Talk:List of articles related to the Company

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Naming

  • Instead of using verbose names like this article, would it make sense just to go with a format like "Article_name_(related)" and put the related articles in that way? Thoughts? (Admin 21:46, 18 December 2006 (EST))
    • That could work. I was just following the format Hardvice was using. I made some redirects for the ones we will link to more often (AWI for this one, research for List of articles related to Chandra Suresh's research, and simply Jessica's victims for List of Jessica's victims - which I guess would be used similarly to Sylar's victims). I think that's enough to have the redirect, but I'm certainly not opposed to changing it to a shorter version. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2006 (EST)
      • Hmm, ok. Doesn't matter, anything can be changed here, nothing's set in stone. :) Better to have the content first anyway, renaming is always easy if we want. I'm just thinking if we standardize them it'll be easier as we add more in the future... but I'm not positive that they'll all fit neatly into one standard. (Admin 22:01, 18 December 2006 (EST))
        • Funny that one would use initials to describe a Group that is supposed to be without Initials
          ~ ~ ~ ~ Red = 23:05, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • The only reason I went with the "List of (x)" names is to keep all of the articles which are just lists separate from the articles which contain lists in the category. Not really essential, though.--Hardvice (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Hank and Lisa

We don't actually know that Hank is an employee, although it's a pretty safe bet.--Hardvice (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Even still, Bennet used him to lie to Claire about her parentage. That, along with his Lisa connection, let's leave it. (Unless you want to split Hank and Lisa into 2 pages!) :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Oh no, it belongs here. I just don't like that it says they are both employees.  :) --Hardvice (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2007 (EST)

AWI?

I noticed you call it AWI while the name used at 9th Wonders is mostly OWI (Organisation without initials). Is there a reasoning behind that?

//Cuardin

  • Different boards are using different names.--Hardvice (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • AWI, cause they Hurt alot =D
      ~ ~ ~ ~ Red = 23:10, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Bennet told Matt that he doesn't work for "any agency with intials". Just a play on his words. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • I seem to recall him using the phrase "... any organisation that has initials" but don't quote me on that. I took the liberty of adding a page called OWI that redirects in case people do a search. -- Cuardin 23:20, 6 January 2007 (EST)
      • In Chapter 4 - Collision; HeRG said "I'm not part of any Organization that has Initials." Therefore OWI would be more appropriate
        ~ ~ ~ ~ Red = 23:57, 6 January 2007 (EST)
        • That's fine. It's worth discussing. However, please don't move heavily linked articles without discussing the ramifications first. I reverted your moves and edits.--Hardvice (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2007 (EST)
          • I don't mind calling it OWI, but I'm not about to go through and change a bunch of links. Personally, I think AWI is fine, anyway. Agency, Organization - practically the same thing, right? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2007 (EST)
            • I thought since it's a canon; Hence would Justify the Move. Anyways I'm guessing MOVEs are done by sysop? I don't mind rediting the broken awi links
              ~ ~ ~ ~ Red = 00:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)
              • It's not canon until they provide the name of the organization itself in the show. AWI/OWI is just a term coined by fans for referring to the organization. (Admin 00:32, 7 January 2007 (EST))
              • Anyone can move an article, but it's generally a good idea to discuss it first, particularly when the article is heavily linked. Check "What Links Here" from the toolbox for an idea of how serious a potential move might be.--Hardvice (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Now, as for the actual discussion: I don't have a problem with moving it. There are a lot of links, but not that many. That said, I really don't think we have to move it. Different fan sites use different labels, and that's all it is: a fan label. Whether or not Bennet refers to it as an "agency" or an "organization" matters little: there's still no canon name for his group. In either case, we should have a redirect from whichever name we don't use. That has pretty much the same effect for searchers. With that in mind, leaving it where it is is easier and less likely to create broken links, but I for one can go either way.--Hardvice (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • I agree. Add redirect for OWI and leave as AWI for now since that's how it originated, they're both fan-created names for it, and there's no sense changing it before we find out what they really call the organization. (Admin 00:58, 7 January 2007 (EST))
      • Agree. No sense in changing one made-up name for another equally viable made-up name. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2007 (EST)
It's a purely fan-based term anyway. Personally, I think it is a little perverse to refer to it using initials despite Mr Bennet's line, but that's just me. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what we call it, it's just a matter of convenience. Branfish 01:45, 18 January 2007 (EST)

