Talk:Heroes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heroes page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Redirection (and protection) debate

This section is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Hero (disambiguation) and request full protection. - Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the issue

As detailed in this page's edit history, there is a dispute over whether this page should redirect to Heroes (TV series) or Hero (disambiguation). It originally redirected to Hero as the plural form of that word, but consensus was to redirect it to the dab page so that other uses—including, but not limited to the TV series—could be more easily found.

Secondarily, we need to decide and agree on whether this redirect should be fully protected from all edits or not. Full protection and consensus will avoid any further disputes. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey I: Redirection

Question: Should the redirect page go to Hero, Heroes (TV series) or Hero (disambiguation)?

Method: Add #'''Support''' ~~~~ to one of the following level two subsections. An additional, brief comment is optional.

Redirect to Hero

Redirect to Hero (disambiguation)

I support this -- thither 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC) - I'm a fan of the show and the show is popular, but I don't think it's particularly more important than the other concepts on the disambig page, and it's near the top anyways.[reply]
Support. To quote Ace, "The plural form and singular form are ... linked. Anyone who types in "heroes" could be looking for the "hero" article and/or other uses." --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above two reasons. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heroes (TV series)

Survey II: Protection

Should the redirect page be protected or not? Add #'''Support''' or #'''Oppose''' and ~~~~ (an additional, brief comment is optional.)

Support seems to me that no matter what the result is, there are going to be people who keep on vandalizing it. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments here

Just an idea, maybe there should be a separate disambig page for "heroes" as opposed to "hero"? There are several articles with the "heroes" title, and the list on Hero (disambiguation) is getting rather long. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Split the disambig pages and have links to each other.Aexia 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a viable solution. The plural form and singular form are fundamentally linked. Anyone who types in "heroes" could be looking for the "hero" article and/or other uses. Believe me, any options I've not offered aren't worth considering. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? While I now see the reasoning behind the redirect (and agree with you), you really shouldn't just dismiss people's suggestions out of hand like that. We're just trying to help. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because I disagree with the two of the options I've already offered, for starters. Tapping into the realm of possibilities—not reasonability ir common sense, though.—I could probably come up with several other options not considered. We could create a bare bones dab page of the three articles. (Hero (disambiguation), Hero and Heroes (TV series).) However, this would clearly be seen as preferencial treatment to the TV series. We could create a dab page with only the plural uses, plus the "Hero" and "Hero (disambiguation)" articles. Heck, we could redirect the page to heroine. Still, these wouldn't be within the bounds of common sense, viability or reasonabilty. Anyway, I don't mean to come off as arrogant or belittling. I know you were trying to help and I appreciate it. The fact that you came here at all and voiced opinions really helps out. (Maybe I need to make flyers or something...) Still, this little survey works best if we can all agree to one of the options given. Once that's done, I'll make a formal protection request and we can be done with this. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirection number 2

Question: Should Heroes redirect to Heroes (TV series)?

