Talk:Hero (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Heroine

Since they don't have a disambiguation pagr for "heroine", shouldn't articles about "heroine" be put here as well?Siri 13:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already a disambiguation page, Mon. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Heroine" is too distinct, a partial title match, and has enough unique matches to have its own DAB page. - Yamara ✉ 14:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New redirect

Heroes now links to this disambiguation page, rather than to the Hero article. I feel this makes far more sense. Kamikaze Highlander 02:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes (TV series)

first alphabetical order, then at the top, then the bottom; can we stick with one position please? --MilkMiruku 16:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being clear. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's being perfectly clear. The TV series has been shuffled about to an unnecessary extent. --Piet Delport 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to that, having only editted this article recently, but the links where moved per date of the medium. i. e. Heroes (TV series) being near to last as it debuted late 2006. Standard practice. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people have been bumping it to the top, though (for instance, it's at the top of the TV list right now) due to current popularity. Then it gets shuffled back down to the bottom due to production date, and every once in a while someone who doesn't like the show comes along and deletes it entirely. It does get annoying after awhile. Hossenfeffer 04:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the stuff called "hero" should be before the stuff with different names, like "heroes". Films is an exception, because 100% of them are logically ordered by release date. —Michael Z. 2006-11-28 07:05 Z

Heroes redirect

I want to float the idea of making Heroes redirect to Heroes (TV series) because of current popularity. There are few other entries for the word "heroes" specifically. Thoughts? I may WP:BOLD in a few days.

\/\/slack (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A movie, an episode, two albums, four songs, a band, a game and a book count as "few"? I can't wait to see how you'd add up the uses for eels. Also, please don't make threats or ultimatums. It may not have been your intent, but I find it a bit off putting that you're going to do this if there's no comment, despite your poor reasoning. Look, it's a bad idea, for a lot of reasons. I could go into a long rant, but I'll hope you'll take my word for it and forget aboit such a redirection. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the page shouldn't be moved just because a TV series is popular right now. While there may well be a lot of Heroes fans who visit Wikipedia, the term "heroes" is far too popular to justify ceding the page. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me properly chastised. I added the last sentence because I frankly didn't expect anyone to comment seeing how few edits this page had (2 in the last month when I made the edit). Any other ideas considering the current popularity?\/\/slack (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...ideas? What the hell? It's just another use of the word "heroes". Do you honestly think that it's any more important than the other uses I mentioned? Really, I'm starting to wonder what's going through people's minds here. Wikipedia need not do anything to put the link biasedly ahead of others. In fact, we have regulations against that. More importantly, we an encyclopedia, and from an encyclopedic standpoint, the TV series should be placed lower as it was created later. Finally, let me be very clear about the perceived popularity...it's irrelevant. I watch it myself and from what I've read, the show is successful, but that doesn't jacksquat from disambiguation standpoint. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the MOS referral, I'm not nearly well enough versed in that area. Reading the page, though, I don't see the guideline you seem to be citing. Where is it? I also fixed your link above for others' use, hope you don't mind. \/\/slack (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that when there's more than one thing with the same name, you make the name a dab page and give parenthesis labels to the things. To that end, the article is titled "Heroes (TV series)" and "heroes" redirects here. What else needs to be done? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question was in reference to the ordering and you saying "Wikipedia need not do anything to put the link biasedly ahead of others." I couldn't find anything about using dates to order items from old to new as opposed to from new to old or any other system for that matter. \/\/slack (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, that's the system I've always known. Besides, can you give me one reason—other than the perceived "popularity"—that the tv show should take precident above any other use? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Percieved "popularity" is a perfectly good reason. On WP:MOS-DAB, there is no reference at all to listing items in chronological order, much less order from old to new (which would generally put fresher articles at the bottom of the page). The MOS instead suggests a somewhat more sensible guideline: "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." I'm gonna go ahead and put Heroes at the top of the TV list, as an NBC TV show is obviously going to be searched for a hell of a lot more than two non-English entries. While I'm at it, I'll put the Jet Li film at the top of its list too, as it recently saw widespread release in the English-speaking world. unless 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. "Perceived popularity" may be a rationale, but we can't presume importance just because a show is on a North American television network. Heroes (NBC) has only been around for a few months - if it becomes the dominant use of that name in television circles, your point may become valid, but for now such a rearrangement isn't necessary. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely with your point. Popularity in North America is indeed a big deal, as North America contains well over half of the world's native English speakers (the presumed target of the English Wikipedia). Four out of the top five Google results of the search "Heroes" refer to the television program. In a search for "Hero", the other two entries in the Television category do not show up in the top fifty, and are likely much lower in the ranking. I have a very difficult time believing that anyone in "television circles" would not immediately assume you were referring to the 2006 TV show upon mention of the title "Heroes" unless the discussion were specifically about one of the television programs with an episode titled "Heroes". Indeed, the 2006 television show is the only television production extant that could realistically be a candidate for a "dominant use" of the term.

That aside, rather than revert your edit, I have reversed the chronological order of the Film and Television lists. In the absence of any "dominant use", it seems far more likely that Joe Q. User would be searching for a recent production than an ancient one. unless 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to feel (or be) chastised - it was a perfectly reasonable question, after all. Kudos for posting here first, though. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a guy at Eckerd (or any other place in North America) mentions "heroes," then he is talking about the TV show. Otherwise, he does not represent the huge majority of the poppulation. I believe that a redirect to Heroes (TV Series) is a necessity.

