Talk:Theories:People

Repositioned Claude Rains Theories

I just went and reinvented the wheel and thought that there was no Claude Rains stuff on this page in spite of me remembering seeing some before the reformat. I entered an new theory about his name and built a new table in the Alphabetically correct spot for Claude, but noticed most stuff goes by last name even though it is not formatted by surname. Of course I don't notice it until I shift all the old stuff to the new location. I should have done it the other way around and I am having problems putting it back. Can someone try. Thanks. --WolvenSpectre 17:54, 5 February 2007 (EST)

• Taken care of. I also tricked the sections to display surname first, which should help prevent further confusion (though they're trickier to maintain ... hmmm, I need to add something to the help page about how to do it...)--Hardvice (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2007 (EST)
  • also could you also 'watch' all the Theory Pages that were made in the redesign for those of us users who were watching the Leviathan That was the old page? I don't know but I assume it would be easier for all you admins than each person rewatching the pages.--WolvenSpectre 18:26, 5 February 2007 (EST)
    • I don't really watch anything but my talk page and community pages, but I do patrol Recent Changes, as do a few of the other admins.--Hardvice (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2007 (EST)
      • sorry poor choice of words... I meant that everyone that had the original Theories Page on their watchlist for notifications. Could you put the new multiple theories pages on those users watchlists? At least easier than if they did it manually because if I wasn't looking for a particular reference in the theories pages, I wouldn't have known that the pages were redesigned and I wasn't getting notices. Then again I have been having trouble s with some of them anyway, but they seem to be getting fewer and farther between.--WolvenSpectre 18:42, 5 February 2007 (EST)
        • I don't think there's a way to make somebody watch a page (but it wouldn't hurt to ask Admin). That said, everybody who was watching Theories (hopefully) got an email when the page was changed (although since the emails are limited to one between visits, it's possible some folks missed it.)--Hardvice (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2007 (EST)
          • Odd... I didn't recieve mine. Then again like I have said before I don't log out.--WolvenSpectre 18:56, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Mr Nakamura Star Trek Theory

Hardvice deserves five stars for this one!--WolvenSpectre 02:28, 13 February 2007 (EST)

• I didn't add it. JD did.--Hardvice (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2007 (EST)
  • Sorry, whoever added it, I guess the changes when I used the link in the email didn't match the name of the actual poster again. It showed Hardvice as the author of the change (nothing before, no intermediate steps, and the full unaltered post afterward). I'll have to look it up in my email.--WolvenSpectre 03:59, 13 February 2007 (EST)
  • I'm glad you liked it JD 01:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Not of quality

Might I ask why it's not up to standards? Heroe 17:41, 19 February 2007 (EST)

• Just noting that it hasn't been cleaned up like the others yet. Non-canon evidence needs to be moved to Notes, links need to be added, spelling and grammar need to be tweaked, etc. All of the other theories articles have been done already and I don't want us to forget to do this one, too.--Hardvice (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2007 (EST)
  • Plus, it's a good way to CYA -- if somebody comes to the site, this page might be their first impression. It's a good disclaimer. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Claude is the Doctor

I've moved this into Disproven Theories. If Claude was a Time Lord he would looked cooler than Peter on the Heat Vistion googles. Yamiangie 16:49, 22 February 2007

• I have to say, that is one of the most creative reasons for a theory to be disproven. Nice! :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Split

I suggest we split this theories page (which is getting loooong, and will only grow longer). It would make sense to split it into humans and evolved humans. It would also split it pretty evenly: right now, there are 16 EHs and 16 humans. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2007 (EST)

• I think that that might be a mistake. I think that you should go alphabetically, making sure groups like all the Petrellis are in the same section. maybe as time goes on itwill grow more so maybe we should put it with an alphabetical index portal (eg, A-B, B-C, ect. or A,B,C,D etc.).--WolvenSpectre 21:24, 23 February 2007 (EST) (pardon spellingmistakes, rebuilding computer and haven't installed spellcheck)
  • That means a lot more maintenance. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2007 (EST)
    • I agree with Ryan. It's heavily discussed by the people who do the most maintenance, and it makes the most sense. The majority of the theories regarding Evolved Humans is a) things about their powers, and b) are they going to die or some other plot twist. For Humans, it's a) do they actually have powers, and b) are they going to die, or some other plot reference. Either way, that's a lot of text to read on one page. Splitting into two will make life a whole lot easier for those who do the majority of the work here, and it makes it easier to find theories about powers with regards to individuals.--Baldbobbo 21:40, 23 February 2007 (EST)
      • To elaborate, splitting the page alphabetically would have a lot of back-and-forth when we add more characters. For instance, if the entire Gordon family is introduced and theories are added for them, then the first alphabetical page would be very heavy, and should probably be balanced by moving some characters to the second alphabetical page. Not only could this back-and-forth continue (which really isn't that big a deal), but each time the backlink on the character's page would need to be changed as well. In contrast, it's rare that a human is revealed to be an evolved human (I can only think of a handful of examples); there would be no back-and-forth, and so maintenance is a lot easier.