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support it has been three months since the previous discussion and the TV show is quite popular and should have Heroes redirect to it. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 01:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The TV show is by far the most popular use of term as far as internet searches go. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Despite the current popularity of Heroes, assigning what is a *very* common word and concept exclusively to a television show doesn't make sense. (See the debate over a proposed move for Lost.) Heroes is getting a lot of hits now, given that it has just returned after a hiatus. However, in a month or so, traffic will drop. Beyond that, there are a significant number of notable uses of the term "heroes" - albums, songs, films, and other television series. A better plan would be to move the diambiguation page here. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Because of the show's current popularity, we have to look at what is best for the overall project. -- Y not? 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "English wikipedia" is not synonymous to "American wikipedia" as this proposal assumes. Miskin 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the term is too broad to single out a single american television show. If it runs for over 10 years, my opinion might change, but no sooner. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:MOSDAB and above. Justen 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - General use of the term "hero(es)" is much more notable than the TV show. --Kmsiever 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that anyone looking for information on Heroism would search for Hero. To use the plural form of the noun is more likely to be a query about the TV program. --Mesolimbo 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed with Mesolimbo. Use the redirect template on the article if this carries. Tafkargb 07:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's far more likey that someone typing "Heroes" is looking for the general idea of a superhero. TJ Spyke 07:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hell no. This is a ridiculous example of recentism, as per TheDJ, the show has not set the world on fire in its popularity. On a global scale, the TV show would not take precedence over all other users of the word "Heroes", for example the David Bowie album, and the highly acclaimed title track. - hahnch e n 10:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - same reasons as above, really. There are lots of other things that are referred to as "Heroes". The tv show may be popular now, but this will change - especially when the series finish. — hippi ippi₊₊⁺⁺ 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated below, I have created a temporary disambiguation page at Heroes/temp to show how one might look. There are so many different articles titled Heroes that it makes sense to have Heroes be a disambiguation page for them. Crazysuit 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Intriguing discussion, but if Wikipedia is not "recent" then what is it? The television show is what most people are looking for at Heroes in the English speaking world. KMulgrew 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Youngamerican said it best. Mattay 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Crazysuit's proposal below. -- Chuq (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as much as I enjoy the show personally, "Heroes" should either redirect to "Hero" or host a disambiguation page of its own. Those "It's the most popular use of the term!" redirects always bear NPOV issues, better to avoid them altogether. - Cyrus XIII 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that one the most important gauges of Wikipedia's success as a project is its usefulness to its readers - not at an indeterminate future date, but now. It is very clear (and seemingly scarcely contested) that, at the moment, the very vast majority of users searching for the term "Heroes" are looking for the page about the NBC television show. It seems only sensible that this page should redirect there. If the popularity of the TV show's page changes in the future, we can simply adjust the redirect then. As is often noted, Wikipedia is not paper; its mutability can be easily used to its advantage in cases like this one. unless 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose As popular as Heroes is, the phrase has been in use for generations and just cannot simply redirect to a show that will only last a minute about of time within the world's history. The phrase is far more in use then the show's usage of it and will continue after the show is gone. (Mrja84 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose. Far too many other items on the dsiambig page for one to be given precedence. Bolivian Unicyclist 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With the archived section above I'm not sure if this is still active, but the point of the encyclopedia is for most people to find what they want with fewest clicks. Anyone typing in Heroes looking for the TV series can find it very rapidly on the disambigatuation page, while all the people looking for hero and some other meaning (which I think would be extremely common) would have to click all over to get where they wanted if this dumped out on the TV page. DreamGuy 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The vast majority of people who type in "Heroes" will be looking for the TV series, none of the other uses on the disambiguation page are notable compared to it. – ARC Gritt^TALK 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with compromise proposal Use Heroes/temp as disab; I've changed the proposed disab so that the "fiction" section is now on top and the most likely sought entries are at the top, which is consistent with the goals established for disab pages by Wikipedia's manual of style.
Oppose At the moment, people who type in "Heroes" may be looking for the show, sure, but we should be following the ten-year rule here. Goldfritha 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heroes is just too general a term. Halo doesn't redirect to Halo: Combat Evolved for similar reasons. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with many editors above: it's American-centric, the TV show may disappear suddenly, the disambiguation page has way too many entries for it to just redirect to the TV show. I agree with rearranging the disambiguation page to put the Heroes TV show link at the top. Illuminatedwax 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Multiple articles use "Heroes" with some form of qualifier as an article heading, these are all listed at the Hero disambiguation page. Just because one person may be looking for the US televison series now does not mean that every person now and in the future will also be looking for the US television series. -- saberwyn 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a television show and its popularity will fade over time (especially when it's canceled). Then eventually we'd be redirecting it back to the disambiguation page. No one will die following another link. User:Tastywheat/sig 07:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I'm surprised this poll was actioned on with only four replies?? -- Chuq (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a general lack of attention being paid to the fact that 250 or so pages on Wikipedia were pointing aimlessly at Heroes was a pretty sad situation. In investigating disambiguating those (largely to Hero), I came across the discussion. It does seem that there was a general lack of interest in taking any action, but, it's in line with how disambigs should work, and I think by the time I'm done with those 250 pages in need of disambiguation, things will be much better. Please help! Justen 13:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah I see. I was going to suggest that if Heroes redirects to Heroes (TV series), then it would make more sense to move Heroes (TV series) to Heroes. Are you suggesting that it is a temporary setup, and once all the articles that link to 'Heroes' are fixed, it will be changed back? -- Chuq (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have made a formal request move here --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the change to the redirect for now. There was no formal closure to the debate, very little participation, and there is an active move discussion. We should wait for that process to complete as it may well affect the outcome here. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, "very little participation" and a "move discussion" that was opened after the reverted change are not really compelling grounds for a revert. I'm reverting back to Heroes redirecting to the TV show. There hasn't been a groundswell of outsiders questioning the redirect, Wikipedia has not fallen, and we're actually adhering to redirects and disambigs work on WP, instead of sticking our heads in the sand. Justen 23:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as to the renaming of Heroes (TV series) to Heroes, I think that's a bad idea. While the TV show today is the most relevant article for the word "Heroes," that could change in six months or a year, in which case having an an autonomous Heroes makes future editors' jobs easier. It also helps (a lot) in figuring out what articles need to have links to heroes disambiguated. On that note, please help! Justen 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect has been restored to the disambiguation page again, pending a consensus. There are currently two discussions under way which directly affect this change, and as such it should not be changed prematurely. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seperated the articles titled "Heroes" and listed them to give a clearer indication of how many there are:

