Talk:Theories

Archived Talk: Nov/Dec 2006

Table of Contents

Is there an template that would put a "table of contents" at the top of the page, making it easier to jump to a particular theory subject? --Ted C 16:21, 3 January 2007 (EST)

• Right now, it's forced NOTOC. If we take that out, it will generate a TOC. We should see how it looks. WE can also try Template:tocright.--Hardvice (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2007 (EST)
  • Looks OK on the right; just narrows the first table a bit. --Ted C 16:33, 3 January 2007 (EST)
    • I definitely like the TOC there....And since I use the page so much, um... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Powers

Did Mr. Bennet not confirm in Fallout that at least one of Claire's birth parents had powers? --Ted C 16:07, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Wow, I don't know. The only info I know of about Claire's birth parents is here. I'd love a quote, though! :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Wait, it wasn't Fallout. It was Seven Minutes to Midnight! Bennet was trying to convince Isaac to take the drugs and paint something that would help him save Claire! --Ted C 16:39, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Specifically, I think he said that his organization was attempting to pick up an evolved human like Isaac when things went bad, resulting in the deaths of Claire's parents. I got the impression that the target of the pick up was one of Claire's parents, but I can't recall the exact dialogue now. --Ted C 16:42, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Wow, good catch - I must've missed that. :) Makes sense, though, that her parent(s) would be evolved. I'd love an actual quote so it's not so vague. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Alas, I don't have a recording of any sort to check. --Ted C 17:21, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Although I can't be bothered to dig up the exact dialogue, I remember it was made pretty clear that at least one of Claire's biological parents (I think her mother) had powers. Branfish 01:32, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Exploding Man

"The painting does not depict Peter absorbing Ted's radiation power and exploding. The painting instead shows Peter absorbing Claire's mother's power of pyrokinesis."

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? Branfish 01:30, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Also, "Uluru causes Peter to explode or tries to kill him"? I question that a statement as ridiculously unfounded as this one qualifies as a "theory". Branfish 01:35, 18 January 2007 (EST)

• See "Micah Sanders will build a suit like Iron Man". We're not here to judge, just report. And yes, it is pretty silly.--Hardvice (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2007 (EST)

So what here defines a "fan theory"? From where are we getting these absurd ideas? Is it just that any user of this wiki can add to this page whatever they feel like, or is there an external source for each of these "theories"? Because I submit that in order to qualify as a theory, these ideas must have some justification, or at least a basic stimulus. Branfish 02:04, 18 January 2007 (EST)

• A fan theory is just that - speculation from viewers about unexplained aspects of the show. There are some really good theories here, and there is also a lot of nonsense, as you've found. A theory does not have to be based on fact in order to be considered valid, and the only basis for inclusion is basically that it hasn't been disproven. For instance, a theory like "Peter is Sylar" would be discounted because we have evidence against that. Unfortunately, a theory like "Jessica works for Yamagato" would be valid (um, well, how about "allowed to be included on the page") because there is no evidence against it. As for justification, there is a column on the table for evidence - many say "none" or are blank, and those are pretty easy to sort out. That doesn't mean they should be deleted, it just means that not all theories have canonical evidence to back them up.

  For a person reading the theories page, it's a case of needle-in-a-haystack to find the cogent theories among the drivel. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2007 (EST)

  • I'm just asking where these theories actually come from. Are they theories just devised by those who edit the page, or are they theories found elsewhere and transcribed, or both? Branfish 07:57, 18 January 2007 (EST)
    • Potentially both, but more likely they're just from contributors, from casual conversations people have, and perhaps from forums people attend. We don't require sources on theories (because it seems the majority are simply thought up by fans and not recorded - it would be a real hassle to try to track down sources), so it's impossible to say for sure. I suspect most are just from the minds of fans. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)
    • I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that any of the theories I've added here are just theories I read on message boards. I just add them to make the list more complete, and so that they can be concise and properly formatted so as to discourage others from adding their own page-and-a-half, misformatted theses on the topics. I think the minute we start distinguishing between "good" theories and "bad" theories, 1)this page will degenerate into an all-out edit war and 2)this page will vanish in a puff of smoke, to be replaced by the one or two theories that are so obvious as to be almost confirmed. Yes, it's a little bit of extra anarchy, even for a wiki, but we're not Wikipedia for a reason: as a fan site first, we can get away with having sections which aren't enyclopediac in the slightest.--Hardvice (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2007 (EST)
      • Fair enough. Branfish 06:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Claire

