Talk:Theories:Miscellaneous

Cleanup Notes

In case anybody has any questions about why information was moved out of the "Evidence" column: the evidence column is for evidence from canon sources only. Non-canon evidence, as well as base reasoning, belongs in the comment column. Basically, if you can't cite an episode or a graphic novel, it belongs in Comments, not Evidence. See Help:Theories and Spoilers.

If you feel information which was moved is supported by a canon source, please be sure to cite the specific example from a graphic novel or episode if you move the information back to the Evidence column. Also, "None" in the evidence column isn't a value judgment. Many theories which will probably end up true don't have specific information from episodes or graphic novels which can be cited at present. Please don't take it as a slight on your theory -- it's merely to make the tables consistent.--Hardvice (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• I would really like to get some advice as to how the Notes column is working. Is it for proofs that aren't strictly canon-based? Should there be another column for contradicting points? People are sticking them in the Notes column any which way, and it makes for really confusing reading. (It's not just this page, either, it's like this on every Theory page I've proofread so far.)
  
  I don't necessarily think that another column is a good idea at all (it would make the page even more cramped than it already is), but I'm looking for good suggestions. One thing I was thinking about was using a green + for things that support the theory and a red - for things that don't, but I'm pretty much clueless about wiki software. Would that work? Is it too... complex? Advice? Soleta 14:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • We did this on WowWiki for the Races page I put together. It was also a rumor page, and had a lot of the same positive/negative point arguments we sometimes see here on our rumor pages. --Xmuskrat 14:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The Notes column is for anything that isn't a citation to a specific scene in a graphic novel or episode--interviews, base speculation, etc., whether it tends to validate or disprove a theory. Currently, they are very haphazard, and trying to make the disparate statements flow is yet another one of the obstacles when cleaning these pages. I tend to favor bullets for Notes sections that feature multiple point/counterpoints; they tend to make things a bit clearer, and make some of the back-and-forth less distracting. For shorter entries where the proof and counter-proof are closely related, I tend to favor just using ", but" or "; however,". I almost automatically remove anything along the lines of "this can be proven because..." since they are pointless, wordy, and lend unnecessary weight to one piece of "evidence" over others.--Hardvice (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • As for the plus/minus approach, it could work, particularly if the evidence is bulleted. I'll see about making some templates. (Of course, there are also statements in the notes which are merely notes, and don't really tend to either support or refute, so I'm not sure what we'd do with that.) Of course, this will mean even more work keeping these pages clean; people can barely handle the tables and nobody seems to understand what a citation is, so I haven't high hopes for people properly using templates.--Hardvice (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
    • That was something I was planning on for my second big project - bulleting the Notes page. That was one of the reasons I was asking. Thanks for the heads up, Hardvice. Let me know what you think about those templates - I don't mind making that my mission for a while until people figure it out. Soleta 20:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
      • I think it's a good thing, and anybody willing to help clean up the theories is a godsend. Remember, though, not every Notes section needs to be bulleted. (And Template:Plus needs to be fixed so it ... works.) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
        • That;s kind of why I didn't say "hey guyz I made this totally kicking template". It's not done.--Hardvice (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
          • What, you mean you don't submit an page completely finished? I'm shocked. I would never do such a thing! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
            • Okay, they technically work now, but they're a pain in the ass. It requires a table:

{|
|-valign=top
{{plus}}Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. 
|-valign=top
{{minus}}Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
|}

gives

+ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. - Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Personally, I think that's more trouble than it's worth, but I should be able to come up with a more streamlined version using indents. The problem is, to get an indent to behave like a bullet, you need to assign a negative indent to the marker, and that can sometimes run into the sides of the table. I'll try it out and see what happens. It's a pity MediaWiki doesn't handle list-style-image; that would be the easiest way. Of course, if we don't need the list-style indented alignment, we can just make the template insert a plus sign, but that would look like this:

+ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Thoughts?--Hardvice (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

• Personally, I like the second one. So if it's in a table, the template works? Or do we need a new table for the template to work? Good job on it.--Bob 23:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

• The second one doesn't require any special formatting, but the text will wrap under the plus/minus sign. The first one indents like a bulleted list, but requires a table within a table

• Wrapping is superfluous in this case. It'd be nice, but certainly not necessary. And actually, as I think about it, there might be benefits to not having it wrap (slightly shorter page, more user-friendly). The purpose is not so much to make a bullet point, but to just quickly denote pros and cons. + I like it. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

• I tend to agree. The tables would just be a nightmare to maintain. I'll update the templates.--Hardvice (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Plus and Minus for Notes

Okay, these should be working now. Use {{plus}} and {{minus}} to get plus and minus signs. (We probably also need a comment one, but real life beckons.) It should look something like this:

Theory	Evidence	Notes
Hana Gitelman is Uluru's girlfriend	None	+ Hana is smokin' hot ... just like lava. + Hana just can't wait to get a piece of the rock. - Testing text wrapping: Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. - Uluru is so dense he probably blocks WiFi reception.