"Heroes", an album by David Bowie
"Heroes" (song), the same-titled single from a David Bowie album
Symphony No. 4 (Glass) or "Heroes" Symphony, by Philip Glass, inspired by the album
Heroes (Cash and Jennings album), a 1986 album by Johnny Cash and Waylon Jennings
"Heroes" (Elena Paparizou song), the official song of the 2006 European Athletics Championship
"Heroes" (Shinedown song), a single by the hard rock band Shinedown
Heroes (Mark O'Connor album), by Mark O'Connor
Héroes del Silencio, Spanish rock band
Heroes of Sand, a song by the Brazilian metal band Angra
Heroes (TV series), a 2006 American television series on NBC created by Tim Kring
Heroes (film), 1977 comedy film starring Henry Winkler and Sally Field
Heroes (comics), a comic book limited series from Milestone Comics
Heroes (book), a short novel by American author Robert Cormier
"Heroes" (Stargate SG-1), a two-part episode of Stargate SG-1
"Heroes", an episode of CSI: NY
Heroes of Might and Magic, dubbed simply as Heroes by players, a series of turn-based strategy games

I created a temporary disambiguation page at Heroes/temp to show how it might look - no specific order though. There are so many articles named "Heroes" that Heroes could be a disambiguation page in itself, rather than just a redirect to Hero - it would make it easier for anyone looking for a "Heroes" article than if they had to search through a list of mostly Hero-titled articles, as they currently have to. Crazysuit 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This solution was proposed and shot down multiple times (wrongly in my opinion) by an overzealous editor of the hero dab page. A person searching for heroes is not searching for any work of film, television or music titled hero, and the articles on common noun/possible pluralization forms of hero are all found at the bottom of the hero dab page (uses included under People, National decorations and Other). Also, I disagree with the poster below that searching for heroes would be a frequent accidental pluralization, especially given the spelling of the word (es rather than s). I think most of the clamor for a redirect to Heroes (TV series) would evaporate with separate dab pages clearing the path for easier navigation. (71.178.60.189 06:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Commentary originally left above.

