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:Journal female 1

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Oh boy. Are we really calling this page "Unnamed 1"? That seems like an odd name to me. Plus, the pic is not standard size. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

  • What is a better alternative for the unnamed people? I used it because we have been carrying them for quite some time on the evolved and journal lists, and I finally had the time to make pages for them. Would John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, etc...be more appropriate names? I couldn't really come up with a better name, so I used what we have been using. As for the pic, I thought 250px was the standard size for the primary page pic....I'll be glad to change it (across all of them) if you'll tell me what the formatting size should be. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 03/28/2007 14:46 (EST)
    • Where possible, we probably could have gone with a descriptive name: "Swedish man", "Girl from Chilipango". That would be more in keeping with the other unnamed characters, and give some clue as to who they are. I don't have much of a problem with "Unnamed 1", et al, except that 1) it implies some sort of order or sequence, and the only order is the order in which we saw the pages and 2) if you see a character named "Unnamed 1" on a portal, you have no idea who it might be referring to. Other options would be things like "Potential evolved human 1" or "Woman from journal 1". As for the image: the correct standard size is 200x250, not 250x200. They need to be cropped and uploaded as new images at the proper size and aspect ratio.--Hardvice (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
      • I'll download and reupload the pics later, when I have a little more time. As for the name, until these guys get a name, (if they ever do), I like seeing them grouped similarly by whatever name designation we decide. It makes it easy to research them, and to remember them, and their 'brethren'...for lack of a better term. Yes "Swedish man" and "Girl from Chilipango" are more descriptive titles, but they also don't share any grouping characteristic, which I like with the 'unnamed X' format. The other things you listed are a little more clear, but they are also alot more wordy and long. I think newbies to the site will realize quickly enough from either their specific pages, or the evolved humans page, what we are meaning by 'Unnamed X'. This also allows us to add more people in the future, if Mohinder shares some new pages with us. As far as the sequencing 1, 2, 3, 4, etc...goes, it really is of no designation, other than the order in which they are added to the site as sources. I really don't see it as something to get too hung-up over. What I find most interesting in re-researching these folks to put their pages together, was finding out that the Unnamed 4 Botswana woman, was being researched in 1971 by Chandra for having Telepathy; and she was 87 years onld in 1971....that puts her as either a very old 1st-gen E.H.; or makes her an even earlier generation E.H. than the newly debuted Austin. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 03/28/2007 15:22 (EST)
        • Names of articles should not designate a grouping, or a "brotherhood". The title of the article should be desriptive of who the person is. Groupings should be done by category. If one wants to research the individuals, they should go to a category (something like "Journal Characters") or just go to Chandra's journal and find all the names listed there. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
          • Right. I don't have a huge problem with "Unnamed 1", et al., but they're going to look kind of dumb in a category list or a portal, where there's zero indication who they are.--Hardvice (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
            • How about changing them to these designations?
            • Unnamed 1 to Palu Indonesia Female
            • Unnamed 2 to Marabai Brazil Female
            • Unnamed 3 to Tissue Regeneration Male
            • Unnamed 4 to Lobatse Botswana Female
            • Unnamed 5 to New Canaan Connecticut Female
            • Unnamed 6 to Chilpancingo Mexico Male
            • Unnamed 7 to Sweden Male
            • Unnamed 8 to Madison California Female
            • I'll be glad to change all the pages, once we have an agreement on the names. (I'm not sure I have the access to change the page-names though....) What do you guys think of these? Better? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 03/28/2007 15:47 (EST)
              • I think we're better off with a description that says where these people come from (the Journal). I mean, the "bus accident victim" doesn't describe the Bus accident victim's life; it describes how we know her. If we word it properly, we can even kill two birds with one stone and keep the people grouped together. I'm not sure how to do it, though; "Journal entry 1" describes the entry, not the person; "Man from Journal 1" describes the person, but doesn't keep the entries together. As far as changing the names, it's just a matter of moving the pages, and you do indeed have access (the only admin-only functions are block user, delete, protect a page, and rollback changes.)--Hardvice (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
                • What about:
Unnamed 1 to Journal Female 1
Unnamed 2 to Journal Female 2
Unnamed 3 to Journal Male 1
Unnamed 4 to Journal Female 3
Unnamed 5 to Journal Female 4
Unnamed 6 to Journal Male 2
Unnamed 7 to Journal Male 3
Unnamed 8 to Journal Female 5
--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 03/28/2007 16:06 (EST)
  • That could work. What does everybody else think?--Hardvice (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I like that idea. Personally, I think it much more professional that "Unnamed 1-8". Heroe(talk) 10:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yeah so that we know where they did come from by simply read their names. That's more significant. -- FrenchFlo (talk)        10:22, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I think they sound fine. I wouldn't capitalize the genders, though. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm going to do the edits so when coming back home, +/- 1hour, using the whatlinkshere page etc.. If noone have done this before of course! -- FrenchFlo (talk)        10:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Transcripts

These are coming along nicely. One thing that would be great would be a complete (or as complete as possible) transcript of each character's journal page. That would make these pages quite useful.--Hardvice (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I was thinking about it but with my poor english, reading a such bad writeness(?) (way of write) would be pretty hard so I can't transcript but I wish I could. But having someone doing it would be great! ... for me! :))) -- FrenchFlo (talk)        16:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

1991 or 1971???

According to this snapshot from the Are you a hero? game, the year should be 1971. Does anyone have a clearer snapshot of the original?--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

  • Ok, so we've decided to change the date based on the game's photo. The original wasn't that clear.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
    • Yes clear enough, to substantiate the unclear original Chandra year to be 71 and not 91. Nothing has ever said 91; it was a best-guest based on the granularity of the original pic. Now we have a newer pic that substantiates 71 and not 91 as the date. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 08/11/2009 11:20 (EST)

Uh, question

User:Shadowulf1 17:12, 8 March 2010 (EST) This lady's power is supposed to be "Transportation"; what is the power Transportation?

  • We haven't seen it. I would imagine that she can either transport items or people from one place to another, or she can move herself other places (like teleportation). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2010 (EST)