It currently requires either a line break between items or a <br> tag at the end of each. If we don't mind the whitespace, we can add a <br> before each template. And I'll see what can be done with negative indents, though Wiki support for manual indents is tetchy.--Hardvice (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Waffles

waffles are tasty!? LOL! Hiro's father may or may not like green eggs and ham!? ROFL! Heroe 23:05, 7 February 2007 (EST)

• Seriously, does there need to be a section of theories for WAFFLES?? I mean, most people that have good judgement know that waffles are tasty and green eggs and ham is all bad. BottomlessPitMan 14:57, 23 February 2007 (EST
  • It's fun, huh? I'm just waiting for manatee theories. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

• soon we might have to put a disproven theories link under waffles if we find out linderman isn't in fact made of waffles :D --Frantik (Talk) 23:00, 27 February 2007 (EST)

nonsensical?

Does this not make sense to anyone else? Heroe 23:18, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Theory	Evidence	Notes
Most events in the episode "The Fix" will be revealed as just what it was called. The 'Heroes' are being taken for a ride. They're being set up. Claude is pretending to befriend Peter, but it's all a set up. He's using Peter. Keeping tabs on him, either for Mr. Linderman or someone else. The Haitian told Claire that Peter was being watched. What better way for an operative to hide but by being invisible?	The shrink talking to Niki wants Jessica to come forward because she's really an operative for Linderman, and wants to cut a deal, get Linderman's assassin out of jail and back to doing his dirty work. Claire's discovery of her biological mom is too easy. Mr. Bennet planted her, just as he hired 'normal' people to pose as Claire's parents.	Mr. Bennet saw the wind chimes. He sees her befriending Zach again. He knows she still has her memories, but he needs to prove it. So he's setting Claire up, and "Fire Mommy" is the bait. Matt losing his job and his wife being pregnant seem to be the only real events in the show. The person watching Peter is most likely Isaac, as he is working for Mr. Bennet.

• Yes, in a strung out up all night teenager slapped together sort of a way. NEEDS MAJOR SURGERY,... er EDITTING! And yes "The fix" is a cant slang word for one of the steps in setting up a long con. I forget which exactally.--WolvenSpectre 01:05, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Sylar's Victims

Shouldn't this be under the "Theories about People" as I don't see gabe murdering puppies for their increadable sense of smell and superhuman cuteness.--WolvenSpectre 01:05, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• Theories:People is about specific characters, not groups of people. It's also already way too long, and will probably end up being subdivided alphabetically (yuck) sometime soon.--Hardvice (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Another possibility (less maintentance) is to subdivide into "Theories:Humans" and "Theories:Evolved Humans". Coincidentally, I'm counting 15 humans and 15 EHs currently in Theories:People. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Eden's last name

It was my understanding that McCain was a name she came up with for a cover with Isaac and Mohinder, as she is always refered to by Mr. Bennet as just Eden, and never was refered to by her last name. Was I wrong or just missing somthing from my non Chalie like memory?--WolvenSpectre 19:35, 22 February 2007 (EST)

• Her birth name is Sarah Ellis. She chose the name Eden after her stepmother died. Whether it was a cover or not, I have no idea. I don't think they've ever said. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2007 (EST)
  • Firstly, I meant her last name was a cover, not her whole name. I'll have to check but I thought that she took her name Eden after joining up with HRG. Not sure though. Thanks alot now I have even more questions! :-( --WolvenSpectre 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Once again... waste of space.

It doesn't bug ANYONE else that people just randomly add theories for nothing?

I personally think theories should be strict to anything that actually involves possible story devolopment.

Seriously... someone JUST added "Mr. Muggles is evil and wants to take over the world - Waffles may be necessary."