Please elaborate (note:this isn't meant to sound snarky, but is rather a good faith request for a bit more from your side of the argument). youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No snarkiness (sp?) perceived - it's a perfectly fair request. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since heroes already is a dab, please help me disambiguate! See Special:Whatlinkshere/Heroes. Justen 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that. Most people typing in "Heroes" would likely just be accidetally pluralizing "Hero", and are NOT looking for the TV show. This is like if a TV show named "Nations" was created and wanting the article here to redirect to the TV show rather than "Nation". TJ Spyke 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is really a singular-plural issue, then Heroes should redirect to Hero, not the disambiguation page at Hero (disambiguation). Dekimasu よ! 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that "Most people typing in "Heroes" would likely just be accidetally pluralizing "Hero", and are NOT looking for the TV show." The reason I disagree is because most of the articles that link to Heroes mean to link to Heroes (TV series) though I have already corrected quite a few (see my contributions in the last 48 hours). Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes a difference to anyone, the move request to have "Heroes (TV series)" moved to "Heroes" just got shot down 20-1. TJ Spyke 06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection done right

How can we get the ball rolling to have Heroes moved to Heroes_(disambiguation)? (71.178.144.33 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have created Heroes (disambiguation), does it seem okay? Then perhaps next we can change this page to redirect to it instead of Hero (disambiguation). Cheers – ARC Gritt^TALK 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have not changed anything in Hero (disambiguation). – ARC Gritt^TALK 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are split

Since there were no objections on the Hero (disambiguation) talk page, I removed the heroes names from that page. This redirect should now go to Heroes (disambiguation). --Hasdrabion 13:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of the subjects

Please keep the subjects in order of importance. This is done one other disambig pages as well and there is really no point to have 95% of the users scroll through the page in order to find the thing that should have been placed on top. Alphabetical ordering is only appropriate if there are several things of equal importance on the page. The Heroes TV series or the Heroes of Might and Magic gaming series are much more evolved than the other pages listed, so there seems to be a bigger interest in these topics. --84.178.115.248 10:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted - this has been discussed before, when the page was part of the "Hero" dismabiguation. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted - This was indeed discussed before. As I recall, you made a shoddy argument, I rebutted it, and you declined to reply. I then rearranged the page in a sensible manner, and it remained thus until this disambig page was split from it. Alphabetical order doesn't make a bit of sense. Let's try and actually make this page useful to readers, yes? unless 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper order has been restored. I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to; apologies if I've missed it, but I couldn't find anywhere on the "Hero" or "Heroes" pages where you and I spoke about this. The correct order is alphabetical, not based on popularity. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to resolve this reasonably. After reviewing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I realized that this page was seriously not in compliance. I've gone ahead and edited it to bring it within those guidelines. As far as alphabetical order goes, the MoS has no mention of it, and indeed says "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." unless 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malplaced disambiguation page

{{editprotected}} Please add {{db-move|Heroes (disambiguation)}} to the top of this redirect, or just move the malplaced (disambiguation) page here. -- JHunterJ 10:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I interpret the above request correctly, the result would be to delete this page and move Heroes (disambiguation) here in its place. However, the consensus of a move discussion was to use this page as a redirect to Heroes (disambiguation). Unfortunately, it appears that the talk page wasn't moved at the same time, and a few comments have since been left at Talk:Heroes (disambiguation). The best way to clean this up is to move this page to Talk:Heroes (disambiguation), and then merge the comments that are already there. Heroes should then be left as a redirect to Heroes (disambiguation). Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The (disambiguation) page shouldn't be a redirect from the base name. (disambiguation) pages are only needed when there is a primary topic article (or redirect) at the base name -- see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. I think the fix here would be to merge the comments to Talk:Heroes (disambiguation), delete this page, and move Heroes (disambiguation) here in its place (along with the merged Talk). -- JHunterJ 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... it was more a concern that this page would be deleted without any record of the discussions, as the comments here are arguably more pertinent than the short discussion at the other page. Your proposal would address that issue. (Thanks for the link, by the way.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need editprotected for this. You need WP:RM or WP:AN. --MZMcBride 03:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Heroes to Heroes (disambiguation)

