Talk:Portal:Places

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Places

Any other places worthy of adding articles for? Off the top of my head, I'd guess:

  • If we want to include truly trivial ones:
    • The convenience store
    • Tina's home (maybe)
    • Peter's hospital in New York (named?)
    • Claire's hospital in Odessa (named?)
    • The abandoned refinery (where Claire jumps)
    • The money launderer's
    • The karaoke bar

Other ideas?--Hardvice (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2006 (EST)

  • Playing devil's advocate, do we really need to have a location for every scene? I would think that anything that has appeared in more than one episode would be worthy of a page, but that's just me. --Orne 13:50, 30 November 2006 (EST)
    • I tend to agree. As for Niki's house, you're probably right (except that it would be "The Sanderses' house" since "Sanders" isn't plural.)--Hardvice (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2006 (EST)
      • Agree - let's start with some of the more basic ones that we haven't covered, and then move on from there. I think the red links above are good ones to begin with... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Subcats

Aren't the "other" entries mostly businesses?--Hardvice (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Well, yeah - with the exception of Sylar's cell and Primatech (because who knows what they do there?) I think those two should really go under education/research. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2006 (EST)

GN content

Should we include all the GN places and locations on these portal pages and series bars, or should we create a seperate portal for them. My vote goes for a separate portal. Perhaps a branch off of "Graphic Novels" ---- Ohmyn0.jpgOhmyn0talk.jpg 02:59, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I think we should probably follow the same guidelines we're following for the characters. I vote for making a "Graphic Novel Places" portal (sorry, Hardvice!) and navbar for those places that are only shown or mentioned in the GNs. Once they are referenced in the show (the Deveaux Gallery, for instance) I think they should go in their regular spot. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Of course, the Deveaux Gallery still hasn't been referenced by name in an episode...--Hardvice (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Not by name, but still referenced. Hmmm, tough one, eh? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Separating them out is no problem. However, if we are going to keep separating out Graphic Novel charatcers, places, locations, etc., I'd rather just make a separate top-level cat for the graphic novels and put everything as subcats of that, and then change Portal:Graphic Novels to have links to each (Issues, Characters, Places, Locations. I'd probably exempt Powers for now, since the only GN-only power will eventually be in the show, but otherwise, I'd want pretty much every cat duplicated under GN (Soma in 'Graphic Novel References', Alaskan Facility in 'Graphic Novel Places', etc.) This would give us more of the separation we need to make the source of information more clear.--Hardvice (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2007 (EST)
That's fine, I guess. I like integrating GNs and the episodes, but I guess it doesn't really matter. My preference is to keep it the way it is, but as long as I can find the info, that's all that really matters, right? In either case, I trust you to make it beautiful and navigable, as you've done such a fantastic job with the other portals. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Okay, I'm convinced. It looks great. I do think, however, that at the bottom of each portal, there should still be a link (maybe a "see also" or "for graphic novel blah blah") to GN content. For instance, at the bottom of the Portal:Characters page, there should still be something that says "For graphic novel characters, see here." Just a thought... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Sounds good. To quote a great man, make it so.--Hardvice (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2007 (EST)

New Icons

How do you like the new icons? I have a few other ones, so if we want to change them around, we can. I have a padlock, a gear, a flame, a cell phone, a folder, a network-globe, a '@', a '?', an envelope, a clock, a camera, money, a no-sign, a pund sign (british currency), an 'i', people, a lightning bolt, a light bulb, a euro sign, a trophy, an 'x' and a '$'. ---- Ohmyn0.jpgOhmyn0talk.jpg 15:24, 10 March 2007 (EST)

  • It's all windows's style! I like them! --FrenchFlo(talk)(contribs) 15:29, 10 March 2007 (EST)
    • They're not my favorite, but they're okay. I do like that they have an S-shaped shadow across the middle -- reminds me of the Symbol.... I'd like to see something different for Law Enforcement (perhaps the padlock?), Transportation (no suggestions from your lists), and Miscellaneous (perhaps the question mark?). — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Subportals

Okay, I've made a preliminary pass at dividing/recategorizing these into suportals:

  • "Businesses" now includes "Casinos & Hotels", "Miscellaneous Businesses", "Restaurants & Bars", & "Transportation"
  • "Education & Research" contains, oddly enough, "Education" and "Research"
  • "Miscellaneous Places" now contains "Miscellaneous Indoor Places" and "Miscellaneous Outdoor Places"
  • "Residences" now contains "Apartments" and "Homes"

I did not add new categories for any of the new subportals. We can if we want, but it may not be necessary; there's no real problem with "Education" and "Research" sharing Category:Education and Research. I did adjust the navbars for Misc Places and E&R to separate subportals into different rows. I did not adjust the others because they currently have individual navbars. If we split Category:Education and Research and Category:Miscellaneous Places, then each should probably get its own navbar.--Hardvice (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2007 (EST)

I also neglected to mention that further subcatting is definitely possible. Something can probably unite medical, law enforcement, and government. Offices could go on businesses, though it's a poor fit for some.--Hardvice (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2007 (EST)

  • I meant to tell you, I think the subcats look great. I agree, I don't think we need the separate categories. Maybe down the line, but not right now. Good work. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)