Talk:Portal:Theories

I just have to say how much I like the improvements to the theories pages. They are very navigable, user-friendly, and almost all the pages are under 32k. I especially like that we've been able to keep the theories in a centralized location, while providing room for growth. (We are, afterall, only halfway through the first season!) Well done, Hardvice! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Suggestion

Some of the collected theories pages are becoming very long and a bit difficult to read. Have we considered having a theory page attached to each main page as a separate tab instead? (as they have done on lostpedia. Just a suggestion, I don't mean to offend all the hard work that has gone into these pages. I actually think the structure of this portal page and the way the theories are grouped is very good. I don't have the technical know-how to put it in place but I guess someone here must know? Rufus 12:11, 5 March 2007 (EST)

• It's a good idea, I'm going to look into it. Until then if the theories are getting too cumbersome then we can always move them to subpages and then just change the theories template we have on each article to point to the proper subpag. In either case then the Theories pages could just be replaced with portals or categories with links to the different theory pages. (Admin 12:25, 5 March 2007 (EST))
• I am hugely in favor of splitting the theories into individual pages, linked on tabs from the base page. It will be a big project to get it set up, but the maintenance will be a lot easier. Perhaps we should work on this on the week when there is no episode. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2007 (EST)
  • Actually, if you get the tabs working, it would be very easy to have the portal templates check to see if a theories page exists for each article and add a link to it on the portals -- like the links on the Powers template to the examples pages, only automatic.--Hardvice (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2007 (EST)
    • How would it be automatic? You'd still have to add the base articles to the portal, right? And it's not dependent on the tabs necessarily, just dependent on moving to subpages, right? (Admin 13:02, 5 March 2007 (EST))
      • If the pages are named consistently, which I'm guessing is required for the tabs, then it's easy to make the template check to see if Theories:LINK exists, and if so, link to it, and if not, insert a blank line. Doesn't work so nicely with the examples because of capitalization (though with some finagling it probably could): the main page is "Rapid cell regeneration", and the examples page is "Examples of rapid (little r) cell regeneration". But yes, you are correct on both counts: the base article would still need to be added to the portal, and it's dependent on subpages, not tabs. But it can automatically link to the theories article if it exists.--Hardvice (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)
        • If you don't mind another name space they could be changed to "Examples:Rapid cell regeneration" and have the examples be on another tab. -Level 13:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)
          • Actually, I got it working fine as is. If the examples page exists (and is named "Examples of (name of power article)", it will automatically be linked.--Hardvice (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2007 (EST)

"Proven" theories?

There is a separate page for disproven theories, shouldn't there be one for the theories that were definetely proven correct? Renenarciso 20:20, 6 March 2007 (EST)

• Personally, I think both disproven and proven theories should be deleted. It's not like the person who typed them out gets a cookie for being right or anything.--Hardvice (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
  • Fine by me. ... Though I do think we should hand out cookies for correct theories. Um, here's my entry: Hiro will not die in the next episode. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)
    • Actually in some spoilers it says everyone will die, but it may not be next episode. :) -Lөvөl 15:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)
    • My choice: Mohinder will say "my father's research". But srsly, it seems to me if they're proven or disproven, they're no longer "theories".--Hardvice (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2007 (EST)
      • I think the reason the disproved theories are kept is so no one adds them again, maybe we could delete the ones that it would be unlikely for anyone to add back. -Lөvөl 15:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)
    • Okay, I checked numbers to see if it'd be OK to delete the disproven theories. Oddly enough, "disproven theories" actually gets a good bit of traffic. Not as much as People, but about the same as Powers ... and more than Events. People are weird.--Hardvice (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Oh, that is weird. That's definitely Did You Know? material. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Evidence---Citations

Why did we change the "evidence" section into "citations" ? Heroe 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

• I didn't change it, but I like the change. I think it makes it more Heroes-centric. "Evidence" could be considered outside information and even theorizing. "Citations" is most definitely evidence that is seen onscreen. It's a great change. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
• Because people think "evidence" means "base speculation and reasoning", not "here are some scenes from episodes and graphic novels that support this". The column has been for canon evidence since the tables were implemented, and nobody seems capable of doing it properly. 'Citatations' is hopefully a better label for what's supposed to go there.--Hardvice (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Images for Evolved Humans and People

We need a new image, either for Theories:Evolved Humans or Theories:People. Personally, I like the one we have for evolved humans, and think we should get a new one for people. Any suggestions? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)