Talk:Portal:Theories - Revision history

imported>Intuitive Empath: /* Popularity */ new section

2009-11-30T17:51:58Z

Popularity: new section

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:51, 30 November 2009
(No difference)

imported>Intuitive Empath: /* Popularity */ new section

2009-11-30T17:51:58Z

Popularity: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:51, 30 November 2009
Line 73:		Line 73:
	== Theories about cloning and reviving dead ==		== Theories about cloning and reviving dead ==
	For example, [[the German]]'s [[Theory:The German\|theory page]] has a theory "[[Dr. Zimmerman]] will clone or revive him". Does anyone think this is ridiculous? We saw cloning can be possible only for those who have the proper ability, and it cannot be extended. And regenerative blood cannot revive dead if they remained dead for too long. {{User:Altes/Signature}}		For example, [[the German]]'s [[Theory:The German\|theory page]] has a theory "[[Dr. Zimmerman]] will clone or revive him". Does anyone think this is ridiculous? We saw cloning can be possible only for those who have the proper ability, and it cannot be extended. And regenerative blood cannot revive dead if they remained dead for too long. {{User:Altes/Signature}}

			== Popularity ==

			Does anyone have any idea on why these have become so popular all of a sudden? [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:51, 30 November 2009 (EST)

imported>Altes at 09:59, 8 September 2009

2009-09-08T09:59:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 8 September 2009
Line 70:		Line 70:
	Does anyone else think arguments such as "{{plus}} That doesn't mean [this theory is disproven]." don't belong? If the theory had been disproven, it would have been removed, so the fact that the theory is still there states well enough that the theory has not been disproven. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (EST)		Does anyone else think arguments such as "{{plus}} That doesn't mean [this theory is disproven]." don't belong? If the theory had been disproven, it would have been removed, so the fact that the theory is still there states well enough that the theory has not been disproven. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (EST)
	*The theory pages in general need to be extensively cleaned for such "arguments". The theory page shouldn't have discussions as points. Someone needs to go through and clean them out. I would, but I did it back when the theories were all on one page, and that took me forever. Since then, I've completely given up on the theories because I don't think we need them, but that's my own opinion. --{{User:Baldbobbo/sig}} 15:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)		*The theory pages in general need to be extensively cleaned for such "arguments". The theory page shouldn't have discussions as points. Someone needs to go through and clean them out. I would, but I did it back when the theories were all on one page, and that took me forever. Since then, I've completely given up on the theories because I don't think we need them, but that's my own opinion. --{{User:Baldbobbo/sig}} 15:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

			== Theories about cloning and reviving dead ==
			For example, [[the German]]'s [[Theory:The German\|theory page]] has a theory "[[Dr. Zimmerman]] will clone or revive him". Does anyone think this is ridiculous? We saw cloning can be possible only for those who have the proper ability, and it cannot be extended. And regenerative blood cannot revive dead if they remained dead for too long. {{User:Altes/Signature}}

imported>Baldbobbo: /* "That doesn't mean this theory is disproven" */

2008-11-21T20:30:24Z

"That doesn't mean this theory is disproven"

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:30, 21 November 2008
Line 69:		Line 69:

	Does anyone else think arguments such as "{{plus}} That doesn't mean [this theory is disproven]." don't belong? If the theory had been disproven, it would have been removed, so the fact that the theory is still there states well enough that the theory has not been disproven. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (EST)		Does anyone else think arguments such as "{{plus}} That doesn't mean [this theory is disproven]." don't belong? If the theory had been disproven, it would have been removed, so the fact that the theory is still there states well enough that the theory has not been disproven. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (EST)
			*The theory pages in general need to be extensively cleaned for such "arguments". The theory page shouldn't have discussions as points. Someone needs to go through and clean them out. I would, but I did it back when the theories were all on one page, and that took me forever. Since then, I've completely given up on the theories because I don't think we need them, but that's my own opinion. --{{User:Baldbobbo/sig}} 15:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

