This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.


From Heroes Wiki
Revision as of 09:00, 17 March 2010 by imported>Radicell
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 a specific moment from 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) 01:36, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Mind in the gutter

The combination of liquefaction and telekinesis should technically allow Sylar to reshape objects into potentially offensive shapes.

Hehe. Hehe.--Hardvice (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Steroid Niki

The third "theory" under Enhanced Strength looks more like trolling than a serious theory. --Ted C 17:38, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Oh, my friend, there are quite a few suspect "theories" on this page and others. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
    • I don't think the Mr. Muggles is plotting to take over the world, and his plan may involve waffles. || None || Some say Gumby could be part of the plan. is a suspect theorie, is it ? -- FrenchFlo (talk)        17:47, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Trolling? Probably. Vandalism? Not really. I'm not saying it's not possible to vandalize a theories page by adding theories, but this ain't it. Something like "Niki is f*****g *****r-*****g c**t who sticks ****** in her ****** while manually ********** gophers and rubbing ******** and Tabasco sauce into her cavernous **** all the while ********** a ripe mango" might be vandalism, but not this. The only difference between Ice Vision's shitty theories and everybody else's shitty theories is that not even Ice Vision believes his theories are true.--Hardvice (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
    • I agree. When there are about a dozen random theories about Thompson being gay because "he looks and acts gay" and Austin is an alien, it gets to a point where it becomes absurd when all these random theories come from one individual within a time frame of 20min.--Bob 18:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


I have to say, I quite liked the NERD! video, and think it should be applied to anyone who Takes Things Too Seriously. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • I admit it was funny, especially since I had watched that Robot Chicken episode just recently... unfortunately just not appropriate as a supporting statement for a theory. hehe. (Admin 21:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT))
    • What, nerdism isn't a counterargument? :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
      • It's right up there with "A wizard did it." :) (Admin 21:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT))


  • We need to be more careful with the use of the plus and minus templates. They should relate to whether or not a piece of evidence supports the theory itself. Here's an example:
Isaac's paintings show what might happen, not what will happen. Minor inconsistencies in the outcomes of the paintings indicate they may be less-than-perfect. (See Prophecy for examples and citations.) + For the most part, every event that Isaac has painted has come true - albeit not exactly as envisioned.
- One exception to this so far is in Collision, where Isaac experiences a vision and sees Claire fall down alone on the steps. Later, in Homecoming, because of Isaac's paintings, Peter is there to help Claire up and see her to safety. Given the speed at which Peter is running (he is with Claire just as she falls), he should have been in the painting too if Isaac had seen a predetermined event.
- Another minor inconsistency is in the painting of Hiro and the Dinosaur: in the painting, Hiro's sword is unsheathed, while in reality, the replica sword was sheathed. Whether this event will ever appear exactly as depicted is not yet clear.
In a blog post, Greg Beeman noted that the inconsistencies in the Homecoming paintings arose because the scenes had not yet been filmed when Tim Sale painted the paintings. He usually creates the paintings using photos from the filming, leading them to be very precise reflections of one another. However, paintings made prior to filming sometimes depict events that can't be filmed exactly as depicted.
The inconsistencies actually support the theory that "Isaac's paintings show what might happen, not what will happen", but they're listed as minuses.--Hardvice (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)