what is and what isn't used.--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 17:08, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
	** No, you're fine in making suggestions. And as I said, it's actually quite a nice suggestion, but one that I just don't think is the ''best''. :) Personally, I always appreciate when editors suggest new things. The new suggestions don't always stick, but many times they do, and they help make the wiki better. Keep it up! :) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:34, 3 October 2009 (EDT)		** No, you're fine in making suggestions. And as I said, it's actually quite a nice suggestion, but one that I just don't think is the ''best''. :) Personally, I always appreciate when editors suggest new things. The new suggestions don't always stick, but many times they do, and they help make the wiki better. Keep it up! :) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:34, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

			== Articles hard to read ==

			I don't know where to put these and I am not sure whetere this was discussed before: Don't you think that the chrakters biographys should be chronological? If you just want to read the backstory of Sylar you have to read all the episodes he appeared in to put his past together. It is realy hard and annoying for newcommers like me to read it. On Lostpedia it is chronological so that you can read the history of any person from birth to death. Compare the articles of [[Angela Petrelli]] with the article of Juliet ([http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Juliet]). It is much much better to read.... I wanted to make Heroeswiki like Lostpedia in that aspect but didn't want to start without permission ;-) Sorry for my english :-)
			--[[User:Sebi\|Sebi]] 10:05, 6 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Chronological? */

2009-10-03T22:34:23Z

Chronological?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 3 October 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	* That's a good idea. My concern is that we seem to have many arguments about what constitutes an appearance and what doesn't. We've never had an argument about which name comes first or second alphabetically. Plus, I use the portals all the time to find characters and actors. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:42, 3 October 2009 (EDT)		* That's a good idea. My concern is that we seem to have many arguments about what constitutes an appearance and what doesn't. We've never had an argument about which name comes first or second alphabetically. Plus, I use the portals all the time to find characters and actors. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:42, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
	* Alright that's fair. Sorry, I'm just getting into being a Heroes Wiki editor or whatever, so I guess I shouldn't be saying what is and what isn't used.--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 17:08, 3 October 2009 (EDT)		* Alright that's fair. Sorry, I'm just getting into being a Heroes Wiki editor or whatever, so I guess I shouldn't be saying what is and what isn't used.--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 17:08, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
			** No, you're fine in making suggestions. And as I said, it's actually quite a nice suggestion, but one that I just don't think is the ''best''. :) Personally, I always appreciate when editors suggest new things. The new suggestions don't always stick, but many times they do, and they help make the wiki better. Keep it up! :) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:34, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

imported>Kooliki: /* Chronological? */

2009-10-03T21:08:00Z

Chronological?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 3 October 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Hey so I was thinking maybe we should order characters chronologically according to appearance as opposed to alphabetically? I mean an alphabetical organization provides easier access to the characters but if you know who you're looking for why would you be looking in the portal in the first place rather than just going to the search bar? I was thinking that it would provide a better view of the timeline of the show. And if not for characters, what about events?--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 16:32, 3 October 2009 (EDT)		Hey so I was thinking maybe we should order characters chronologically according to appearance as opposed to alphabetically? I mean an alphabetical organization provides easier access to the characters but if you know who you're looking for why would you be looking in the portal in the first place rather than just going to the search bar? I was thinking that it would provide a better view of the timeline of the show. And if not for characters, what about events?--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 16:32, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
	* That's a good idea. My concern is that we seem to have many arguments about what constitutes an appearance and what doesn't. We've never had an argument about which name comes first or second alphabetically. Plus, I use the portals all the time to find characters and actors. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:42, 3 October 2009 (EDT)		* That's a good idea. My concern is that we seem to have many arguments about what constitutes an appearance and what doesn't. We've never had an argument about which name comes first or second alphabetically. Plus, I use the portals all the time to find characters and actors. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:42, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
			* Alright that's fair. Sorry, I'm just getting into being a Heroes Wiki editor or whatever, so I guess I shouldn't be saying what is and what isn't used.--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 17:08, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Chronological? */

2009-10-03T20:42:44Z

Chronological?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:42, 3 October 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Hey so I was thinking maybe we should order characters chronologically according to appearance as opposed to alphabetically? I mean an alphabetical organization provides easier access to the characters but if you know who you're looking for why would you be looking in the portal in the first place rather than just going to the search bar? I was thinking that it would provide a better view of the timeline of the show. And if not for characters, what about events?--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 16:32, 3 October 2009 (EDT)		Hey so I was thinking maybe we should order characters chronologically according to appearance as opposed to alphabetically? I mean an alphabetical organization provides easier access to the characters but if you know who you're looking for why would you be looking in the portal in the first place rather than just going to the search bar? I was thinking that it would provide a better view of the timeline of the show. And if not for characters, what about events?--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 16:32, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
			* That's a good idea. My concern is that we seem to have many arguments about what constitutes an appearance and what doesn't. We've never had an argument about which name comes first or second alphabetically. Plus, I use the portals all the time to find characters and actors. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:42, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

imported>Kooliki: /* Chronological? */ new section

2009-10-03T20:32:08Z

Chronological?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 3 October 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:
	** Actually, was I was wonder is what is the difference between a supporting character, a recurring character and a minor character. There isn't a definition for these terms located in the category pages. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 10:03, 17 October 2008 (EDT)		** Actually, was I was wonder is what is the difference between a supporting character, a recurring character and a minor character. There isn't a definition for these terms located in the category pages. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 10:03, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
	*** Funny you should mention that. We were just discussing it at [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#About characters?]]. Personally, I think we should do away with the two "middle" categories which ''always'' cause confusion and debates each season. I think we should go with main characters (designated by NBC), recurring characters (characters who have made, say, three or more appearances, or whatever we decide as a community), and minor characters (for everybody else). Likewise, we would trim our actors down to corresponding parts: principal cast, supporting actors, and guest stars. After everything is defined, [[Help:Characters]] would be a good idea. Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions at [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#About characters?\|this discussion link]]. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 14:09, 17 October 2008 (EDT)		*** Funny you should mention that. We were just discussing it at [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#About characters?]]. Personally, I think we should do away with the two "middle" categories which ''always'' cause confusion and debates each season. I think we should go with main characters (designated by NBC), recurring characters (characters who have made, say, three or more appearances, or whatever we decide as a community), and minor characters (for everybody else). Likewise, we would trim our actors down to corresponding parts: principal cast, supporting actors, and guest stars. After everything is defined, [[Help:Characters]] would be a good idea. Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions at [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#About characters?\|this discussion link]]. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 14:09, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

			== Chronological? ==

			Hey so I was thinking maybe we should order characters chronologically according to appearance as opposed to alphabetically? I mean an alphabetical organization provides easier access to the characters but if you know who you're looking for why would you be looking in the portal in the first place rather than just going to the search bar? I was thinking that it would provide a better view of the timeline of the show. And if not for characters, what about events?--[[User:Kooliki\|Kooliki]] 16:32, 3 October 2009 (EDT)