... -_- --Riddler 21:09, 28 February 2007 (EST)

• While part of me agrees, I think we should probably have that in like a fan creation section. For instance, we know pretty much that Claire and Peter will not get together, but there's that Paire thing that people made. I think there should be some notation (like a different color, italics or a separate page) where ridiculous theories regarding things like waffles and evil show dogs should be placed. --Baldbobbo 21:24, 28 February 2007 (EST)
  • Some people like the occasional humourous theories so long as they are tasteful, factual, and strongly reference themes in the show. Perhaps a section just for those theories that can repeat some of the other sections (like say "Suresh, Chandra" for example). That way people can have it as close to both ways as possible.--WolvenSpectre 21:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)
    • In the end, it's not a waste of space since we have limitless space, for all intents and purposes. I personally find many of the theories very entertaining, whether entertainment is intended or not. There's no harm in having "silly" theories, especially since many of the theories here are simply not plausible. If we start making judgment calls now, where do we draw the line? Who is to say one is better than the other? The theories are just fine, even if they are completely silly. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2007 (EST)
      • I don't mind theories that are odd, and even a bit out there, but the waffles section is unnecessary. Trunksxo 06:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
        • The waffles section is my favorite! :D Looks like Linderman isn't made of waffles after all though :\ --Frantik (Talk) 07:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)
        • The entire thing is unnecessary, and I think most of them aren't worth having. The waffles section is the best one, and one of the few I enjoy. -Lөvөl 12:26, 6 March 2007 (EST)
    • I think it's unnecessary or wasteful to comment on why theories are unnecessary or wasteful. It's a big Wiki. Try another page. AlanK 19:29, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

So I think...

...some users literally only contribute completely unfounded (and impossible) theories just to take up time. Although it's funny and all, at a point it gets old, and I think it's approaching that with a handful of contributors (you can guess which ones I'm referring to). Can we do something to segregate plausible theories from ridiculous theories? As I suggested previously, a color or style designation would be fine, but personally, I'd rather have them on a completely different page. The majority of our articles are for the most part serious and present valid arguments with canon, but those that aren't really connected to the rest of the site are categorized as fan-creation. Perhaps something like that? Just my thoughts.--Bob 23:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

• If we did this, we would want a totally objective standard, so there's no guesswork involved. The best I can come up with is requiring at least one citation to a canon source, and that would eliminate a lot of fairly "good" (or at least not facetious) theories. But I think the minute we start getting rid of theories merely because they're "silly", with no objective criteria, we're in a world of trouble.--Hardvice (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that could work. We could move everything without at least 1 citation to "unsubstantiated theories" or "conjecture" or something. Sure, there'd be a couple not-completely-retarded theories on it, but really, even the most plausible theory that's based on pure speculation is not really the same as a well-supported theory. And it doesn't require any sort of value judgment, and it preserves people's oh-so-precious theories, while separating the wheat from the chaff slightly more edible chaff from the wholly unpalatable chaff.--Hardvice (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Personally, I don't see any problem having all the theories, with or without citations, on the same page. A lot of really great theories necessarily have no citations, and it'd be a shame to move them or "demote" them because they're unable to be substantiated. The only reason I would be in favor of moving them is because it would roughly cut our behemoth theories pages in half. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
      • If I'm correctly understanding the changes being proposed, we would probably also have to change template:theories to add a link for substantiated and unsubstantiated theories. Not that big of a deal, though. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
        • I don't know that we'd want to bother linking the original articles to unsubstantiated theories.--Hardvice (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

]

Manatees

I think we should delete those last two theories about the manatees. They're ridiculous and it could be an insult to obiese women. And the thing about manatees feeding waffles to Peter?... Anyone struck that as weird? User:Jason Garrick

I think the whole point of the ridiculous theories is to make fun of people who want to organize the serious theories are out there. Since theories in general are based on your own opinion, I'd rather have them post the silly ones if it justifies somebody else for putting a less-popular theory online that somebody might not have heard otherwise. --Xmuskrat 09:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Evil Muggles

Ahah I really like the Mr. Muggles taking over the world! That's the only use I found on theories page. They are such a mess, this is just the best theorie ever! :) Thanks for pasting it Ice Vision, it still make me laugh :) (ps : I admit I added the gumby part :P) Btw if it had to be deleted again! I'll have to put this one on my personnal page! Blblbl! -- FrenchFlo (talk)        16:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Comicon panel

In the recent CBR article that showed the Season 2 trailer, Kring confirmed that Uluru (the rock monster) will remain in the comics, so do we now axe the theories about Jessica and/or the Being who might see Molly being Uluru?--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

• I think you handled it the best way possible -- the theories are not necessarily negated, they're just really unlikely now. Putting a note with the minus marking is the way to go. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2007 (EDT)