  • I just saw an interview with Jack Coleman with TV guide he once again calls it the 'organization'...and in a preview for this week, Thompson also calls it 'the organization'...I think it is time to relent and call it the OWI. It has never been referred to as an Agency...The claim that other boards are using AWI is also not convincing...I have never seen it referred to AWI anywhere other than here. --Deasnuts 12:31, 25 February 2007
    • Let's see what happens after the next episode. Maybe we'll have an even better description for it after then. Or if we're lucky maybe we'll even find out what they refer to themselves as. That being said I don't see much value in changing from AWI to OWI since they're both just made-up terms, so I really do hope we're able to give it a different and better name afterwards. (Admin 13:04, 25 February 2007 (EST))
  • Thompson definitely said "nobody outside the organization knows" (refering to super powers).. Agency kind of implies it's a government agency, while organiztion seems much less like a gov't entity. I never called it anything till I came here so i'm used to AWI but it seems OWI might be more correct. :dunno: --Frantik (Talk) 07:39, 27 February 2007 (EST)
  • There is a new interview with Masi Oka with Sci-Fi wire in which he refers to the organization specifically as the O.W.I. here is the link. Sci-Fi Wire Masi Oka Interview
    • Wow, that's weird that he would call it that. I wonder if he was just using the term the interviewer used? (Plus, um, Masi, we learned in Company Man that Kaito is part of the Company.) In any case, it's probably best that we go with the name used numerous times on air (by members of the organization, no less): The Company. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

AWI?, pt 2

what the hell does AWI mean - why isn't it listed in the entry? IceHero 08:05, 5 March 2007 (EST)

  • The 'Agency Without Initials'. It's just a fan name, and should probably be removed from the article now that it's not being used, or at least relegated to the Notes.--Hardvice (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2007 (EST)
    • I think we should probably leave it in the heading, in case anything redirects from AWI. I know we've gotten most, but there's always a few strays. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2007 (EST)
      • I went to link it to the glossary and noticed it already was. *Sigh* I guess clicking a link is just too damned difficult for some people.--Hardvice (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2007 (EST)
        • ... so is using a modicum of respect for us "US idiots". — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2007 (EST)
          • The way he writes his posts makes me think he got up on the wrong side of the forums this morning ; )--WolvenSpectre 13:57, 5 March 2007 (EST)
            • I can understand his frustration. A lot of Americans really do tend to forget that the rest of the world exists, or treat it as an afterthought if they remember it's there. I feel like I spent the better part of my time living abroad apologizing for rude, self-centered American tourists. But I really honestly don't believe this is a case of cultural imperialism.--Hardvice (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Glossary?

To bring my usual wishy washy Opinion, inspite of my preferance for OWI because I started using that term before I hooked up with the Heroes community, I think that there should be redirects for the common abbreviations and their full worded roots. We want to reach out to the whole Heroes community, don't we?. To further that we should actually have a page for fans and newbies to the community for the definitions and synonyms of cannon and commonly used shorthand in the community but highliting the prefered HeroesWiki terms.

