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.

Talk:Portal:Theories about Evolved Humans

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

re: Linderman's nationality

Naturalized U.S. citizens can (and do) serve in the U.S. military.--Hardvice (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Not during a time of the draft. Once the Armed Forces became a volunteer force, then naturalized citizens could volunteer as well. That's why the selective service is a requirement for all 18 year old male citizens who are not naturalized. As a member of the Armed Forces, I need to clarify that. --Bob 12:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It might be a fake accent.JD 21:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I hadn't even thought it was an English accent until it came here... and I AM English. Hmm. It always sounded like an upper class/refined American accent to me. (Ulicus 12:49, 27 April 2007 (EDT))
    • Heh. The actor's British... hmm. Maybe he's doing an "upper class" American accent but occasionally slipping into his native one? I don't know. Perhaps he's an American who was educated in the United Kingdom.(Ulicus 14:14, 27 April 2007 (EDT))

Niki is a sleeper theory

how exactly is any of that stuff evidence, heroe? i'm going to revert your undone because its stupid to argue that any of that is evidence its not even written in an academic style.JD 21:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Proven theories

on the theories portal it seemed the consense was to remove proven theories whats your reasoning for restoring them?JD 21:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I certainly wasn't aware of this consensus. Heroe(talk)
  • I have to agree with Heroe on this one... Anomy 23:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Personally, I like the idea of purging the theories that are proven. If somebody postulates an idea, and it's later proven correct, then it's no longer a theory, but instead it's just true. For instance, image somebody had just watched Genesis and wrote a theory like, "Peter's power is not flight, but the ability to absorb the powers of others." Reading that now, it's like, "Well duh!" There's no point to it on these theories pages. Some will argue that we should make a page for proven theories. That's fine, but isn't that what the whole site is anyway -- just facts? ... I like the idea of taking the proven "theories" off these pages simply because by definition, they're no longer theories. Plus, from a selfish standpoint, it makes cleaning up the pages a heckuva lot easier. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
      • I have to agree. I have heard a lot of reasons to get rid of them, but I've yet to hear anyone defend keeping them. A discussion where everyone says the same thing is as good as a consensus, no?--Hardvice (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
        • Like Ryan and Hardvice i can't see why'd you need to keep them, and its also inconsistent with all the other theory pages, if you want them to reminise, then I would have a problem Proven Theories page, but i would again concur with Ryan, for example one theory i posted was that Malcolm McDowell would play Linderman, I can't see any point for that to remain since on the Linderman page it would be quite clear who played him. JD 07:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
          • I cant agree more. We should'nt keep proven theories, don't get the point of their utility... Pretty useless to write in two page the same thing (the real page of the char for exemple and the proven theories page). The only thing that this page could do is making peoples that have posted a theorie which have been proven glad :o --FrenchFlo(talk)(contribs) 09:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Hey, I just made a huge edit re: consistency, spelling, grammar, links, etc. I also removed a few proven theories. If you want to put them back, go ahead, but do it in a new edit, please. And spellcheck yourself! Soleta 14:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Looks good. One thing to mention: you can do an internal link to an image (like the images of Charlie's birthday party) by preceding the word "image" with a colon ([[:Image:Charlie birthday 1.jpg|1]]). That's to be preferred over an external link to an internal image. In any case, thank you so much for your help cleaning up this page; it's not a task many of us look forward to. At this point, it looks like all this page will need to be considered "cleaned" is moving non-episode/graphic novel citations out of the 'Citation' column, and making sure that all citations are properly formatted and linked.--Hardvice (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Hana's List

Since we know that Suresh's list, at least a vast chunk of it, was stored on his computer, and Hana can access all computer files, (and is only limited from data stored on paper), shouldn't this theory be moved to the Disproven Theories page? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 03/27/2007 17:31 (EST)

  • She can't access a computer that cannot connect to the internet or broadcast within her perceptive area. It's like any computer. Now, Chandra's computer in Chennai more than likely was connected to the internet, but the assumption that she can access any computer file is a bit naive.--Bob 19:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Suresh had info on his computer of evolved people from all over the world. It would only be naive, to assume that his computer cannot connect to the internet. From prior info given, her 'perception' is worldwide because of the internet and satellites. Just trying to clean up some of the entries that's all. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 03/27/2007 20:53 (EST)
      • From what we've seen of her powers, she has to "look" for information. To me, that makes me think she'd have to know about the list (which she may or may not) to know to look for it. It's certainly not beyond her abilities, but it's far from confirmed.--Hardvice (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
    • She was able to 'chat' with Ted even when his computer was not connected to the internet. Also, in War Buddies, Part 1, she says "If it's (the Lonestar File) been converted to a byte or a bit I can find it." I agree with Hardvice, that the only reason that she's not come across it yet, is because she hasn't thought of looking for it.--Havoc 09:01, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
      • She was able to chat with Ted due to proximity. In one of the Wireless GN's, she states that she's out of range to read the contents of a computer for that Zambian doctor. If Ted's not connected to the Internet due to a lack of connectivity to a wireless router, that doesn't mean his computer isn't broadcasting radio waves over a short range, enough for Hana, outside of the shack, to perceive.--Bob 19:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Linderman as Nathan's father