imported>Josh: /* "That doesn't mean this theory is disproven" */ new section

2008-11-21T19:14:06Z

"That doesn't mean this theory is disproven": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 21 November 2008
Line 65:		Line 65:
	* The theories articles really need to be scrubbed again. I'm guessing a lot of stuff currently in Notes could be moved to Citations. I personally really like setting aside the citations because it lets people scan quickly for theories that have a little "weight" versus theories that are basically pulled straight out of someone's ass. We end up with a lot of theories that are on the general order of "I'm guessing that something highly improbable which we have no reason to believe is even vaguely likely to happen will happen", and I like that theories which people have gleaned from actual clues in the episodes stand out from them.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:49, 26 October 2007 (EDT)		* The theories articles really need to be scrubbed again. I'm guessing a lot of stuff currently in Notes could be moved to Citations. I personally really like setting aside the citations because it lets people scan quickly for theories that have a little "weight" versus theories that are basically pulled straight out of someone's ass. We end up with a lot of theories that are on the general order of "I'm guessing that something highly improbable which we have no reason to believe is even vaguely likely to happen will happen", and I like that theories which people have gleaned from actual clues in the episodes stand out from them.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:49, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
	* I actually had an idea concerning this: Rather than having two sections in which affirming information can go into and only one in which negating information can go into, reorganize the Theories tables to contain these three columns: Theory (which would remain unchanged from its original form), Reasoning (which would list information supporting the theory), and Rebuttal (which would list information negating the theory). This would makes use of all three columns in most theories and would also shorten page length in most cases.--[[User:Jpatch\|Jpatch]] 09:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)		* I actually had an idea concerning this: Rather than having two sections in which affirming information can go into and only one in which negating information can go into, reorganize the Theories tables to contain these three columns: Theory (which would remain unchanged from its original form), Reasoning (which would list information supporting the theory), and Rebuttal (which would list information negating the theory). This would makes use of all three columns in most theories and would also shorten page length in most cases.--[[User:Jpatch\|Jpatch]] 09:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)

			== "That doesn't mean this theory is disproven" ==

			Does anyone else think arguments such as "{{plus}} That doesn't mean [this theory is disproven]." don't belong? If the theory had been disproven, it would have been removed, so the fact that the theory is still there states well enough that the theory has not been disproven. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (EST)

imported>Jpatch: My ideas for theories pages.

2007-11-07T14:16:51Z

My ideas for theories pages.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 7 November 2007
Line 64:		Line 64:
	A scan across the Theories pages brings up something disconcerting. It's rare that the Citations section inside the tables is ever used. More often than not it contains "None". This means there is a lot of virtual real estate on the page that is left empty. The solution to this would be simple: remove the Citation column across the board. Any Citations can be moved to the Notes section as plusses. Any thoughts pro or con would be appreciated. - [[User:ZachsMind\|ZachsMind]] 23:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)		A scan across the Theories pages brings up something disconcerting. It's rare that the Citations section inside the tables is ever used. More often than not it contains "None". This means there is a lot of virtual real estate on the page that is left empty. The solution to this would be simple: remove the Citation column across the board. Any Citations can be moved to the Notes section as plusses. Any thoughts pro or con would be appreciated. - [[User:ZachsMind\|ZachsMind]] 23:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
	* The theories articles really need to be scrubbed again. I'm guessing a lot of stuff currently in Notes could be moved to Citations. I personally really like setting aside the citations because it lets people scan quickly for theories that have a little "weight" versus theories that are basically pulled straight out of someone's ass. We end up with a lot of theories that are on the general order of "I'm guessing that something highly improbable which we have no reason to believe is even vaguely likely to happen will happen", and I like that theories which people have gleaned from actual clues in the episodes stand out from them.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:49, 26 October 2007 (EDT)		* The theories articles really need to be scrubbed again. I'm guessing a lot of stuff currently in Notes could be moved to Citations. I personally really like setting aside the citations because it lets people scan quickly for theories that have a little "weight" versus theories that are basically pulled straight out of someone's ass. We end up with a lot of theories that are on the general order of "I'm guessing that something highly improbable which we have no reason to believe is even vaguely likely to happen will happen", and I like that theories which people have gleaned from actual clues in the episodes stand out from them.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:49, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
			* I actually had an idea concerning this: Rather than having two sections in which affirming information can go into and only one in which negating information can go into, reorganize the Theories tables to contain these three columns: Theory (which would remain unchanged from its original form), Reasoning (which would list information supporting the theory), and Rebuttal (which would list information negating the theory). This would makes use of all three columns in most theories and would also shorten page length in most cases.--[[User:Jpatch\|Jpatch]] 09:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)

