This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.

Talk:Portal:Portals

From Heroes Wiki
Revision as of 05:09, 2 July 2010 by imported>Leckie (Undo revision 448627 by Welsley (Talk): I'd class this as spam)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Very nice ... The eyeball still freaks me out. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Suggestion of Portal for Easter Eggs

Presently, Easter-Eggs can only be found by going to the specific GN that they reside from. With the popularity and future continuation of Easter-Eggs; do you think it would be worthwhile to create a portal for Easter-Eggs where all known Eggs can be summarized and linked to? At this point, the only grouping way I was able to find that could find and review all of the Eggs was to search on eggs, and then individually step into each link and then back out to search, and go to the next one. If they continue to give us Eggs, a singular point for them might be worthwhile. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2007 (EST)

It might be a bit redundant, but I don't see the harm. I wouldn't do a portal - maybe just a table on a new article page. But again, not really necessary in my opinion. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2007 (EST)
Another option would be to add an Easter egg link to the template for Portal:Issues. That way, you could navigate them by portal (which is still just as many clicks as using the navbar or next/prev links in the issues, but hey) without having to create a separate portal for them.--Hardvice (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Portal Cell Width

Maybe I'm speaking prematurely, but when I open the portal, the cells look great. After everything loads, the cells each get really wide (about twice as wide as they should). The images stay left-justified. Fixable? Or is that in your queue? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2006 (EST)

  • Hmmm. I'm not getting that in either FF2 or IE7. What version of Firefox are you running? What screen resolution?--Hardvice (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2006 (EST)
    • Okay, it was happening at my work computer, not my home computer. It's fine on Firefox. My work computer is, I don't know, like 10 years old probably (thank you, inner city elementary schools!) I'll find out when I head back to work tomorrow. Otherwise, let's just see if it happens to anybody else. Thanks for checking up on it! - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2006 (EST)
      • Yeah, I bet that's it. Old versions of IE don't support CSS very well, particularly CSS positioning, and all of the portals use fixed positioning for the image links.--Hardvice (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2006 (EST)
        • So you're golden unless you work for Harrisburg City School District, or are my grandmother. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Article Series

  • Do these need a separate presence in the portal navigation? If so, where do we put them?--Hardvice (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2006 (EST)
    • I'm not sure I understand. Do what need a separate presence? The 9 portals you have listed? I think they are fine where they are. As for the articles being listed, they're under the categories, right? ... Unless I'm totally not understanding you... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2006 (EST)
      • That could have been clearer, huh? I meant the article series ... Jessica's victims, etc. Should there be a way to see the rlated articles grouped together (like a portal for the series) or at least portal links to the series "main" articles themselves. I'm just thinking out loud, mostly.--Hardvice (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2006 (EST)
        • Thanks for the clarification. ... No, I think they're fine as they are. Reasoning: it's the very slight difference between a category and a topic. All the weapons can be categorized as weapons, the publications as publications, etc. However, Jessica's vics may fall under different categories. Certainly HRG (or AWI or whatever) has articles that fall under a multititude of categories - but all the same topic. I think the links in the series bars are fine in the article space. Now, that said, I am not at all opposed to having them in the portals - I just don't think they're necessary. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Formatting Oddities

  • Check out these two images: 1, 2. The first is from my desktop, the second from my laptop. Both are running the exact same version of FF at the exact same resolution and with the same extensions (in fact, I'm using the same profile for both). Both screenshots were taken with no edits between them. I cleared the cache on both machines before capping them. I'd love to fix the formatting problem in the second shot, but I have no idea what's causing it; it seems to be affecting all of the portals and wasn't last night, even on this machine.