On several occasions on this page, the fact that Claire is alive in Peter's vision is used to refute the possibility that that is the "end of the world". However, it has not yet been directly stated that Claire is the cheerleader that Future Hiro was talking about. Branfish 01:54, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Mohinder's taxi license

Interesting point by Vmarti1, that the license expires on a day that does not exist. But is that conclusive evidence? Maybe all licenses expire on the 30th... In practice it makes no difference. But they they should expire on the 31st. Expiring on the 30th is just plain stupid. -- Cuardin 06:17, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Scratch-Outs

• I'm not sure all of the theories struck out here are really "disproven", given that the contrary evidence is a dream. (Insert ubiquitous reminder about Micah as Iron Man, etc.) Thoughts?--Hardvice (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)
  • Once again, we have a bunch of scratched out theories that aren't really "disproven". Unless someone updates them with evidence as to why they are disproven (and not merely silly, unlikely, or contrary to somebody else's pet theory), I'm going to go through and remove the strikeouts. We really shouldn't strike out theories unless they are impossible.--Hardvice (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • I couldn't agree more. I actually think that some of the evidence should be struck, but the theory is still valid in the sense that They are still feasable. Still though a set of strike elements are easy to delete, It is better than if it is deleted. Especially since there might be something that we are lead to believe is true on the show, and then twist of twists, it acctually another way, and all those theories that were struck down actually apply.(talk)WolvenSpectre 01:08, 25 January 2007 (EST)
  • I wanted to agree as well. In particular, I noticed that under Rift, the T Rex was crossed out. The events that Issac has depicted and come true are almost exactly as they appear on canvas. Cases in point, the train wreck and the bus bombing. Hiro has not yet received the real sword yet in Heroes, and therefore, we cannot disprove a chance meeting with Hiro and a live dinosaur in a time rift. That being said, I'm personally going to remove the strikeout from that section.Creatively_41(talk) 19:16, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Immersion/Emmersion

Emmersion is, as best I and the OED can tell, not a word. Is "emergence" what we're looking for here? I honestly can't tell from context what we're trying to say.--Hardvice (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Well I found this by assuming (no jokes) a misspelling of the word as I know I have read it in several publications. I then found this entry on Dictionary.com entry for the word "Emersion", which in its less common usage seems to fit my interpretaion. That doesn't mean I am not wrong, but as ambiguious as the context is I still think that the theory does make sense if it is speaking to the appearance of the characters powers.

--WolvenSpectre 04:10, 28 January 2007 (EST)

FYI, emersion is a word (meaning "the act of emerging"), whereas emmersion is not a word. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2007 (EST)

Yes, as I said, "I found this by assuming a misspelling" (or simple typo) as I recognized the word. "FYI", It is not a great stretch to think someone either accidentally mistyped a second letter m or, like me, is a terrible speller. It is only an assumption but not an unreasonable one.--WolvenSpectre 20:13, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I wasn't trying to offend, just to give the difference between the real word and the misspelled word for those that might be kind of confused (as I was). I apologized if I sounded condescending, that wasn't my intention. :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2007 (EST)

In any case, it's still not the right word. Their powers (definitely Matt's powers, at least) had already emerged; after the mark, they simply expanded or grew. In other words, it's rather silly to argue about a word that, even if it were right, would still be wrong.--Hardvice (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I didn't entirely agree with the theory as it was stated either, but just considered it a poor choice of words trying to (a wild guess here) include both those who were and those who were not yet presenting the higher abilities... I think that it might be helpful to rewrite the theory in a better worded manner. In a way that the community can generally understand the intent/meaning of the entry without making it a entirely different theory. Possibly we could contact the original author for their opinion?--WolvenSpectre 06:27, 29 January 2007 (EST)

The Dr. Sylar Theory

If you look under the Sylar section I have added my theory with out the chance to fully flesh it out and properly link it. I would appreciate it if someone could put a few touches on it until I get a chance to add all the other things I plan to add and polish the badly done entry. Thanks --WolvenSpectre 07:23, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Done. I added links and fixed the table. See here. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2007 (EST)