I would impliment this myself, but I am not that expierienced in editting MediaWiki, and because of a reading disorder, cannot practically keep up with most of the online communities, let alone getto know them wellenough to do this. I think this would have to be a team effort and a very helpful one at keeping a definitive role and attracting more contributors.--WolvenSpectre 10:44, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Well, we could have a Glossary article that could define common terms, and provide a jump point to the most common topics. Link it off of the front page, and we'd be in business. --Orne 10:50, 29 January 2007 (EST)
Good idea. -- Cuardin 10:51, 29 January 2007 (EST)
Glossary is a great idea. FYI, there already is a redirect from OWI to AWI, or whatever you call it. :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Name change

  • So it looks like as of Company Man we've got some choices for a better name. My suggestion is "The Company". It would probably be best capitalized as a proper noun. (Admin 21:57, 26 February 2007 (EST))
    • I was going to propose this before the temporary change. I think it's the right thing to do. --Fcphantom 22:03, 26 February 2007 (EST)
    • "The Company" is already a nickname for the CIA. I don't think we want to create that kind of confusion. --Ted C 13:58, 27 February 2007 (EST)
  • Thompson still referred to it as 'The Organization' --Deasnuts 23:20, 26 February 2007
    • Yeah, which is why we have some new choices now. He does call it "the organization" one time I believe. Mr. Bennet calls it "the company" a few times if I recall. So at least we have some options now. (Admin 23:24, 26 February 2007 (EST))
      • I found it was interesting that he used "The Company", after the recent discussion with Yamagato Industries and why a software company would need a biotech division... So the question becomes, is the organization really a corporation, or is the corporation a front for the organization? (pointer to Linderman's Organization having a casino as a front) --Orne 07:44, 27 February 2007 (EST)
        • Hmm, echoes of Prison Break. I think "The Company" is the best name right now. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2007 (EST)
          • Yeah the Haitian also referred to it as the company.. --Frantik (Talk) 08:25, 27 February 2007 (EST)
            • The 2-screen experience used "the Company" (capital C) at least once during the episode. --Fcphantom 09:28, 27 February 2007 (EST)
              • It may Actually be called "Division 33 Directorate", as talked about in an interview and seen here. But that is defiantly unconfirmed. Till a name is revealed I would say use "the Company". -Level 13:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)
    • Whatever we decide to call it (me, I'm in favor of "the Company"), there should either be two articles (one for content, one for the list of related articles) or this should be renamed to "List of articles related to (x)" to match the other lists. The lists are just so different from substantive articles that they look odd when it isn't made clear that they're basically just a big "See Also" section. I think they're necessary for the series bars, but outside their own context, they make it look like we don't know how to write proper articles.--Hardvice (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2007 (EST)
      • 'the Company' sounds good to me --Frantik (Talk) 20:46, 27 February 2007 (EST)
        • All in favor of "the Company" say aye! Heroe 20:50, 27 February 2007 (EST)
  • Looks like its up to me to be the lone decenter here. We don't even know if the term wasn't just a thematic element(never thought I'd post about that) of the episode as the episode had film noir meets FBI/government spy drama feel to it. Many of those used the term the public had learned they used as in house cant; "The Company" and "Company Man".

    We don't know if they are referring to the front (Primatech Paper as a company front), his cover as an employee of the front (in case they are overheard), or if they are using the general term that was popularized by the FBI and CIA for head office when you couldn't say the name out loud.

    I just think that it is premature at this point to change the whole thing.

    Yes I know I am debating a moot point (again) but I think sometimes someone should.

    Then again I also thought we should have for accuracy sake adopted the term OWI for the AWI, but by then it was so entrenched in the wiki I understood, and when I posted the term AWI and included OWI, it seemed not to bother anybody (thank you). I just think we should not be too quick to remove all of the AWI/OWI references and replace them with "The Company". So far all the ones I am aware of seem OK to me.

    Just a thought.--WolvenSpectre 09:08, 28 February 2007 (EST)

    • In the end, it's just a fan name for the organization... doesn't really matter what we call it, does it? But The Company seems to be a bit more accurate than AWI, so I think it's okay. I believe most of the references to "The Company" in the episode were about the evolved human-finding organization, but even if they weren't, it's still okay to call the organization "The Company". — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2007 (EST)
      • Yeah, but "The Company" has been SOOOOOO done to death in the last few years. I actually think IMHO that "organization without initials" is a more specifically referring to the organization as a whole where we are not sure whether the term "The Company" refers to just PPC or the whole organization. --WolvenSpectre 12:32, 28 February 2007 (EST)

        PS

        I also just realized that Yamagato may just be a front like Primatech is. A fully operational corporate entity that is secretly a front for the AWI/OWI. that means "The Company" could also refer to an umbrella company or the "alliance" of all the corporate fronts. The more I think about it, the more vague it seems to me.

