Talk:The Company/Season One

The history here needs a lot of work for grammar and style (particularly perspective and person). One consistent problem I've seen throughout is a problem with antecedents. For example, the Genesis history read "After getting his father's old taxi driver job, Mr. Bennet takes a ride in his taxi." Mr. Bennet did not get his father's old taxi job--Mohinder did.

The paragraphs should also be broken with two carriage returns instead of <br> tags.--Hardvice (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

• Thanks for catching the errors, Hardvice. I was mainly just trying to summarize as much as possible when I wrote it and wasn't giving that much attention. I'll try to keep note of the style for the future.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Move

• Do we want to use subpages or a pseudonamespace? In other words, should this be "The Company/Season 1" or "Season One:The Company"? I think we should keep all of the season one histories in a category together, so there's some appeal to the pseudonamespace. Subpages make a lot of sense, too, but they're not the most natural things to which to link. In any case, I think we should go for a simpler subpage name (like "The Company/Season 1" instead of "The Company/history (season 1)") to make links easier.--Hardvice (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
• Either "Season One:The Company" or "The Company/Season 1" make sense. I prefer "Season One:The Company". — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I like "The Company/Season 1" better, or even "The Company/season 1" (lowercase). "Season One:The Company" would be okay, but it makes it sound too much like The Company is the name of an episode instead of a group history.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I personally like the pseudonamespaces. I contemplated the same thing for the timelines, and decided that subpages clutters the name a bit. Something about the backslash, I don't know.--Bob 16:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Ok, how about we compromise and use "The Company:Season One"? That way it's at least implied that season one is a subset of The Company and not vice versa. Opinions?--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Ugh. That gives us a separate pseudonamespace for each article. Yuck.--Hardvice (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
      • And in a way, The Company is a subset of Season One, because the Season One pseudonamespace would include all of the season one histories for the included articles, much like the Graphic Novel pseudonamespace includes all of the Graphic Novel issues articles. We'd have Season One:Claire Bennet, Season One:Peter Petrelli, etc. And we could link to the full history easily using pipes to strip the pseudonamespaces; we couldn't do that if the links were the other way around, or with subpages.--Hardvice (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
        • So if there's an episode next season entitled The Company, what should I expect to find when I search for 'Season Two:The Company'? Am I wrongly concerned about this? Since it'd definately be more difficult the other way around, can we add a prefix character or use a different interconnecting character to differentiate?--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
          • If there's an episode called "The Company", it'd be "Episode:The Company", not "Season Two:The Company". The episodes namespace is for episodes and the Seasons pseudonamespaces would be for histories of individual articles. There's no need to archive the episodes, so there's no conflict. I'm missing your point, I think.--Hardvice (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
            • Ok, I guess the users will just have to put on their wiki hats when they use this forum. j/k ;) Anyways, I guess I was thinking there was a problem where there isn't one. I was stemming my thoughts in that the writers were using the ':' mark to denote episode or season names (ie. Volume One:Genesis).--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)