        In the end, I don't really mind how it looks since I don't contribute content to the theories pages. We can go with whatever the community decides. I just want to bring up some things to consider. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Some of these theorys... absolutely a waste of space here.

Some are frankly useless, and some are so farfetched they would be laughed at by the general population, lol.

Examples?: Theory: Waffles are tasty.

...What good does that do for the story?

Theory: Hero is patterened off of the Flemish character Nero. Notes: Tim Kring claims not to read comic books. Therefore it is more likely that the comic book character, Nero, is patterned after Hiro. Hiro could very easily have time-travelled to Belgium some time around WWII and made an impression on Mark_Sleen just before he came up with his character. However, this is unlikely since Mark Sleen exists in the real world and Hiro does not :|

This is pathetic, it sounds like people are coming up with things off the top of their head.

I seriously call for some kind of revision to this page. --Riddler 14:56, 24 February 2007 (EST)

• I agree that some of them are awful, but where do you draw the line? Were it up to me, we'd lose probably 9 out of 10 theories as utter crap. Other people probably object to only one or two. The problem is that the theory you find completely worthless is the theory somebody else believes fervently, and vice versa. Given the edit traffic these pages see, it's impractical to have a vote every time a theory is added, and the alternative is protracted edit wars between two people wearing differently shaped tinfoil hats. I'd love to hear any suggestions for an objective, easily enforced way of trimming pointless theories, but I sure as heck can't think of one.--Hardvice (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)
• At one point when thinking about how to handle theories I checked out Lostpedia's page on fan theories. It got me thinking that humorous theories, while not plausible, serve to entertain some of the fan base. I can also vouch for this as I've seen people link to the waffle theory because it was amusing to them. This along with Hardvice's explanation of how infeasible it can be to filter the theories convinces me that we should try to be accomodating. Plus it's limited to the Theories pages which by their very nature don't necessarily need to stand up to the same level as the other articles. Heroes is out to entertain afterall and humorous theories do also help entertain the viewers. :) (Admin 16:06, 24 February 2007 (EST))
  • I think its fun to have some non sensical theories, for fun or critical examination, I doubt anyone but a psychotically obessed trekkie would believe it was Mr Sulu, similiar the Lex Luthor theory i put it because of the homage that Linderman appears to be to that character. JD 01:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Using the "arrow"

I know this article has the {{needsmaintenance}} flag and I was wondering if it's linked to the fact that when I go to the recent changes page and click the arrow that point for exemple Claire, when someone edits a theory on her, I'm always redirected to the top of the page instead of the Claire subsection! --FrenchFlo(talk)(contribs) 16:26, 25 February 2007 (EST)

• The arrow links seem to work sporadically for me, as well. However, the links are just as sporadic on a page with the maintenance flag as without the flag. My thought is that it's not the flag that throws things off, it's the intense length and size of the page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)
  • I looked into it briefly at one point, I think it has to do with the section titles being piped links in some places (like when we're displaying it Lastname, Firstname). It may be a bug in MediaWiki, but I haven't looked into it closely enough yet to be certain. (Admin 15:48, 1 March 2007 (EST))

Request for division between a theory author's notes & counterpoint by another author

Currently, the format seems to be that when someone wants to make a counterpoint to someone else's theory, they append to the end of the first author's notes, making the article difficult to read. Perhaps another collumn, a separate area, or even a secondary color would make the article easier to follow, that you are in fact now reading something written by someone who has the opposite opinion from the original author. --Sylar75 14:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