        I can already feel the new theories churning in my brain. Oh no, tactile thought! I have an ability. 'Zane' is coming for me!

        "What is that I feel in your cerebellum?"

        "Murder!" (LOL)

Rufus

There's no evidence Rufus works for The Company. Primatech, yes, but The Company? I thought there was a discussion about this back when Rufus was introduced. Either way, I'm fine keeping him here, but then we're claiming Primatech and all its employees exist solely for the purpose of the Company. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

  • In order to be a successful front they've got to actually be running the "front" company. :) I suspect Primatech does in fact produce paper. If they didn't then their front wouldn't last very long. So it's entirely possible that Rufus only works for the front, but I also think it's not bad if he's left on this page. It doesn't claim he works for The Company and his article even mentions that it's unknown if he even has any knowledge of it. (Admin 14:03, 1 March 2007 (EST))
    • Actually, listing him as an "Employee" does suggest he works for The Company. However, like I said, I'm fine leaving him on here. However, he'll need series bar, too. I'll take care of that now. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
  • I'd say if he did know of their actions, he wouldn't be so antsy about Mr. Bennet signing off his parking thing since there's more stuff going on. In fact, any "secret" organization probably doesn't have any security guards informed since it's none of their business except to keep people out. And Primatech does produce paper since Claire used some to make the Homecoming banner.--Baldbobbo 17:12, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Infobox

I added an infobox group to this page. Whaddy'all think? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Niceeeee. Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 21:28, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Personally, I think a group article is not the same thing as a list. I'd rather see a separate article added at The Company with more standard formatting for a group (history section and the like).--Hardvice (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Yeah, I was actually thinking the same thing. It should probably have a bit of history and be set up so we can go into more depth than just a reference list. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Company

Weren't we going to make a page for the Company itself? Why does "Company" now redirect to the list? Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 13:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Someone got impatient I guess. We are supposed to make a group article for the Dept of Homeland Security too.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Yeah, I didn't know that's what we were going to do. You can still make a page called "The Company", and then fix the redirect from "Company" to "The Company". Just go here, remove the redirect, and write the article. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
      • That would make a double redirect. Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 13:59, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
        • The article should probably be written under "The Company", not "Company" since that's how it's referred to onscreen, but I could go either way with the article "the". Yes, it will be a temporary double redirect, until the article is actually written. It's the same as having a temporary red link, until the article is written. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
        • The Company currently goes to a list of articles related to them because we didn't have enough information on it to really make an article on it. The Company should become its own article. The article itself can include a link to the list of articles related to The Company. Company should be a redirect to The Company. (Admin 14:10, 19 May 2007 (EDT))

Replace this page?

I have made a portal for the company, I personly think it will work better than the list we have atm. It can be views on User:Skywalkerrbf/Company portal, give me your feedback people! --Skywalkerrbf 15:14, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

  • I don't think we need to replace this page, and it's so long I'd like it left as-is. However, we could use your portal as a supplement. In that case, the name should be "Related Articles:The Company". Check out Category:Related Articles Pages for examples of what those pages should look like.--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
    • I still think it's better to add rbf's portal as a related articles page. No one else has commented, just bumping this so Bob can see where the discussion is.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
      • Portals should be short, easy-to-navigate pages. They should not be long pages with tons of pictures. A long portal is better served by a list of links, which is exactly what this page is. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
        • I would take Skywalkerrbf's portal over the current list any day. With the pictures it is easier to navigate, and also it is much nicer to look at. Since the list is still wanted by some users, it wouldn't be fair to remove it, but we should make Skywalkerrbf's portal into a official one ASAP. Pierre 19:28, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
      • I'm with Ryan here. If you look at other portals, you'll see that they're mostly overlying things like animals, organizations, etc. The layout is simple because the portal itself should be simple. The Company is huge on our site, and for that, I think that a related article would be nice (which is what the recommended replacement is formatted as). For a portal, however, a list seems to be the best bet. There's no easy way to make it a portal, which is why I don't think the Company should be made into a portal. It should be made into what it is right now. If you look at Portal:Abilities, it's massive for a portal. That's why the list of abilities page is the better format for that. Portal's are meant for small navigation, which is damned-near impossible to do for the Company. I like the suggested page, but not as a portal.--Bob (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Isaac