imported>Hardvice at 03:49, 27 October 2007

2007-10-27T03:49:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:49, 27 October 2007
Line 63:		Line 63:

	A scan across the Theories pages brings up something disconcerting. It's rare that the Citations section inside the tables is ever used. More often than not it contains "None". This means there is a lot of virtual real estate on the page that is left empty. The solution to this would be simple: remove the Citation column across the board. Any Citations can be moved to the Notes section as plusses. Any thoughts pro or con would be appreciated. - [[User:ZachsMind\|ZachsMind]] 23:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)		A scan across the Theories pages brings up something disconcerting. It's rare that the Citations section inside the tables is ever used. More often than not it contains "None". This means there is a lot of virtual real estate on the page that is left empty. The solution to this would be simple: remove the Citation column across the board. Any Citations can be moved to the Notes section as plusses. Any thoughts pro or con would be appreciated. - [[User:ZachsMind\|ZachsMind]] 23:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
			* The theories articles really need to be scrubbed again. I'm guessing a lot of stuff currently in Notes could be moved to Citations. I personally really like setting aside the citations because it lets people scan quickly for theories that have a little "weight" versus theories that are basically pulled straight out of someone's ass. We end up with a lot of theories that are on the general order of "I'm guessing that something highly improbable which we have no reason to believe is even vaguely likely to happen will happen", and I like that theories which people have gleaned from actual clues in the episodes stand out from them.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:49, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

imported>ZachsMind: New section: Suggestion: Remove Citations

2007-10-27T03:26:00Z

New section: Suggestion: Remove Citations

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:26, 27 October 2007
Line 59:		Line 59:
	** I added an example [[template:theoryhelpbar\|sidebar]]. It's probably too detailed right now, but it should give an idea of what I'm talking about. My biggest concern is that it's all about how to edit the article, which is a little odd to include in an article (and it looks a little odd on Lostpedia, too), but otherwise it could be helpful. A pity we can't just make it pop up whenever somebody edits a Theory article (or can we? hmmm...)--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:36, 28 September 2007 (EDT)		** I added an example [[template:theoryhelpbar\|sidebar]]. It's probably too detailed right now, but it should give an idea of what I'm talking about. My biggest concern is that it's all about how to edit the article, which is a little odd to include in an article (and it looks a little odd on Lostpedia, too), but otherwise it could be helpful. A pity we can't just make it pop up whenever somebody edits a Theory article (or can we? hmmm...)--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:36, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
	*** A pity, Hardvice? A pity? More like... a [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theory:Waffles&action=edit reality]. :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 17:58, 28 September 2007 (EDT))		*** A pity, Hardvice? A pity? More like... a [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theory:Waffles&action=edit reality]. :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 17:58, 28 September 2007 (EDT))

