Talk:Are you on the list?

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Capitalization

  • The original capitalization looked a bit odd, so I changed it. Lots of small words so it looks a little strange when they're capitalized. Any opinions on it, or should we just leave it lowercase? (Admin 09:55, 4 January 2007 (EST))

AFD

See Talk:It's Time to Save the World. Neither seems particularly useful, or like it contains information that can't just as easily be integrated into Story arcs or Portal:Episodes.--Hardvice (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Agree ... but ... maybe we should write some content. It wouldn't hurt to have a paragraph explaining how this theme was a common thread throughout the last seven episodes. But I don't have any strong opinions one way or another. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Mild disagree. I think this page could be saved if rescoped to become an article about the storyarc/set of episodes, as well as on the tagline itself. I'm coming from an idea that it's useful/desirable to have 3 levels/units of story articles: Episode, Arc and Season. To a reader catching up on the series, how would they brush up on the story-so-far? Would they have to read each Episode article? Wouldn't it be more convenient to have articles that recap one arc/set of related episodes at a time? (And, later on, to have articles that recap an entire season?) That said, I'm thinking each Arc page could include a list of the episodes that comprise it, a condensation of the arc's plot (1 paragraph per component episode maybe?), and notes/trivia/other information that relates to that Arc as a whole (I'm typing off the cuff and can't think of examples of what this other info could be). Of course, duplication should be avoided at the various levels. As to whether a portal corresponding to an arc (e.g., Portal:Episodes 2 for Are You on the List?) is enough, well, to me Portals (and Categories) are basically lists, and so cannot substitute for Article pages when a lot of text (such as a synopsis) is to be put up. --Mercury McKinnon 09:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
    • I agree with you. Unfortunately, right now we have four levels: Episode, Specific story arc, Story Arcs, and Season. I just don't see why the individual story arcs need articles when we have a story arcs article that's practically itching for expansion.--Hardvice (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Hi. Well, presently we have articles for the individual Episode, so in the proposed structure there similarly would be articles for the individual Arc and individual Season. There would be no article for Arcs (just as there is no article called "Episodes"), though there could be a Category for it (as there is a Category:Episodes). The existing story arcs article would have to go or be converted into a "Season/Volume One" article. --Mercury McKinnon 20:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Why not merge both articles into a Promotions or Teasers article? It could work really well, especially as a mini-Portal page with links leading off to the various episodes, arcs, articles and themes encompassed by Are You On The List and It's Time To Save The World (not to mention Save the Cheerleader, Save the World.) —Soleta 10:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Agreed, though The message should still be its own article.--Bob 10:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
      • It's true, that one is important enough for its own article; but the same phrase also was used in a promotional sense, so it should at least be linked to, if not included. —Soleta 10:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I think that the articles for the individual story arcs should be merged into a single article, with subheadings for each of the arcs. Ther simply isn't enough information on each of the arcs to justify a separate article for each, but there is also too much information on them to be left out altogether. We already have a "Story Arcs" article, which at the moment is just a list of all the episodes in each arc. It would be a simple matter to add a description of each arc (along with the in-episode references) in between the arc titles and the episode lists. Branfish 12:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
    • I agree wiht Branfish. Heroe(talk) 12:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Hi. Don't you think a synopsis of each Arc would be quite useful/desirable? For example, to new viewers who are jumping on board after the second hiatus with Episode 19 -- would they have to read through the detailed synopses in all previous 18 Episode articles? I think having an Arc-level synopsis would be the quickest way to let these viewers catch up.

      (Needless to say, I think the point of the Wiki is to serve as a reference for all levels of viewers -- from those who've never missed an episode/comic to new converts, from the casual viewer to the diehard fan interested in minutiae, to fanfic writers as well as Heroes creators even).

