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.


From Heroes Wiki
Revision as of 16:24, 27 November 2007 by imported>FrenchFlo (→‎Proposal for split: I mean.. 3 red links)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This portal is currently very incomplete. We need standard-sized images for:

Split it up, boys, split it up

I think we're ready to split the references. There's lots of ways we can do this. Movies, books, conditions, companies/organizations, and, um, waffles. I think for now, we should still keep it simple: maybe "Art" or "Works of Art" (meaning movies, books, etc.) and "Other References"? I don't know. We could also split it into multiple categories, but each would be rather small. Ideas? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2007 (EST)

I'd say "Media References" to include other shows, comics, etc. --Ted C 12:35, 31 January 2007 (EST)
Ah, yes, that's the term I was looking for. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2007 (EST)
If we do it categorically, I think we're stuck with "Media References" and everything else. Maybe just make "Media References" or whatever a subcat, and leave everything else loose in "References", like items? We can also just split it alphabetically, but I think that's better suited to people than things.--Hardvice (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2007 (EST)
I agree. I don't think alphabetical works the best, mostly because the references are so disparate. I like the idea of a subcat - much easier. I'll work on that later tonight or tomorrow, unless somebody wants to do it now. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2007 (EST)
Definitely time to split now. The manatees did it for me.--Hardvice (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2007 (EST)
I think "pop culture" should be one of the subcatagories, and then maybe organizations. Possibly animals, but I'd be fine if they were in miscelaneous. --Fcphantom 22:03, 6 February 2007 (EST)
I added Portal:References to other works, but everything that's left ... it's still too big for one portal, but any meaningful divisions make too many too small portals. Hmmm.--Hardvice (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2007 (EST)
Well, it's a start. Let's do the split and then let it evolve. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2007 (EST)
  • I have to agree that we do need to split this apart. Perhaps also define what we mean by references. There are groups and events that could be placed here too. --Pinkkeith 12:20, 23 November 2007 (EST)
  • We really ought to define what we mean by "references". Characters could be references, if we define it as broadly as we are right now. I think it we should stick to things (products, events, etc) that are mentioned but not actually in the show or in the graphic novel. For example, right now we have Hurricane Katrina under the event portal/template and we have the Vietnam War under the real-world reference portal/template. Product placement should be its on portal with Nissan Versa placed under it. Its not really a reference under my definition, since it was shown in the show. There ought to be references to animals with Dinosaur, and Manatee placed under it. Cockroaches have been actually seen in the show. These are just my thoughts. We could define references some other way.
    • I agree that there needs to be some definition, and a split really does need to occur. Portal:References until now has been a sort of dumping ground for articles that don't really fit anywhere else. Let me look at it and come up with some ideas... -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Proposal for split

This proposal crosses category lines and affects other portals, so bear with me...

  1. Portal:References to other works looks pretty good, and I don't think we really need to touch it.
  2. I think we should remove any and all animals from the references since we have a portal for animals. Even if they never appeared on the show (hello, manatees), they'll still be covered in a more natural portal.
  3. All the wars should be moved off the portal and into a subportal of Portal:Events. The events portal should also be split up, but that's another conversation which is being discussed here.
  4. All groups should go into Portal:Groups.
  5. A few random things which are already in other portals (heroin, Human Genome Project, Nissan Versa) should be removed and kept to just one portal.
  6. We should rename "Portal:Real-world references" to "Portal:Other References" since not all the references are in the real world.

That would leave us with the following articles:

Charles Darwin
Gannon Car Rentals
Product placement
Split personality

That leaves us 21, and they fit a little better. Some of those can still be shipped to other places or split off if we wanted. For instance, brain, Charles Darwin, and evolution could all go under Portal:Research. We could make "Portal:References to Religions" and include Judaism, Kali, Vodou, and then write an article for "Buddhism" and "Christianity". That would also solve the problem we have with Faith and religion, which really doesn't list all instances of faith and religion, and is a bit more about Christianity anyway. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (EST)

  • Sounds great, Ryan, I couldn't have thought of anything better myself! :)--SacValleyDweller (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)
  • I think it looks great. Yet, I'm still confused how we know what goes into references. Is [[Portal:Other References]] going to be a catch all? That's what my take is from the way you are organize the articles. I would also suggest that [[Portal:References to other works]] be renamed [[Portal:References to other media works]]. Like I said, over all, I love it! --Pinkkeith 10:39, 26 November 2007 (EST)
    • Yes, pretty much, "Other References" will be a catchall. I have no problem renaming "other works", and you gave a good suggestion--it's more specific to what the portal actually is. However, I'd rename it "other media" (the "works" just seems superfluous). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)