    Is anybody else seeing this? Does anybody have any suggestions? It looks like it's still producing the full-sized <div> for the images, but it isn't stretching the images to fit. Color me confused.
    --Hardvice (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2007 (EST)
    • Never mind, now it's back to normal. Nothing changed. Weird.--Hardvice (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Portal for Theories

  • I can't believe nobody's complained about the tinfoil hat picture. :( --Hardvice (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2007 (EST)
    • I think it's a good icon of conspiracy theories, or rather off-the-wall conspiracy theories like people will read when they click that picture. But you probably have to be over 30 to catch that reference (unless you saw it in Signs).--E rowe 23:02, 12 February 2007 (EST)

On-Air Short Clips

Now that there have been 2 short clips introducing new heroes in Deal or No Deal, and there will probably be more in the future, I think these should have their own category. On the one hand, it could be a subcategory under spoilers. On the other hand I think these clips should rather be considered canon sources on a level with actual episodes or just below that. That way the articles for them can be appropriately linked in places that mention them, such as the list of evolved humans and other main articles.--E rowe 22:59, 12 February 2007 (EST)

  • Personally, I would be opposed to treating these as canon. For one thing, things could still change before these scenes air in an episode. For another, they are most definitely still spoilers until they are at least mentioned in an episode.--Hardvice (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2007 (EST)
    • I agree with you about the potential for change. But they're different than other spoilers. These are things NBC deliberately feeds the audience and invites them to see. They are also, to a certain degree, self-contained story segments, unlike the short flashes of scenes we see in previews of the next week's episode.--E rowe 23:07, 12 February 2007 (EST)
      • I'd like to see what they do with Hana next week. If they include the preview scene in its entirety, then they should be treated like any other preview (pure spoiler). If they just pick up as if the scene already happened, then they should be treated as something different.--Hardvice (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2007 (EST)
        • NBC released the Wireless preview as one of the Unexpected clips. It looks like the scene will be appearing in the episode, so we should treat it like any other preview.--Hardvice (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2007 (EST)
  • We have to remember that not everybody watches Deal or No Deal (thank goodness), and not everybody knows to tune in to watch it. Us fanboys might know all about it, but those previews should not be considered canon until they air "for real". I think a subcat of Spoilers would be a good place for them. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2007 (EST)


Too Crowded?

I like expanding out the Graphic Novels, but does it make this page too crowded? Would this be better? Or is it too much drill-down?

--Hardvice (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2007 (EST)

  • I don't think it's too crowded -- to me, that's kind of the point of a portal, to have everything there at your fingertips. If you want it to look more organized, we could make the section titles a bit bigger--counterintuitive, I know, but I think it would work to make the sections feel more ... separate, and less like just a big jumble of pictures. It'd be almost like having three pages in one. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2007 (EST)
    • We could also shrink the cells slightly.--Hardvice (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)
      • Good i-dear. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2007 (EST)
        • I am The Man. I added a width variable to Template:PortalPlotPoints that automatically calculates the height. It's now infinitely adjustable either up or down. How good am I?--Hardvice (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2007 (EST)
          • I must say, I am quite impressed. That will come in handy for sure. Great job! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Portals in Categories?

