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.
Category talk:Related Articles Pages: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Ryangibsonstewart rmv link to prep for deletion |
imported>Ohmyn0 Current guidelines for Related Articles: pages |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==''Current'' guidelines for '''Related Articles:''' pages== | |||
* 8 Characters | |||
* 6 Locales, [[Places]] listed first, [[locations]] second. | |||
* 6 Elements, Graphic Novels listed last. | |||
Tentative to change upon disscussion. ---- [[Image:Ohmyn0.jpg]][[Image:Ohmyn0talk.jpg]] 23:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | |||
==Individual categories?== | |||
Wouldn't it be easier to just created categories for each group, rather than a separate article for each that needs to be updated. Categories update automatically. [[User:Coffeeicecream|Coffeeicecream]] 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT) Update: see Category:Related_articles-Claire for an example. Granted it doesn't have graphics; was that the idea? [[User:Coffeeicecream|Coffeeicecream]] 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | Wouldn't it be easier to just created categories for each group, rather than a separate article for each that needs to be updated. Categories update automatically. [[User:Coffeeicecream|Coffeeicecream]] 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT) Update: see Category:Related_articles-Claire for an example. Granted it doesn't have graphics; was that the idea? [[User:Coffeeicecream|Coffeeicecream]] 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
*I actually had an idea similar to this, but it was decided against. Thus, I think we should just keep this category. [[User:Heroe|<span style="color:green">Heroe!</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Heroe|<span style="color:#000000">(talk)</span>]]</small> 10:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | *I actually had an idea similar to this, but it was decided against. Thus, I think we should just keep this category. [[User:Heroe|<span style="color:green">Heroe!</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Heroe|<span style="color:#000000">(talk)</span>]]</small> 10:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
*Partly, the idea was to have the graphics, but mostly, it's just not the way we use categories. Categories categorize articles into groups; it's just a taxonomy grouping articles of the same type. The related articles tie together articles which are thematically but not taxonomically related. "Hiro's sword" and "Space-time manipulation" aren't related because they're the same ''kind'' of article, so they don't belong in a category. They're related because they are both connected to Hiro. These related articles pages are basically just giant series bars; they serve a very different function than categories.--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 12:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | *Partly, the idea was to have the graphics, but mostly, it's just not the way we use categories. Categories categorize articles into groups; it's just a taxonomy grouping articles of the same type. The related articles tie together articles which are thematically but not taxonomically related. "Hiro's sword" and "Space-time manipulation" aren't related because they're the same ''kind'' of article, so they don't belong in a category. They're related because they are both connected to Hiro. These related articles pages are basically just giant series bars; they serve a very different function than categories.--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 12:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
**IAWTC. The category seems somewhat ... unfitting ... to me. The portals just seem more suited to handle this kind of grouping, not a new category. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 14:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | **IAWTC. The category seems somewhat ... unfitting ... to me. The portals just seem more suited to handle this kind of grouping, not a new category. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 14:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 03:17, 10 April 2007
Current guidelines for Related Articles: pages
- 8 Characters
- 6 Locales, Places listed first, locations second.
- 6 Elements, Graphic Novels listed last.
Tentative to change upon disscussion. ---- 
23:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Individual categories?
Wouldn't it be easier to just created categories for each group, rather than a separate article for each that needs to be updated. Categories update automatically. Coffeeicecream 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT) Update: see Category:Related_articles-Claire for an example. Granted it doesn't have graphics; was that the idea? Coffeeicecream 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- I actually had an idea similar to this, but it was decided against. Thus, I think we should just keep this category. Heroe!(talk) 10:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Partly, the idea was to have the graphics, but mostly, it's just not the way we use categories. Categories categorize articles into groups; it's just a taxonomy grouping articles of the same type. The related articles tie together articles which are thematically but not taxonomically related. "Hiro's sword" and "Space-time manipulation" aren't related because they're the same kind of article, so they don't belong in a category. They're related because they are both connected to Hiro. These related articles pages are basically just giant series bars; they serve a very different function than categories.--Hardvice (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- IAWTC. The category seems somewhat ... unfitting ... to me. The portals just seem more suited to handle this kind of grouping, not a new category. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)