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)

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)