Talk:Theories - Revision history

imported>MiamiVolts at 18:53, 14 January 2008

2008-01-14T18:53:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 14 January 2008
(No difference)

imported>MiamiVolts at 18:53, 14 January 2008

2008-01-14T18:53:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 14 January 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	! Archived Topics		! Archived Topics
	\|-		\|-
	\| align=center \| [[Talk:Theories/Archive 1\|Nov/Dec 2006]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Talk:Theories/Archive 1</small>		\| align=center \| [[Talk:Theories/Archive 1\|Nov/Dec 2006]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Talk:Theories/Archive 1}}</small>
	\|-		\|-
	\| align=center \| [[Talk:Theories/Archive 2\|Jan/Feb 2007]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Talk:Theories/Archive 2</small>		\| align=center \| [[Talk:Theories/Archive 2\|Jan/Feb 2007]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Talk:Theories/Archive 2}}</small>
	\|}		\|}

imported>MiamiVolts: +archivelinks template, fix archive 2 link

2008-01-14T18:53:26Z

+archivelinks template, fix archive 2 link

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 14 January 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	! Archived Topics		! Archived Topics
	\|-		\|-
	\| align=center \| [[Talk:Theories/Archive 1\|Nov/Dec 2006]] \|\| <small>Who is the cause of the explosion? • Crossed out Linderman theory • New Sylar theory • Matt's timeline • Centralized Theory Page • What the heck is the AWOI? • Theory Chart • Sylar murdered Sanjog? • Empty categories • Peter's Dream • Micah • Sylar's victims • True Theories ~~• Niki Sanders~~</small>		\| align=center \| [[Talk:Theories/Archive 1\|Nov/Dec 2006]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Talk:Theories/Archive 1</small>
	\|-		\|-
	\| align=center \| [[Talk:Theories/Archive 1\|Jan/Feb 2007]] \|\| <small>~~Table of Contents • Powers • Exploding Man • Claire • Mohinder's taxi license • Scratch-Outs • Immersion~~/~~Emmersion • The Dr. Sylar Theory • AWI jump • Nathan • Space Time Manipulation • Size concerns? • Different Forms of English • Definition of~~ ~~"Theory"~~</small>		\| align=center \| [[Talk:Theories/Archive 2\|Jan/Feb 2007]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Talk:Theories/Archive 2</small>
	\|}		\|}

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: archiving

2007-03-02T05:11:05Z

archiving

Show changes

imported>WolvenSpectre: /* Definition of "Theory" */

2007-02-05T01:51:29Z

Definition of "Theory"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 5 February 2007
Line 125:		Line 125:
	*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	******I just looked at your user page and noticed you're a lawyer. Dagnabbit! =) --[[User:Glue\|Glue]] 20:32, 4 February 2007 (EST)		******I just looked at your user page and noticed you're a lawyer. Dagnabbit! =) --[[User:Glue\|Glue]] 20:32, 4 February 2007 (EST)
			******Hey, it would be a valid theory if it was posted by the actor playing Ando... or DL... or Nathan. Only the person would have to be corrected. ;P --[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 20:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

imported>Glue: /* Definition of "Theory" */

2007-02-05T01:32:01Z

Definition of "Theory"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 5 February 2007
Line 124:		Line 124:
	****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)		****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)
			******I just looked at your user page and noticed you're a lawyer. Dagnabbit! =) --[[User:Glue\|Glue]] 20:32, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

imported>Hardvice at 17:58, 4 February 2007

2007-02-04T17:58:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 4 February 2007
Line 123:		Line 123:
	****Fair enough. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)		****Fair enough. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)
	****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)		****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)
			*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

imported>Glue: /* Definition of "Theory": Waffles? */

2007-02-04T11:19:36Z

Definition of "Theory": Waffles?

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 4 February 2007
Line 123:		Line 123:
	****Fair enough. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)		****Fair enough. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)
	****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)		****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)
			*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

imported>Glue: Split Exploding Man into New Section: Definition of "Theory"

2007-02-04T11:13:50Z

Split Exploding Man into New Section: Definition of "Theory"

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 No evidence is cited for this at all, so I have to ask: what makes us think that Claire's mother had the power of pyrokinesis? [[User:Branfish|Branfish]] 01:30, 18 January 2007 (EST)
 == Claire ==
@@ Line 120: / Line 110: @@
 ::WS, I know how hard it can be. I'm dyslexic myself, and I also think I'm pretty attuned to details, much like you. Great combination, huh? Wow, a ''negative'' percentage? What does that mean, that they're marking you off for future mistakes, too? Wow. ... I would never say your Canadian spelling is wrong. In fact, you taught me ''manoeuvre'', which I had never seen before. I would say, though, that we just need a standard. Nothing personal. I'm glad we're all on the same page. &mdash; [[User:Ryangibsonstewart|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 21:12, 3 February 2007 (EST)
 :::Ah yes, the -26% I received on a grade six report card.  Memmmmories...<p> Oh, one year there was a suggestion for a pioneering new way to bring up spelling back in the good old days when they believed if you could not spell you were Deaf and Dumb and probably Crippled too.  They believed that every time a school aged child made a spelling mistake it could only be from laziness, not that that was never true, but they weren't aware of the way pre-adolescent and adolescent brains worked, not to mention learning disorders, at the time.<p> One of the main ways was what was known as punitive grading.  This is where you were rewarded on assignments and tests X1 marks for correct answers and lose X2 marks for incorrect answers.  I don't have a learning disorder that fits one of the more common syptymologies (ie dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADD, etc) but basically it makes my mind work more phonetically and more around the construction of words, which goes out the window for many smaller common words and homonyms. -26% is 58% answers correct and 42% answers incorrect.<p> After having to explain a negative mark on a report card of a student with A's and B's and 58% correct to the Saskatchewan Department of Education, they cancelled the policy halfway through the year. --[[User:WolvenSpectre|WolvenSpectre]] 00:39, 4 February 2007 (EST)