• Any counterpoint should go in the notes. Using a different color would be okay, I guess, but I would discourage it since it's not standard. Another column would really squeeze an already full page, and a separate area would get lost and would be extremely difficult to maintain. I would suggest using appropriate transition words to make the writing flow: however, although, etc. For instance, there's a theory for Ted about Hiro teleporting Ted from prehistoric times. The notes say "Ted was born August 28th, 1973. However, this could be a false birthdate." The however makes the sentences flow better than the original "Ted was born August 28th, 1973. That could be a false birthdate." — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2007 (EST)
• When I've been cleaning these articles, I've been splitting separate notes and using bulleted lists. I think it helps a lot, and is easier than another column or a separate color.--Hardvice (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Paul Davidson

In recent theory about Niki Sanders someone states that spoilers from Paul Davidson said that a new personality will get into Niki's head. But he also states that the sword Hiro will get will be his "kryptonite" and he won't be able to use his powers when he has the sword, but that's wrong because he has the sword when he goes back in time to talk to Peter. So I doubt any of the spoilers from there are true... Here's the link--Arnisturlu 15:12, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Maintenance

Whew, that's not fun. It's one thing to make minor edits or even a major overhaul to an article. But when you're editing 100 different authors' work, and it's all speculation, and some of it is really "out there", it's not easy. It took me a lot longer to do half a page than I thought it would take to do the entire job. Ugh. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Template

I like the new templateJD 09:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

• Me too -- it's definitely a + . — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

HRG=Horny Rhino Genitals

Ok, IceVision has gone too far. Can we please do something about this? Heroe(talk) 19:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

• It's fun to watch people make asses of themselves. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

References by Kimiko in the ARG?

• Did I miss something, or should this be "references by Hiro" (his email to Hana using Kaito's email account)?--Hardvice (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Citations

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but for the "citations" colum, should it be blank, or "none". Either way it needs to be consistant. -- Ohmyn0(talk) 22:10, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

• I think it would like nicer if it said "none". Heroe(talk) 22:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
• I don't think it needs to be consistent. If there are definitely none, then "none" is fine. But I don't expect every contributor to know the show inside out--I certainly don't--and so sometimes "none" might actually be wrong. I think leaving it blank is just fine. However, if there are absolutely no references that support the theory, then "none" would be appropriate. (And while we're on the subject, "None" is not a sentence, and should not end with a period -- I've noticed a lot of "None."s that do need to be fixed.) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Argh I was about to make a note in theories

But realized I couldn't since the preview was a spoiler.

Since most of us have figured Austin is Linderman, I wanted to add on to Dallas being Petrelli SR because they have long time ties. --Riddler 15:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, "Austin is Linderman" is a theory, too, so there's no reason you can't include "if Austin is Linderman..." in the "Dallas is Mr. Petrelli" theory, even if you can't cite the preview.--Hardvice (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Hiro Nakamura

What happened to all the Hiro Nakamura theories?--E rowe 23:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

• They're on Theories:Evolved Humans.--Hardvice (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Bennet's Boss

The theory that Linderman is Mr. Bennet's boss is disproven. Yes, Linderman is probably the head of The Company, but he's not the character to whom these theories apply--the guy Bennet was talking to on the phone. Bennet's boss is the name of a specific character, not merely a description of any higher-up in The Company. Otherwise, Bennet would have known Linderman was involved in the Company.--Hardvice (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Zach theories

I'm tempted to remove all the theories about Zach, because they can neither be proven nor disproven because he's left the show. Any other thoughts? Dissenters? --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 11:53, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

• Does that mean they'll never talk about him again? 'Sides, a theory is not here so it can be proven or disproven, it's here because it's a theory. It's just a speculative idea about the show, (hopefully) based on things that occur in the show. If it gets disproven or proven, then it's removed. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Paulette Hawkins

Ryan wrote: "is every black woman going have this theory ascribed to them? I'm just waiting for Dana Davis...or the airport security agent??)"

• Naw, they don't have the hair for it......the speed is in the hair. It just so happens that both the speed agent and Paulette are black women with cornrows who have ties to Moab and Niki. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09/14/2007 15:02 (EST)
  • My summary comment was a bit of a joke...but I'm not sure how a cut scene of D.L. at Moab is a plus for his mother being an agent who would one day work at the prison... Ah well, theories are theories. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Charles has power similar to Sylars

Is it not possible that Charles has a power similar to Sylar's but instead of turning "evil" he joins the "good guys"? That would make abit sense with the comment about not having invisibility, because i think that comment sounds like he somehow has variable powers.