I've been working on fixing pages that linked to the [[Heroes]] page to point them either here, or to the Heroes (TV series) article (or to the appropriate other article), but boy, there's a lot of them! So I'm taking a little break. If anyone else wants to finish that before I get back, that'd be great. I also realize, after having fixed the first 50, that most articles that I changed to point here should actually point to hero. So if nobody else does it I need to remember to change those too. This post is as much a reminder to myself as anything. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the previous discussions on this page's title and moved it back to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Wiki

I've made an article for fan site Heroes Wiki in my userspace, which I have proposed moving to the mainspace. You can see it now at User:MiamiVolts/Heroes Wiki. Discussion on the move is at User talk:MiamiVolts/Heroes Wiki. Assuming the move goes through, I think Heroes Wiki would get added to the 'other uses' section of this page.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is now in the mainspace, so I have added a link to it here as mentioned above.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (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]

"Complete List of all other Helix Appearances" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Complete List of all other Helix Appearances. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 13#Complete List of all other Helix Appearances until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 00:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Heros(tv show)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Heros(tv show). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 15#Heros(tv show) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Heroes(TV Series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Heroes(TV Series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 15#Heroes(TV Series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Heroes(TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Heroes(TV series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 15#Heroes(TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes (disambiguation) → Heroes – I'm proposing that the move from 18 August is reversed and the page is moved back to its established title, which it had occupied for the past 13 years. The recent move (and subsequent retargeting to Hero) appear to have been done on the understanding that the plurals of common nouns should be expected to redirect to the singular. But there are good reasons why this wasn't the case here: "Heroes" is the name of a good number of songs, films, games and TV shows, many of them of continuing prominence and popularity. Most readers who search for this exact term are probably looking for one or another of these topics, rather than the the generic concept (and if they had been looking for it, they would have most likely used the singular anyway). This is further indicated by the enduring high views for the dab page [1] – one fifth as many as those for the article Hero (that's significantly higher than for most singular/plural pairings), and by a comparison of the views of the articles concerned. Just picking three prominent looking ones (out of about sixty linked on the dab page), they get between themselves five times as many views as Hero [2] (yes, views for popular culture topics shouldn't carry a great deal of weight, but they're still relevant; and recentisms here aren't really an issue: of these three articles, one is about a TV series that stopped running a decade ago, and the other two are about an album and a song from 1977.) – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for the original move was explained there. Pings to people who've edited the dab page or commented on this in the past 10 days: RexxS, BarrelProof, Crouch, Swale, Bkonrad, Shhhnotsoloud, Narky Blert, GoingBatty. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Support: For me, "Heroes" is a 1977 song by David Bowie, for others it is a TV series. Looking at the dab page, there is quite a long list of candidate topics. Disambiguation seems appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Too many prominent Heroes articles that aren't intertwined with the hero page. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Agree that someone looking for "Heroes" probably isn't looking for the Hero article. By having Heroes be a dab page, we have the opportunity to easily find and fix the links, even if they occasionally have to be changed to [[Hero]]es. GoingBatty (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. No primary topic for the plural version. (And revert undiscussed move.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all. GoingBatty's point is important: WP:PTOPICs and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs accumulate bad links, even where there is an overwhelming primary meaning, and that is bad for the encyclopaedia (example: Tetrahedron). Narky Blert (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I did spend some time cleaning up this page, and, on reflection, there are enough significantly popular topics to challenge the assumption that the plural is the primary topic for the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes given the page views this might be a good example of a split primary topic since as others have noted some of the topics get more views than the noun[[3]] and I'd say that the chocolates are also likely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Ab207 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.