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
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Whoah. Now that's a character article that's pure cruft.--Hardvice (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Can't say I personally see a big distinction in terms of cruftiness between this one and wrestler. They're different in many ways, but I guess to use an argument from before I'll ask, "Does it hurt to leave it?" (Admin 15:24, 25 October 2007 (EDT))
      • Well, this one will never have an image. She was not important to the plot, did not appear, was mentioned in one line of dialogue, and does not have a portrayer. Other than that, she's exactly like the wrestler. Oh wait. That means she's nothing like the wrestler.--16:15, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
      • And no, it doesn't hurt to leave it. I didn't mark it for deletion.--Hardvice (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
        • If we want to compare her and the wrestler, the wrestler has valid notes and information that would make a note on another page (muscle mimicry? Monica? The Kindness of Strangers?) way too long. Carla's entire page could be neatly included in half a sentence, and that would include every detail about her. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
          • Not to mention the fact that reducing the wrestler to a Wikipedia link doesn't explain everything (nothing about the move, nothing about Gutierrez vs. his character as Mysterio) and would give us an external link in the middle of the synopsis (ugh), while with Carla, all we lose is four brackets from the sentence "Sandra Bennet explains that the reason her friend Carla says Mr. Muggles isn't breedworthy is that he's not sexy enough." That's the sum-total of her character.--Hardvice (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I think this is more like Roxanna Castillo than the wrestler. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 17:39, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
    • I agree. I dont think this page needs to be here. There's not enough information to warrant its own article. (Admin 17:47, 25 October 2007 (EDT))
      • Since we're on the subject and it's been broached before, I think a good guideline for whether or not a character article should exist is if we can say something about the person beyond what could be said in an appropriate alternate article. Carla's entire article could be stated in the summary of another article. I don't feel the same way about the wrestler for the reasons stated above and elsewhere on the site. Even with Roxanna, if her name even so much appears in the byline of another article somewhere, I would wholly support an article on her--it would be weird to have her history, no matter how short, contained completely in the notes of fire (1992) or even Odessa Register. Of course, I don't want to suggest a hard-and-fast rule, just a general guideline. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
        • I actually think that's a great guideline, and it fits pretty well with some of the sketchier cases, like the journal folks and the unseen people from the list (and for that matter, the unnamed woman from the group of twelve).--Hardvice (talk)
          • Isn't the point of a fancruft wiki to include every bit of detail as long as it is canonical? There are plenty of articles on people not seen. Wikipedia wouldn't certainly have any of it. But what do I know, I'm just a hyperinclusionist. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:59, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
            • I don't think the issue is that Carla's unseen (see Category:Unseen Characters), it's that there's not enough to say about her to merit an article. We don't have one about Tamara Greeer (nor should we), and we know more about her than we do about Carla--Tamara is a minor, a cheerleader, part of Homecoming, and we could get a pretty cool note about her last name. But it's still not enough, I believe. Even characters who have made an appearance, like this woman who most likely is part of the Union Wells faculty, don't have articles because we really don't have enough to say about them. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
            • I'm all in favour of including everybody about whom anything can be said--anybody with any trivia, an image, a portrayer, anything. But really, "Sandra's friend Carla" pretty much sums up what we know about this character, and that's on the episode page. Now, if we found out that Carla was named for Tim Kring's sister, or if there was a picture of her (even in Heroes Evolutions), I'd be arguing right along with you, as I'm also a hyper-inclusionist. But she falls below even my radar ... she's just a name in a single line of dialogue.--Hardvice (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
              • This is all good. One of my concerns at the moment is that we're accepting some articles and rejecting others and I don't believe we've ever actually tried to qualify what warrants its own article. This is the main reason I've been bringing up these points as I don't really mind what we keep and what we don't as long as it's not just a personal judgement call each time. By encouraging discussion I've been hoping we'll eventually end up with a good framework. The discussion on Bliss and Horror generated some wonderful guidelines on naming conventions. I'm hoping the same happens here as we critically analyze the inclusion/exclusion of particular articles. (Admin 19:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT))
                • You're the devil. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
                  • No, just his advocate. :) I think most of us can "feel" when most articles are right or not, but we do need a guideline we can point to in order to help. Plus there are some that are a little less clear that I think really benefit from a guideline. (Admin 20:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT))
                    • I dunno. I mostly just want to delete this one so I can avoid the temptation to add...
  • Why is this still around? --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (EST)
    • I was going to delete it last week, but I thought I'd wait until we hit the one month mark. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2007 (EST)
  • Well? :) --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (EST)
    • Thanks for the reminder. I'll take care of it now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2007 (EST)


--Hardvice (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Characters mentioned

Is there / should there be a page that's essentially a 'list of characters too minor to have their own pages'?

  • That's actually not a bad idea at all. It would allow us to wrangle up character like this, the various unseen newspaper reporters, McSorley, and the like.--Hardvice (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (EST)
  • I have to agree that a page like that could be started up. Maybe we could add them to there until we actually have an image of the person, and would those warrent them to have thier own article. --Pinkkeith 10:10, 21 November 2007 (EST)
  • Capital Idea!--SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (EST)
    • Most of those kinds of characters can be found by digging through the "Notable" sections of articles about places and locations, and through name disambig pages. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2007 (EST)