Talk:Portal:References to Other Works - Revision history

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Split */

2009-03-17T01:08:12Z

Split

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:08, 17 March 2009
(No difference)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Split */

2009-03-17T01:08:12Z

Split

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 17 March 2009
Line 46:		Line 46:
	* [[Psycho]]		* [[Psycho]]
	* [[Rain Man]]		* [[Rain Man]]
⚫	* [[Star Trek]]
	* [[Star Wars]]		* [[Star Wars]]
	\|		\|
Line 69:		Line 68:
	* [[Role-playing games]]		* [[Role-playing games]]
	* [[Soma]]		* [[Soma]]
		⚫	* [[Star Trek]]
	* [[A Tale of Two Cities]]		* [[A Tale of Two Cities]]
	\|}		\|}
Line 76:		Line 76:
	*** Or maybe just make it "References to Film and Television"? Just a suggestion. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:44, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		*** Or maybe just make it "References to Film and Television"? Just a suggestion. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:44, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
	**** that works too. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 20:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		**** that works too. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 20:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
			***** Good call on ''Star Trek''. I moved it over to "Other". If we put all references to film and TV in one portal, there would be 13 articles there, but only 8 in "Other". I'm fine with keeping ''Star Trek'' in other since it really is a multimedia franchise. I think my thinking originally was to consider it a TV show... I think "Other" is fine for now. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

imported>SacValleyDweller: /* Split */

2009-03-17T00:55:12Z

Split

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 17 March 2009
Line 75:		Line 75:
	** '''Agree'''. I'd put Star Trek in Other works and not in films, since it's more TV show than film. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 20:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		** '''Agree'''. I'd put Star Trek in Other works and not in films, since it's more TV show than film. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 20:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
	*** Or maybe just make it "References to Film and Television"? Just a suggestion. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:44, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		*** Or maybe just make it "References to Film and Television"? Just a suggestion. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:44, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
			**** that works too. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 20:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

imported>Whizzles: /* Split */

2009-03-17T00:44:04Z

Split

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, 17 March 2009
Line 74:		Line 74:
	*Makes sense to me. It does look really cluttered the way it is now. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:36, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		*Makes sense to me. It does look really cluttered the way it is now. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:36, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
	** '''Agree'''. I'd put Star Trek in Other works and not in films, since it's more TV show than film. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 20:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		** '''Agree'''. I'd put Star Trek in Other works and not in films, since it's more TV show than film. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 20:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
			*** Or maybe just make it "References to Film and Television"? Just a suggestion. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:44, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

imported>SacValleyDweller: /* Split */ Agree

2009-03-17T00:42:03Z

Split: Agree

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:42, 17 March 2009
Line 73:		Line 73:
	We could certainly split it beyond that (References to Television, References to Literature, References to Music), but I think we should keep it simple for now, and this does the trick. It also makes the portals nice and even. Any thoughts? -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 20:25, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		We could certainly split it beyond that (References to Television, References to Literature, References to Music), but I think we should keep it simple for now, and this does the trick. It also makes the portals nice and even. Any thoughts? -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 20:25, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
	*Makes sense to me. It does look really cluttered the way it is now. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:36, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		*Makes sense to me. It does look really cluttered the way it is now. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:36, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
			** '''Agree'''. I'd put Star Trek in Other works and not in films, since it's more TV show than film. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 20:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

imported>Whizzles: /* Split */

2009-03-17T00:36:02Z

Split

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:36, 17 March 2009
Line 72:		Line 72:
	\|}		\|}
	We could certainly split it beyond that (References to Television, References to Literature, References to Music), but I think we should keep it simple for now, and this does the trick. It also makes the portals nice and even. Any thoughts? -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 20:25, 16 March 2009 (EDT)		We could certainly split it beyond that (References to Television, References to Literature, References to Music), but I think we should keep it simple for now, and this does the trick. It also makes the portals nice and even. Any thoughts? -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 20:25, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
			*Makes sense to me. It does look really cluttered the way it is now. --[[User:Whizzles\|Whizzles]] 20:36, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Split */ new section