      Now, I expect an Arc synopsis, which is to condense 5-7 episodes, will take up a fairly-sized paragraph or three. That would be enough to warrant giving each Arc its own article. Anyway, I don't think "having too many articles" is a big concern as yet since this Wiki is still fairly young. --Mercury McKinnon 13:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

      • I don't think that's a fair assessment of the argument against the individual articles. Nobody's arguing that having articles for individual arcs is "having too many articles". It's more an issue of having a bunch of anemic, underdeveloped articles when the information can be combined into one higher-quality article.--Hardvice (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
        • Um, most respectfully, I think you're making an unfair assessment of my reply (by focusing on a single sentence and taking it out of context). Branfish said that "Ther simply isn't enough information on each of the arcs to justify a separate article for each...." I countered that, if one thinks Arc-level synopses are desirable information (to include in an Arc article), then the length of each Arc synopsis (assuming it would be similar to prevailing lengths for Episode synopses) would conceivably be enough to justify individual articles. The only alternative to separating the Arc Synopses in individual articles is to keep them all in the Story Arcs article. If the latter is done by consolidating, say, 4 Arc Synopses in one article, it would clearly result in a large (and I think over-sized) article. Following that line of thinking, for what valid reason would an oversize article not be split? Only if one were concerned about the number of articles.

          As for the apprehension against "underdeveloped articles", I'm not sure what you mean. Underdeveloped in terms of scope/definition/what elements would comprise it? or underdeveloped in terms of quality of the current contents? I can only see individual Arc articles being underdeveloped as to the latter, since I imagine it will take time to develop/write up a high-quality synopsis. I don't see why it would be underdeveloped as to scope/definition because it would contain the same elements as an Episode article (Summary, Synopses, Notes, Trivia, etc.). It's only the former kind of underdevelopment that should not be retained as individual articles. --Mercury McKinnon 15:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

