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
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)


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)


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)

  • Hmm. A big group shot with no evolved humans in it could be tough. There are scenes from Mohinder in India that would work. The Bennet clan sans Claire would work. Other than that, I'm having difficulties thinking of a good example.--Hardvice (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Isn't there a shot of Mohinder and Bennet together? since there the two main normos JD 05:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree with Ryan's suggestions. Heroe(talk) 10:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Disproven theories

what happened to them? they were great fun to read. JD 05:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • They were fun to read, but were ultimately not serving any point. They were deleted. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to say, the Portal page looks much cleaner and more appealing now. —Soleta 09:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • So, how do I (or anyone else for the matter)know if a theory I (they) have has already been disproven? One could spend hours adding theories like Linderman is Thompson, and Matt is Clair's father...especially those new to the show. Then someone would have to spend the time removing those theories and restoring the pages they were posted on. If the site has room for a Clach page, why not a disproven theories page?--ASEO 09:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Basically, if it's not possible, don't put it on. If you're not sure, you can either ask somebody who is more knowledgeable about the show, or just add it. If it's impossible, somebody will remove it. Ultimately, the maintenance required to remove an impossible theory is much less than the maintenance required to catalog all the disproven theories (which really aren't theories anymore, are they?) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
      • So, when removing a "disproven" theory, should we comment similar to a proven theory? Or should we do something special?--Bob 14:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
        • Yes, a good edit summary explaining why the theory is no longer possible is sufficient.--Hardvice (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
          • And if it requires more than that, the talk page is good place to explain yourself. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
            • Ahhh i'm gonna miss Mr Linderman is made of waffles. JD 16:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Origins of the theories

I have read these and wonder where these fan theories come from. Are they of the individual poster or are they found on fan sites? I frankly don't mind either way, but I think it might be a good idea to reference where these come from. --Pinkkeith 10:58, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

  • They're typically theories held by the person who added them. We don't go around looking for theories, they come to us! :) (Admin 11:08, 28 September 2007 (EDT))
    • I do know of a few that are theories people have adopted as their own after seeing them (in some form or variation) on message boards like 9th Wonders. But generally, they're theories people are just making up or have deduced on their own. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Theory top bar

Could we make a theory bar to place at the top of each theory page, which would include links to the original article and original article's discussion. Lostpedia has this and I really like it. ---- Ohmyn0.jpgOhmyn0talk.jpg 13:29, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Good idea. I adapted their bar to make it work with how we do theories (our theories pages don't necessarily relate to an existing article, but theirs do) and to match our style. It's at template:theorypagenav if anyone wants to spruce it up further. As a sidenote, I also rather like their theory side bar. We should consider developing an abbreviated version of Help:Theories and using it as a sidebar.--Hardvice (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
    • I added an example sidebar. It's probably too detailed right now, but it should give an idea of what I'm talking about. My biggest concern is that it's all about how to edit the article, which is a little odd to include in an article (and it looks a little odd on Lostpedia, too), but otherwise it could be helpful. A pity we can't just make it pop up whenever somebody edits a Theory article (or can we? hmmm...)--Hardvice (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
      • A pity, Hardvice? A pity? More like... a reality. :) (Admin 17:58, 28 September 2007 (EDT))

Suggestion: Remove Citations

A scan across the Theories pages brings up something disconcerting. It's rare that the Citations section inside the tables is ever used. More often than not it contains "None". This means there is a lot of virtual real estate on the page that is left empty. The solution to this would be simple: remove the Citation column across the board. Any Citations can be moved to the Notes section as plusses. Any thoughts pro or con would be appreciated. - ZachsMind 23:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

  • The theories articles really need to be scrubbed again. I'm guessing a lot of stuff currently in Notes could be moved to Citations. I personally really like setting aside the citations because it lets people scan quickly for theories that have a little "weight" versus theories that are basically pulled straight out of someone's ass. We end up with a lot of theories that are on the general order of "I'm guessing that something highly improbable which we have no reason to believe is even vaguely likely to happen will happen", and I like that theories which people have gleaned from actual clues in the episodes stand out from them.--Hardvice (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I actually had an idea concerning this: Rather than having two sections in which affirming information can go into and only one in which negating information can go into, reorganize the Theories tables to contain these three columns: Theory (which would remain unchanged from its original form), Reasoning (which would list information supporting the theory), and Rebuttal (which would list information negating the theory). This would makes use of all three columns in most theories and would also shorten page length in most cases.--Jpatch 09:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)

"That doesn't mean this theory is disproven"

Does anyone else think arguments such as "+ That doesn't mean [this theory is disproven]." don't belong? If the theory had been disproven, it would have been removed, so the fact that the theory is still there states well enough that the theory has not been disproven. - Josh (talk/contribs) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (EST)

  • The theory pages in general need to be extensively cleaned for such "arguments". The theory page shouldn't have discussions as points. Someone needs to go through and clean them out. I would, but I did it back when the theories were all on one page, and that took me forever. Since then, I've completely given up on the theories because I don't think we need them, but that's my own opinion. --Bob (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Theories about cloning and reviving dead

For example, the German's theory page has a theory "Dr. Zimmerman will clone or revive him". Does anyone think this is ridiculous? We saw cloning can be possible only for those who have the proper ability, and it cannot be extended. And regenerative blood cannot revive dead if they remained dead for too long. Green.gif AltesUTC CH


Does anyone have any idea on why these have become so popular all of a sudden? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:51, 30 November 2009 (EST)