			== Suggestion: Remove Citations ==

			A scan across the Theories pages brings up something disconcerting. It's rare that the Citations section inside the tables is ever used. More often than not it contains "None". This means there is a lot of virtual real estate on the page that is left empty. The solution to this would be simple: remove the Citation column across the board. Any Citations can be moved to the Notes section as plusses. Any thoughts pro or con would be appreciated. - [[User:ZachsMind\|ZachsMind]] 23:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

imported>Admin: /* Theory top bar */

2007-09-28T21:58:34Z

Theory top bar

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 28 September 2007
Line 58:		Line 58:
	* Good idea. I adapted their bar to make it work with how we do theories (our theories pages don't necessarily relate to an existing article, but theirs do) and to match our style. It's at [[template:theorypagenav]] if anyone wants to spruce it up further. As a sidenote, I also rather like their [[lostpedia:Template:Theory Policy\|theory side bar]]. We should consider developing an abbreviated version of [[Help:Theories]] and using it as a sidebar.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:00, 28 September 2007 (EDT)		* Good idea. I adapted their bar to make it work with how we do theories (our theories pages don't necessarily relate to an existing article, but theirs do) and to match our style. It's at [[template:theorypagenav]] if anyone wants to spruce it up further. As a sidenote, I also rather like their [[lostpedia:Template:Theory Policy\|theory side bar]]. We should consider developing an abbreviated version of [[Help:Theories]] and using it as a sidebar.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:00, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
	** I added an example [[template:theoryhelpbar\|sidebar]]. It's probably too detailed right now, but it should give an idea of what I'm talking about. My biggest concern is that it's all about how to edit the article, which is a little odd to include in an article (and it looks a little odd on Lostpedia, too), but otherwise it could be helpful. A pity we can't just make it pop up whenever somebody edits a Theory article (or can we? hmmm...)--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:36, 28 September 2007 (EDT)		** I added an example [[template:theoryhelpbar\|sidebar]]. It's probably too detailed right now, but it should give an idea of what I'm talking about. My biggest concern is that it's all about how to edit the article, which is a little odd to include in an article (and it looks a little odd on Lostpedia, too), but otherwise it could be helpful. A pity we can't just make it pop up whenever somebody edits a Theory article (or can we? hmmm...)--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:36, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
			*** A pity, Hardvice? A pity? More like... a [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theory:Waffles&action=edit reality]. :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 17:58, 28 September 2007 (EDT))