Can the portals be categorized into the categories they represent? Or is there a reason not to? -Lөvөl 02:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Hmmm. Never though of it. It might be cool to do so. I don't know how useful they'd be mixed in with everything else, since right now Category:Characters is a list of characters, etc., and if we make Portal: a true namespace, which is in the works, they'd be sorted under their name by default, but if we cat sorted them to the front (maybe under |. or something), it could be kind of nice.--Hardvice (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Actually the reason I would like it is because I like to use the category pages better, but there aren't many links to them, and unfortunately the included portal's links don't stay in the categories. It would also be nice if the navbars were included. -Lөvөl 03:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Yeah, right now the reason they don't "stay with" the categories is that the way they're currently set up, each and every portal needs two versions: one for categories, and another for portals. It should be possible to accomplish it by testing the NAMESPACE once we get Portals: turned into a true namespace (the problem right now is that 'Category:' is a true namespace, and 'Portal:' is a pseudonamespace, so comparisons to PAGENAME and NAMESPACE are challenging.) Once that's done, it's pretty easy to alter the portal templates so that they link to categories from categories, and portals from portals. Will that solve the whole concern, or do you think we should still add the portals into the categories?--Hardvice (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
        • Ether categorized them or add links to the categories I guess. The navbars could be added now but they wouldn't work very well right? -Lөvөl 04:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
          • Right, same problem. I think I can actually get these working now: I just need to test for NAMESPACE "Category:", but for some reason, the link isn't working when it's piped (it works great on its own). Getting there, though. It will require adding a new variable to each and every template cell, but it's pretty straightforward (if/when I get it working :) ).--Hardvice (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
            • I was just posting (edit conflict again) that I think I just made it so you aren't going to get any sleep tonight. -Lөvөl 04:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
              • LOL. What's happening is that the colon that's supposed to make the category declaration into a link ([[:Category:Characters]]) is instead breaking the line and indenting (like a colon on a talk page used to indent), which breaks the link. The only work-around I can think to is to add a redirect to every category and link to that instead. I'll give it a go under that theory, I guess.--Hardvice (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
              • OK, it's working. Take a look at Category:Heroes. Using the included portal, the links go to categories if the page is in NAMESPACE Category:, and to portals otherwise. It will take some set-up to make it work throughout the cats (each cell needs a new variable, each cat needs a redirect, and the other portal templates need to support catlink, but it's do-able.--Hardvice (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
                • Almost done. Still to go: episode Places, everything under "About Heroes", and navbars. Everything else should be more or less working. Most cells point directly to an article, not a portal, so that saved a lot of time. And some categories don't line up with the portals very well (Category: Characters isn't subdivided like Portal:Characters, and doesn't include the portal -- nor does Category:Locations), so that saved some more time.--Hardvice (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
                  • Cool, very useful, I think Category:Characters and Category:Locations just need navbars added. Also how should the links from portal to category be? See also: Category:? -Lөvөl 13:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
                    • I think it looks fantastic--well done, Hardvice. It's been something that's kinda bugged me a bit, but haven't had the desire to change it. Great job. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yeah, cat sorted to the front, I kind of like it. The only possible complaint is that it throws the "number of articles" for that category off, but that seems like a pretty minor complaint. The other option is simply to add a "Portals" section to the category pages with a link to all of the related portals, like this:

Portals

CharactersMain CharactersSupporting CharactersRecurring CharactersMinor Characters (Page 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6) • Animals
That lets us control the order, layout, and formating however we like, but adds to the maintenance a bit.--Hardvice (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Too Crowded?, Take II

Time once again to ask: should this portal contain all of the top level portals, or merely cells for them? Basically, should it be as it is now (which is a bit long), or should it look like this:

I'm finally at the point where I'm leaning towards the latter. We already have all of the individual portals (for inter-portal nav and the categories); it's only this portal that doesn't line up well. It is an extra click to get to everything, but I think it makes information easier to find. I'm growing worried that the casual portal visitor might not even realize that we have portals for cast, crew, and such now that they're "below the fold" at most screen res. And indeed, with this portal condensed, we can even add explanations of what each portal contains, i.e. an explanation of the top-level categories like appears on Category:Categories.--Hardvice (talk) 04:29, 29 February 2008 (EST)

  • I use the portals a lot for navigating, but I rarely use this particular portal. I, too, want to make sure it's as user-friendly as possible. As it is, it just seems to get a bit confused. I think in this portal, simpler is better. I like what you did there above. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:14, 29 February 2008 (EST)
    • My opinion is split on this. I like the idea of a simpler portal, but I also like the ability to peek through at the many portals all at once and I think it helps with the rankings. Would you be open to using collapsible tables to have them shrunk by default but expandable?--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Webisodes

When the webisodes start getting released (which will most likely be soon), will it be placed underneath "Heroes Evolutions", or will it get its own little segment called "Webisodes"? I mean, they might release more than one series of webisodes, for instance, and then we can split the webisode characters from the rest of the world. Thoughts? --DocM 11:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Personally I think of the webisodes as a sub category of Heroes Evolutions, but more in a graphic novel way, that it enhances the story without being totally user interactive like other Evolutions stuff. I think they should be under Evolutions... although I don't really mind either way. Guess it'll be more clear when they're released. -- Friskymuffin - (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)