          • Judging by the length of Are you on the list?, which has had months to be expanded upon, combining the individual arcs into story arcs would result in an article that's about four sentences longer than it is now. People keep talking about all this wonderful hypothetical content for these arcs, but I have yet to see any. If I could think of anything to add that wasn't redundant with the episodes or seasons (do we really need another summary?) and didn't sound like a fifth grade book report, I'd add it. Bottom line is this article has had plenty of time to develop, and all it's developed is a boring, tl;dr talk page.--Hardvice (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
            • Yes, it basically boils down to whether people think an Arc-level summary is useful, which I've posed since the start. I've already explained how I believe it would be beneficial to newer viewers who are/would be jumping in midseason (under the assumption that the Wiki aims to serve all levels of the audience). --Mercury McKinnon 00:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
              • Hmmm. If we really are holding out for a summary, then we'd need a summary somewhere between Season One (which is just the episode Summaries) and the episode Synopses. Anything else wouldn't be of much use: users looking for more detail could see the episodes, and those looking for more brevity could see the season article. That boils down to probably a good paragraph or two, which really could go on either an individual article or story arcs (since there are only four arcs to this season). I think we could go further and do a simple recap for each character within each arc and that would be sufficient. Hiro's for "Ordinary People..." for example could be as basic as "Hiro Nakamura discovers he can manipulate time and space. After witnessing an explosion in New York six weeks in the future, he enlists the aid of his friend Ando and travels to America looking to prevent the catastrophe". As for story arcs vs. individual episodes ... at that point, I have little preference. I think we should opt for whatever is more sustainable in the long run (after multiple seasons with multiple story arcs). This might mean we're best off with a "Story Arc:" namespace (or at least a category) and basically organize them just like episodes and seasons ... individual articles, plus a summary for each season's worth of arcs. Now, if we really wanted to integrate them in, we'd change Season One so it summarized arcs instead of episodes, and organize the episode navbars by arc. That way, Seasons would drill down to Story Arcs, which would drill down to Episodes. That has a certain appeal to it, organizationally, but it puts us in the position to be seriously hosed if they abandon the story arc concept in season two. What's your take?--Hardvice (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
                • "... This might mean we're best off with a "Story Arc:" namespace (or at least a category) and basically organize them just like episodes and seasons ... individual articles, plus a summary for each season's worth of arcs. Now, if we really wanted to integrate them in, we'd change Season One so it summarized arcs instead of episodes, and organize the episode navbars by arc. That way, Seasons would drill down to Story Arcs, which would drill down to Episodes. That has a certain appeal to it, organizationally..." YES!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Episodes, Arcs and Seasons would be analogous "units" (like money coming in denominations of $1, $5 and $20). The lower level rolls up into the next higher rung. There's an elegance to such a structure that I thought others would see and appreciate. And I do think it is sustainable down the line. But 'nuff said from me; I'll let others chime in. --Mercury McKinnon 07:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
                  • Quite frankly, if somebody comes to the series without watching it through from the beginning, it's not going to make a great deal of sense anyway. I'm a very anal person, so I literally can't comprehend why anybody would want to come into something like this halfway through, and so I can't really decide how I would prefer the summaries to be organised. What I will say is this: The argument at the moment seems to be focused on whether we'd prefer to have lots of small articles or one big one, and I have to say I come down very much on the latter side of the argument. I don't think it's really even possible to get an article that's too long, but it does annoy me when I click on an article link and there are only three or four lines there. It's just messy. We should consolidate the story arcs onto one page, at least until somebody can be bothered to flesh them out in more detail. If (and that's a big if) somebody does get around to writing something long (without being repetitive or redundant) then we can separate them out again, but the present system just looks like we're trying too hard to have lots of pages. --Branfish 04:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
                    • I'm tending to agree with Branfish. My gut is saying, "Delete it," since there's basically nothing here. Then, if somebody feels strongly about writing some content, they still can. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
                      • What it really boils down to is, is there anyone wiling to write it, if not then it should probably be deleted. -Lөvөl 14:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
                        • If we're really talking about just another level of summary, then my answer is a resounding "not me". I don't see the benefit. We already have both very concise and very detailed summaries to choose from, which I think are adequate. Plus, as I note above, doing it properly would mean inserting a whole new tier in our hierarchy, which sounds like a bunch of work for not much gain. On top of that, the story arc level is a bit fuzzy and arbitrary (what story arc is Six Months Ago part of? Do we organize it chronologically, sequentially, or as its own story? With which arc does it share thematic considerations?); it doesn't map as cleanly as do episodes and seasons, which have nice, clear boundaries. I also agree with Branfish that I'd rather have one massive article than a bunch of little ones. Just from an access point of view, it's annoying to have to keep clicking links just to read two sentencesb that could have just as easily been presented on the linking page.--Hardvice (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
                          • I agree. I'm ready to delete the extra pages, remembering that if somebody really feels strongly about it, they can always go back and write some extra content. But I just don't think it's necessary, or at least it's nothing that can't go on the main story arcs page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
                        • From the discussion, it's apparent no one else thinks the article should be redefined into an article on the same-named Arc. I would write about the "Are you on the list?" promotional tagline itself --as well as the other taglines-slash-arc-titles -- if I were personally knowledgeable about it, which I'm not from not catching the show off US TV. I've been willing to write arc synopses, but have not done so pending the outcome of this discussion on restructuring (which is why I personally don't think this article's present shortness, or the Story arcs article being "already there" should be the ground for decision. Rather, I've tried to frame the question as looking forward to what would be an ideal structure, and that determining what pages should be kept.) I guess most editors on this wiki are shaping the articles solely for their own kind of audience rather than to be "friendly" to all quarters. Fair enough. Majority rules, and I only "mildly disagree". --Mercury McKinnon 21:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
                          • If you write it, it might stay. The info can be moved if it gets deleted anyway. -Lөvөl 02:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
                            • Hi. I haven't tried to write up an Arc-level synopsis precisely because I thought it should first be established whether people think that such a synopsis is necessary (or at least largely-beneficial). Everyone else has tended to the opposite and thinks we can live without, so to speak, a $5 bill, and that the $1 bills (Episode synopses) and $20 bills (Season-level synopses) that we have right now are enough -- which I do understand. Maybe come another season this can be re-evaluated. --Mercury McKinnon 02:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
                              • We have to come to some kind of decision here. At the moment it seems that nobody is willing to write a more detailed synopsis in case somebody merges the articles, and nobody is willing to merge the articles in case somebody writes a more detailed synopsis. Somebody has to actually do something or nothing will get done. Remember that the two options are not mutually exclusive - the articles can still be merged if there is more information on them, and more information can still be written even if it's all on one page. I would merge the articles myself but I don't know how. Somebody please end this deadlock somehow! Branfish 17:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)