JMack 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

I'm saying that the way it is now doesn't help people find what they are looking for within the list, because ordering by date isn't obvious in this case. That's one reason I imagine people move it around - they don't see order in the way the list is currently (as opposed to in films, where that makes sense). I'd either have the entries for "hero" above the ones for "heroes," or subsection episodes separately under ====Episodes==== Does one of those sound good? I prefer subsectioning, because I think it would be helpful in other sections as well, such as music on this page, where songs could be separated. I think this is more condusive to people finding the information they want to find. Thoughts? \/\/slack (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that could work. I'll get on it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not bad, actually. Songs are certainly very ambiguous. If I had a dime for every "hero", I'd be rich. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. I'm also TOCrighting it in accordance with WP:MOSDAB: it looks odd to me as a regular user, but I think it serves the page better. You (or anyone else) can revert that if wanted, it wasn't an obvious decision. Cheers. \/\/slack (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of venue

Quite simply, there should be two disambiguation pages, one for "Hero" and one for "Heroes". The latter should have a single link back to the singular form for the occasional lost surfer who is trying to read about heroism. The current solution is suboptimal because we can realistically assume that the vast majority of readers who type "Heroes" are looking for the film, the TV series, the music album or the computer game series, and they are unnecessarily and confusingly redirected to the singular form, which contains a large amount of unnecessary extra information they do not need.--Eloquence * 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions long closed, dude. Sorry. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. See WP:CCC.--Eloquence *

Ha ha. Don't be a smart alec. One person isn't going to change a concensus. Furthermore, this point was addressed and denounced during the original debate. Plural and singular forms are inherent connected.

What I see on Talk:Heroes is mostly dismissive hand waving on your part, such as "any options I've not offered aren't worth considering", not any genuine reasoned discourse. The question is simple: What is the expectation of a reader who views a page "Heroes" by putting this sequence of letters in the search box? A person wanting to read about the archetype will likely either type "Hero" or "Heroism"; someone typing "Heroes" will probably be looking for one of the following: a) a list of notable heroes, b) any product with this exact name. Right now, we are redirecting those readers to the "Hero" disambiguation page, which is not helping them in either case: It mixes singular and plural all over the place, which makes it very hard to navigate.

Nor is this approach helpful to users of the "Hero" disambiguation page who come from the "Hero" main article; disambiguation pages are explicitly not meant to be search indexes to anything that has a particular word in the title (even though they are occasionally abused as such by trying-to-be-helpful editors). They are meant to be a quick, almost instant navigational aid to get from one intermediate page to the article you want to look at, when one has not requested an absolutely unambiguous page. It is this quick navigation which needs to be facilitated as much as possible, it is the more complex lookups that, if they need to be facilitated at all, are of secondary importance. The current page does not serve this need.

Again, the preferable approach is quite simple, and has not been considered in the very tiny straw poll that has taken place -- have two disambiguation pages. Can you name any reason not to do this? Pages like this are the reason people use Google to find Wikipedia articles; when we do a bad job at organizing and presenting the information we have in an easily accessible manner, then others will do it for us.--Eloquence * 12:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to throw my 2c in. Heroes (Tv Series) is the 12th most popular page on wikipedia [1]. This means that the number of people visiting that page are probably several orders of magnitude larger than the number of people visiting all of the other hero pages combined. I believe the redirect for "heroes" should go to the TV series. The redirect for "hero" can go wherever. -Ravedave 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, and based on the comments here, a lot of other people do as well. How do we put this in motion? unless 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the list [2] changes daily, it is not a record of "all time", but only merely the most popular of the last few days, therefore the ranking flunctuates a lot. As of right now it has dropped to 75th place. Just because one particular page is popular in several days of the year doesn't mean it should be the main page. Another example, 300(film) is currently the number 12th on the ranking, should we redirect 300 to 300(film)? Z3u2 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes is currently on break, its rating will skyrocket once it is showing new EPs again. When the series stops we can change back. Right now the page gets 15 THOUSAND page views a day. Thats 450,000 views a month! When it's in full swing it is 900,000 a month. How much bandwidth is saved? How much of peoples time is saved when spread over that number of views? And I do belive 300 should go to the film, for the few months that it is megapopular. -Ravedave 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Disambig pages?

Err... So what's happened with this proposal? Many of us agree to have 2 pages in the Talk:Heroes (TV series) page. — « hippi ippi » 06:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I removed the heroes content from this page and added the missing stuff (which was not much) to Heroes (disambiguation). --Hasdrabion 13:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discription of the word hero

hero is a very vage word. when i think of a hero i think of superman or siderman or other famus heros like that. bout a good discrition of a hero is a well known courage,strong, and advenches persons that do's somethink wurth admirering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.68.242 (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priestess Hero

Anyone know what Alexandre Dumas means in The Vicomte de Bragelonne when he writes that one character was 'As punctual as the priestess Hero'? --Gwern (contribs) 02:07 8 July 2009 (GMT)

Hero and Leander - Yamara ✉ 12:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hero

In keeping with WP:DAB, films titled The Hero should be restored for clarity and completeness. The Hero should remain as a separate DAB, though. - Yamara ✉ 14:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Heroes"

The usage of "Heroes" is up for discussion, see Talk:"Heroes" -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HERO (magazine)

An hero

It is a known online slang term and it deserves to have a mention, no matter what the opinions are on 4chan. Removing "an hero" from the disambig makes no sense sincr the word does derive from the term hero. 176.104.110.11 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]