2009-03-17T00:25:12Z

Split: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:25, 17 March 2009
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:I think, being that Sylar is also the son of a watchmaker, like Dr. Manhattan, we can assume that any references are intentional, especially one that is so similar. [[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)		:I think, being that Sylar is also the son of a watchmaker, like Dr. Manhattan, we can assume that any references are intentional, especially one that is so similar. [[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)
	:: I don't think we can assume that references are intentional unless they are explicit or confirmed. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:48, 1 January 2009 (EST)		:: I don't think we can assume that references are intentional unless they are explicit or confirmed. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:48, 1 January 2009 (EST)

			== Split ==

			I suggest we split this portal into "References to Films", "References to Comics", and "References to Other Works".
			{\|class=wikitable
			\|-
			! References to Films !! References to Comics !! References to Other Works
			\|-valign=top
			\|
			* [[Akira]]
			* [[Back to the Future]]
			* [[Batman]]
			* [[The Breakfast Club]]
			* [[A Clockwork Orange]]
			* [[Fight Club]]
			* [[Nosferatu]]
			* [[Psycho]]
			* [[Rain Man]]
			* [[Star Trek]]
			* [[Star Wars]]
			\|
			* [[Aspen Comics]]
			* [[DC Comics]]
			* [[Fantastic Four]]
			* [[The Hulk]]
			* [[JoJo's Bizarre Adventure]]
			* [[Marvel Comics]]
			* [[Pikachu]]
			* [[Spider-Man]]
			* [[Superman]]
			* [[X-Men]]
			\|
			* [[Back Dorm Boys]]
			* [[Ray Bradbury]]
			* [[Jazz]]
			* [[Las Vegas (TV series)]]
			* [[Mazinger robots]]
			* [[Mr. Roboto]]
			* [[NBC]]
			* [[Role-playing games]]
			* [[Soma]]
			* [[A Tale of Two Cities]]
			\|}
			We could certainly split it beyond that (References to Television, References to Literature, References to Music), but I think we should keep it simple for now, and this does the trick. It also makes the portals nice and even. Any thoughts? -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 20:25, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: Talk:Portal:References to other works moved to Talk:Portal:References to Other Works: standard caps for portal

2009-03-17T00:13:17Z

Talk:Portal:References to other works moved to Talk:Portal:References to Other Works: standard caps for portal

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 17 March 2009
(No difference)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* 'Watchmen' Reference */

2009-01-02T00:48:43Z

'Watchmen' Reference

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 2 January 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	::He wasn't reduced to a skeleton, but we could see his skull through his skin. I fail to see how that's a reference to ''Watchmen''; seeing one's bones through one's skin whilst being electrocuted is a common effect in fiction. It would also help, JHero, if you posted an actual link to the comic's panel or at least described what was in it, instead of limiting the number of people who would understand your supposed reference to ''Watchmen'' fans. <small>'''Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ [[User:Thrashmeister\|U]] \| [[User_talk:Thrashmeister\|T]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Thrashmeister\|C]] ]'''</small> 13:32, 1 January 2009 (EST)		::He wasn't reduced to a skeleton, but we could see his skull through his skin. I fail to see how that's a reference to ''Watchmen''; seeing one's bones through one's skin whilst being electrocuted is a common effect in fiction. It would also help, JHero, if you posted an actual link to the comic's panel or at least described what was in it, instead of limiting the number of people who would understand your supposed reference to ''Watchmen'' fans. <small>'''Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ [[User:Thrashmeister\|U]] \| [[User_talk:Thrashmeister\|T]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Thrashmeister\|C]] ]'''</small> 13:32, 1 January 2009 (EST)
	:I think, being that Sylar is also the son of a watchmaker, like Dr. Manhattan, we can assume that any references are intentional, especially one that is so similar. [[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)		:I think, being that Sylar is also the son of a watchmaker, like Dr. Manhattan, we can assume that any references are intentional, especially one that is so similar. [[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)
			:: I don't think we can assume that references are intentional unless they are explicit or confirmed. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:48, 1 January 2009 (EST)