imported>WolvenSpectre: /* Different Forms of English */ the -26% solution

2007-02-04T05:39:25Z

Different Forms of English: the -26% solution

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:39, 4 February 2007
Line 119:		Line 119:
	: Excuse me, as I made my point kind of harsher than I intended, I think it came from the frustration with NBC getting a little misdirected, all the extra work I do on grammar and spelling because of my learning disorder (especially spelling I received a negative percentage on a report card once... really!!!), and being constantly told by American Users online that my spelling is "wrong" and that I should "Learn English". I am not doing the "This entry is mine" thing, I learned that the hard way through Wikipedia. I guess it is like RGS said, I don't want to check every respelling of a word I know is correct in Canukistanian through every other English dictionary.<p> Oh and I use Opera as my browser, and I forgot that it uses the same built-in spell checker (actually it used it first) and I could switch dictionaries easily among the different Englishes, but when You do you lose all the user added words, and with my spelling problem I don't look forward to rebuilding those dictionaries all over again. (I know...cry me a river)<p> Please just think of this as a big misdirected, Charlie Brown like "ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!"--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 20:56, 3 February 2007 (EST)		: Excuse me, as I made my point kind of harsher than I intended, I think it came from the frustration with NBC getting a little misdirected, all the extra work I do on grammar and spelling because of my learning disorder (especially spelling I received a negative percentage on a report card once... really!!!), and being constantly told by American Users online that my spelling is "wrong" and that I should "Learn English". I am not doing the "This entry is mine" thing, I learned that the hard way through Wikipedia. I guess it is like RGS said, I don't want to check every respelling of a word I know is correct in Canukistanian through every other English dictionary.<p> Oh and I use Opera as my browser, and I forgot that it uses the same built-in spell checker (actually it used it first) and I could switch dictionaries easily among the different Englishes, but when You do you lose all the user added words, and with my spelling problem I don't look forward to rebuilding those dictionaries all over again. (I know...cry me a river)<p> Please just think of this as a big misdirected, Charlie Brown like "ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!"--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 20:56, 3 February 2007 (EST)
	::WS, I know how hard it can be. I'm dyslexic myself, and I also think I'm pretty attuned to details, much like you. Great combination, huh? Wow, a ''negative'' percentage? What does that mean, that they're marking you off for future mistakes, too? Wow. ... I would never say your Canadian spelling is wrong. In fact, you taught me ''manoeuvre'', which I had never seen before. I would say, though, that we just need a standard. Nothing personal. I'm glad we're all on the same page. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 21:12, 3 February 2007 (EST)		::WS, I know how hard it can be. I'm dyslexic myself, and I also think I'm pretty attuned to details, much like you. Great combination, huh? Wow, a ''negative'' percentage? What does that mean, that they're marking you off for future mistakes, too? Wow. ... I would never say your Canadian spelling is wrong. In fact, you taught me ''manoeuvre'', which I had never seen before. I would say, though, that we just need a standard. Nothing personal. I'm glad we're all on the same page. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 21:12, 3 February 2007 (EST)
			:::Ah yes, the -26% I received on a grade six report card. Memmmmories...<p> Oh, one year there was a suggestion for a pioneering new way to bring up spelling back in the good old days when they believed if you could not spell you were Deaf and Dumb and probably Crippled too. They believed that every time a school aged child made a spelling mistake it could only be from laziness, not that that was never true, but they weren't aware of the way pre-adolescent and adolescent brains worked, not to mention learning disorders, at the time.<p> One of the main ways was what was known as punitive grading. This is where you were rewarded on assignments and tests X1 marks for correct answers and lose X2 marks for incorrect answers. I don't have a learning disorder that fits one of the more common syptymologies (ie dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADD, etc) but basically it makes my mind work more phonetically and more around the construction of words, which goes out the window for many smaller common words and homonyms. -26% is 58% answers correct and 42% answers incorrect.<p> After having to explain a negative mark on a report card of a student with A's and B's and 58% correct to the Saskatchewan Department of Education, they cancelled the policy halfway through the year. --[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 00:39, 4 February 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 5 February 2007
Line 125:		Line 125:
	*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	******I just looked at your user page and noticed you're a lawyer. Dagnabbit! =) --[[User:Glue\|Glue]] 20:32, 4 February 2007 (EST)		******I just looked at your user page and noticed you're a lawyer. Dagnabbit! =) --[[User:Glue\|Glue]] 20:32, 4 February 2007 (EST)
			******Hey, it would be a valid theory if it was posted by the actor playing Ando... or DL... or Nathan. Only the person would have to be corrected. ;P --[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 20:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 5 February 2007
Line 124:		Line 124:
	****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)		****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)
			******I just looked at your user page and noticed you're a lawyer. Dagnabbit! =) --[[User:Glue\|Glue]] 20:32, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 4 February 2007
Line 123:		Line 123:
	****Fair enough. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)		****Fair enough. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)
	****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)		****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)
			*****"I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)
	*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)		*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 4 February 2007
Line 123:		Line 123:
	****Fair enough. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)		****Fair enough. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)
	****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)		****Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)
			*****I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) [[User:Glue\|Glue]] 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)