imported>Hardvice at 21:36, 28 September 2007

2007-09-28T21:36:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 28 September 2007
Line 57:		Line 57:
	Could we make a theory bar to place at the top of each theory page, which would include links to the original article and original article's discussion. Lostpedia has this and I really like it. ---- [[Image:Ohmyn0.jpg]][[Image:Ohmyn0talk.jpg]] 13:29, 28 September 2007 (EDT)		Could we make a theory bar to place at the top of each theory page, which would include links to the original article and original article's discussion. Lostpedia has this and I really like it. ---- [[Image:Ohmyn0.jpg]][[Image:Ohmyn0talk.jpg]] 13:29, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
	* Good idea. I adapted their bar to make it work with how we do theories (our theories pages don't necessarily relate to an existing article, but theirs do) and to match our style. It's at [[template:theorypagenav]] if anyone wants to spruce it up further. As a sidenote, I also rather like their [[lostpedia:Template:Theory Policy\|theory side bar]]. We should consider developing an abbreviated version of [[Help:Theories]] and using it as a sidebar.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:00, 28 September 2007 (EDT)		* Good idea. I adapted their bar to make it work with how we do theories (our theories pages don't necessarily relate to an existing article, but theirs do) and to match our style. It's at [[template:theorypagenav]] if anyone wants to spruce it up further. As a sidenote, I also rather like their [[lostpedia:Template:Theory Policy\|theory side bar]]. We should consider developing an abbreviated version of [[Help:Theories]] and using it as a sidebar.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:00, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
			** I added an example [[template:theoryhelpbar\|sidebar]]. It's probably too detailed right now, but it should give an idea of what I'm talking about. My biggest concern is that it's all about how to edit the article, which is a little odd to include in an article (and it looks a little odd on Lostpedia, too), but otherwise it could be helpful. A pity we can't just make it pop up whenever somebody edits a Theory article (or can we? hmmm...)--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:36, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 7 November 2007
Line 64:		Line 64:
	A scan across the Theories pages brings up something disconcerting. It's rare that the Citations section inside the tables is ever used. More often than not it contains "None". This means there is a lot of virtual real estate on the page that is left empty. The solution to this would be simple: remove the Citation column across the board. Any Citations can be moved to the Notes section as plusses. Any thoughts pro or con would be appreciated. - [[User:ZachsMind\|ZachsMind]] 23:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)		A scan across the Theories pages brings up something disconcerting. It's rare that the Citations section inside the tables is ever used. More often than not it contains "None". This means there is a lot of virtual real estate on the page that is left empty. The solution to this would be simple: remove the Citation column across the board. Any Citations can be moved to the Notes section as plusses. Any thoughts pro or con would be appreciated. - [[User:ZachsMind\|ZachsMind]] 23:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
	* The theories articles really need to be scrubbed again. I'm guessing a lot of stuff currently in Notes could be moved to Citations. I personally really like setting aside the citations because it lets people scan quickly for theories that have a little "weight" versus theories that are basically pulled straight out of someone's ass. We end up with a lot of theories that are on the general order of "I'm guessing that something highly improbable which we have no reason to believe is even vaguely likely to happen will happen", and I like that theories which people have gleaned from actual clues in the episodes stand out from them.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:49, 26 October 2007 (EDT)		* The theories articles really need to be scrubbed again. I'm guessing a lot of stuff currently in Notes could be moved to Citations. I personally really like setting aside the citations because it lets people scan quickly for theories that have a little "weight" versus theories that are basically pulled straight out of someone's ass. We end up with a lot of theories that are on the general order of "I'm guessing that something highly improbable which we have no reason to believe is even vaguely likely to happen will happen", and I like that theories which people have gleaned from actual clues in the episodes stand out from them.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:49, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
			* I actually had an idea concerning this: Rather than having two sections in which affirming information can go into and only one in which negating information can go into, reorganize the Theories tables to contain these three columns: Theory (which would remain unchanged from its original form), Reasoning (which would list information supporting the theory), and Rebuttal (which would list information negating the theory). This would makes use of all three columns in most theories and would also shorten page length in most cases.--[[User:Jpatch\|Jpatch]] 09:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 28 September 2007
Line 58:		Line 58:
	* Good idea. I adapted their bar to make it work with how we do theories (our theories pages don't necessarily relate to an existing article, but theirs do) and to match our style. It's at [[template:theorypagenav]] if anyone wants to spruce it up further. As a sidenote, I also rather like their [[lostpedia:Template:Theory Policy\|theory side bar]]. We should consider developing an abbreviated version of [[Help:Theories]] and using it as a sidebar.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:00, 28 September 2007 (EDT)		* Good idea. I adapted their bar to make it work with how we do theories (our theories pages don't necessarily relate to an existing article, but theirs do) and to match our style. It's at [[template:theorypagenav]] if anyone wants to spruce it up further. As a sidenote, I also rather like their [[lostpedia:Template:Theory Policy\|theory side bar]]. We should consider developing an abbreviated version of [[Help:Theories]] and using it as a sidebar.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:00, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
	** I added an example [[template:theoryhelpbar\|sidebar]]. It's probably too detailed right now, but it should give an idea of what I'm talking about. My biggest concern is that it's all about how to edit the article, which is a little odd to include in an article (and it looks a little odd on Lostpedia, too), but otherwise it could be helpful. A pity we can't just make it pop up whenever somebody edits a Theory article (or can we? hmmm...)--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:36, 28 September 2007 (EDT)		** I added an example [[template:theoryhelpbar\|sidebar]]. It's probably too detailed right now, but it should give an idea of what I'm talking about. My biggest concern is that it's all about how to edit the article, which is a little odd to include in an article (and it looks a little odd on Lostpedia, too), but otherwise it could be helpful. A pity we can't just make it pop up whenever somebody edits a Theory article (or can we? hmmm...)--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:36, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
			*** A pity, Hardvice? A pity? More like... a [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theory:Waffles&action=edit reality]. :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 17:58, 28 September 2007 (EDT))