imported>Thrashmeister: /* 'Watchmen' Reference */

2009-01-01T18:35:43Z

'Watchmen' Reference

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 1 January 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:
	[[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:14, 30 December 2008 (EST)		[[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:14, 30 December 2008 (EST)
	:Problem is, he's not reduced to a skeleton, he is badly burned, but I don't remember seeing any bones. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 10:58, 30 December 2008 (EST)		:Problem is, he's not reduced to a skeleton, he is badly burned, but I don't remember seeing any bones. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 10:58, 30 December 2008 (EST)
	::He wasn't reduced to a skeleton, but we could see his skull through his skin. I fail to see how that's a reference to ''Watchmen''; seeing one's bones through one's skin whilst being electrocuted is a common effect in fiction. <small>'''Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ [[User:Thrashmeister\|U]] \| [[User_talk:Thrashmeister\|T]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Thrashmeister\|C]] ]'''</small> 13:32, 1 January 2009 (EST)		::He wasn't reduced to a skeleton, but we could see his skull through his skin. I fail to see how that's a reference to ''Watchmen''; seeing one's bones through one's skin whilst being electrocuted is a common effect in fiction. It would also help, JHero, if you posted an actual link to the comic's panel or at least described what was in it, instead of limiting the number of people who would understand your supposed reference to ''Watchmen'' fans. <small>'''Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ [[User:Thrashmeister\|U]] \| [[User_talk:Thrashmeister\|T]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Thrashmeister\|C]] ]'''</small> 13:32, 1 January 2009 (EST)
	:I think, being that Sylar is also the son of a watchmaker, like Dr. Manhattan, we can assume that any references are intentional, especially one that is so similar. [[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)		:I think, being that Sylar is also the son of a watchmaker, like Dr. Manhattan, we can assume that any references are intentional, especially one that is so similar. [[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 1 January 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:
	[[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:14, 30 December 2008 (EST)		[[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:14, 30 December 2008 (EST)
	:Problem is, he's not reduced to a skeleton, he is badly burned, but I don't remember seeing any bones. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 10:58, 30 December 2008 (EST)		:Problem is, he's not reduced to a skeleton, he is badly burned, but I don't remember seeing any bones. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 10:58, 30 December 2008 (EST)
	::He wasn't reduced to a skeleton, but we could see his skull through his skin. I fail to see how that's a reference to ''Watchmen''; seeing one's bones through one's skin whilst being electrocuted is a common effect in fiction. <small>'''Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ [[User:Thrashmeister\|U]] \| [[User_talk:Thrashmeister\|T]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Thrashmeister\|C]] ]'''</small> 13:32, 1 January 2009 (EST)		::He wasn't reduced to a skeleton, but we could see his skull through his skin. I fail to see how that's a reference to ''Watchmen''; seeing one's bones through one's skin whilst being electrocuted is a common effect in fiction. It would also help, JHero, if you posted an actual link to the comic's panel or at least described what was in it, instead of limiting the number of people who would understand your supposed reference to ''Watchmen'' fans. <small>'''Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ [[User:Thrashmeister\|U]] \| [[User_talk:Thrashmeister\|T]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Thrashmeister\|C]] ]'''</small> 13:32, 1 January 2009 (EST)
	:I think, being that Sylar is also the son of a watchmaker, like Dr. Manhattan, we can assume that any references are intentional, especially one that is so similar. [[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)		:I think, being that Sylar is also the son of a watchmaker, like Dr. Manhattan, we can assume that any references are intentional, especially one that is so similar. [[User:JHero\|JHero]] <small>[[User talk:JHero\|(talk)]]</small> 10:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)