Was Isaac really an agent? Therequiembellishere 16:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

  • Yes. He created a set of paintings in an attempt to find Peter for the Company. He reported to Bennet. Bennet told Isaac inside information and gave him a Company gun. After he kills Simone, Bennet orders Isaac to keep painting....I can get you exact quotes from the show if you need. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
    • Well was he working for the Company itself, or just for Bennet? Therequiembellishere 22:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
      • Does it matter? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
        • Well, he's listed under agents now and when I moved him to other, he was moved back up. Therequiembellishere 22:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
          • Well, I don't know about that. I generally don't follow the history of an article, especially when it has a lot of edits in a short amount of time. I usually just look at the overall edits at once. I don't think we've ever really defined what an agent is, but there are certainly varying levels of agents, right? I think we've sort of unofficially categorized anybody as an agent that we know has at least some knowledge of the workings, purpose, and mission of the Company. Those categorized as other personnel are done so because they have no idea of any of their knowledge of Company workings. Rufus is just a security guard (so far as we know) and the optometrist is well, just that, as far as we know. (Incidentally, I think Molly should be moved to the agents, but that's another discussion.) On the other hand, all the agents knew at least something of the Company's purpose. We have no idea what Lisa knew, but she knew at least that Mr. Bennet was lying to his daughter and that something was up with Claire. Even Mr. Bennet didn't have a perfect knowledge of the Company's workings, but he knew a lot obviously. Isaac had at least some knowledge of the Company. He did its bidding and he knew in part what the Company was up to. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
            • Well now that they've started using the title agent, should we just put those given the title and those who definitely have the title in the section? I think if they've had a partner, it qualifies them at least, but some haven't and still are (Garcia). Therequiembellishere 01:48, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
              • I don't want to get into a guessing game of who was an agent and who was merely an employee and who was fitting into this other category of acting as an agent but without the title...This article is simply a list of other articles related to the Company. The section headings are there just to make it easier to navigate. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Portal vs list

There have been some recent reverts back and forth regarding whether this page should resemble a list or a portal. War is waging. :) I don't personally have an opinion one way or another, so long as there are links on the page. However, I'd like to hear what others have to say. Also, the correct place for discussion is not in the edit summaries, but below. So fire away! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2009 (EST)

This is susposed to be an article, not a portal. WE should say HOW they are related. Raiku 00:04, 7 January 2009 (EST)
It's harder to read as a portal, plus there is less information as to who's who in a portal. Revert back to list. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2009 (EST)
I think that it should be a portal, for some people like Newburry Agent 1/2, who appear in 1 graphic novel, it is much easier to see their picture than read a phrase. It also suits the other articles in the 'related article category' --Irony 13:59, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe we could make two pages, one for a list, the other for a portal? Raiku 14:08, 7 January 2009 (EST)
List. I like the list. It's a list. If you want to see a picture of the agent, click the link and go to their page. --DocM 14:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Vis-versa, if they want a full description they can click the link and go to their page. Therequiembellishere 15:34, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe we could have two pages, one for a portal the other for a list. Raiku 15:37, 7 January 2009 (EST)
I made a portal page so we can stop fighting. It's here. Raiku 15:54, 7 January 2009 (EST)
I think two pages is a good idea. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Me too --Irony 02:40, 8 January 2009 (EST)