  • Nathan was already born before Linderman met Mr. Petrelli in Vietnam, and Linderman was living at home with his parents before joining the military. See War Buddies parts 2 and 6.--Hardvice (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Claude Protecting Meredith

  • Woudln't the fact that Claude was sent to "bag and tag" Meredith, and the fact that she still survived, be further positive evidence that Claude did protect her? Why is this listed as a minus? --Chickeyd 15:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Claude later states in Company Man they were going to bag the "firestarter". The fact that she knew they were coming is unknown. Perhaps because she heard them outside, who knows. Point being is that Claude wouldn't have walked into a blaze if he was hiding her.--Bob 16:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Theory bar

I was thinking about moving the {{theorybar}} at the head of the page. The problem is theories page sooo long it isn't easy to navigate using this bar since it is a the very bottom of the page. I just thought we could move it at the top so that it will be easier to travel from page to page. What do ya think ? -- FrenchFlo (talk)        09:22, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

  • That's not a bad idea. It's not really standard to have the navbar at the top, but then again, no too much about the theories pages is standard. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Re. Candace Wilmer's powers

Since I don't recall any direct indication that Candice was subsumed by Sylar, I question the assertion that he used her illusion power to mimic Nathan. Her powers appear to be mentally based, affecting the brains of those around her. (To Micah: I can make you see what ever I want you to see.) If that's the case, then how would Sylar, having stolen her power and appearing on television as Nathan, be able to affect millions on television? There really has been no indication that her powers have any physical component, other than, possibly, altering light waves, which opens up a whole other can of Deus Ex Machina permutations, but would explain Sylar as Nathan appearing as Nathan on television much more easily than Candice affecting millions of people mentally.

  • Sylar specifically said he used her power in FYG. And since her power can fool camera's, it has to be altering light waves. She could probably become invisible if she wanted to...--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
    • I believe Candice's ability is similar to Matt's and the Haitian's: it can either be broadcast or it can be directly sent. Matt can listen to the thoughts of several people at once (so much so that it's flooded his mind before) or he can hone his telepathy to listen to the thoughts of just one. Similarly, the Haitian can "broadcast" the ability to stop others' powers from working, or he can hone the ability on a single person's mind, erasing memories. Candice, I believe, can either "broadcast" her ability (affecting everyone around her and fooling electronic equipment) or focus her ability on an individual (like when she "trapped" Micah in the apartment, causing him to go around in circles).--Paronine 15:05, 9 May 2007
      • Candice's abilities easily fall into the "wizard did it" zone; best not try to delve too deeply into how the power works, just take note of what it does. --Ted C 15:10, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


So 99 kilobytes is probably a good time to split this page, eh? I can't think of any natural categorization, so howsabout we do, oh, 3 or 4 pages of evolved humans (99÷3=33kb, or 100÷4=25kb). "Theories:Evolved Humans 1" could be A-G, or whatever's a natural fit. Then the backlinks could be easily changed to {{theories|page=EH1}}. The alphabetic divisions shouldn't change too much. For instance, suppose the split is A-G, H-M, N-S, T-Z. If we suddenly get a nice evolved family like the Parrs, that would load us up on "P" names (thanks, Petrellis & Parkmans). But changing the divisions would require a lot of fixing to the theories links on those pages. Short answer: static divisions. Any other thoughts? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I'd like to give these a thorough scrubbing before we make any splits. I have a hunch that we have a lot of obsolete theories hanging around.--Hardvice (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Good point. But even a good trim (or a major shave) won't get rid of half the page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Woot! I just shaved 5 kilobytes off this page! :) --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 19:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
    • Yes you did, and doing a fine job of it. I'm enjoying the diet you've been putting the page on...when you're all done, let me know and we'll see what we can do about a split. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Interviews as Confirmation/Invalidation

    • I'm not sure whether interviews by the writers are enough to confirm or invalidate theories? Because there are lots and lots of theories here that have been confirmed or denied in the Comic Book Resources interviews. Renenarciso 16:32, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Unless material from an episode or GN contradicts them, then I'd be inclined to trust interviews - provided that the source is reliable (CBR, etc). Maybe we could add links to the interviews under citations, removing them from the notes column, which would condense descriptions (and save space) - it'd also be a lot easier to read that way. Ultraexactzz 23:30, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
      • I'm too lazy to hunt for the specific interviews, but from the top of my head I remember they said that 1) Hiro is indeed Kaito's biological son. 2) the Haitian is NOT the being watching Molly. 3)Peter has absorbed Eden's power but never used it. 4)Peter has absorbed all of Sylar's abilities. 5) The Evolved Human Claude was protecting is indeed someone familiar. 6) Sparrow will not be a regular in Season 2. 7) Sylar is indeed the dramatic antithesis of Peter. 8) Sylar isn't healing himself with TK, just blunting the bullets' impact. 9) Candice is indeed fat and unattractive, but she is so used to keep her disguise that she does so even when knocked out. Besides, many theories seem repetitive, like the several ones about the nature of "Jessica". They could be condensed in one or two theories. Renenarciso 12:38, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Anya is a nickname for Angela?

Really? "Anya" is the Russian form of "Anna", meaning "graceful". "Angela" is a Greek name meaning "messenger of God" (i.e. angel). Other than both starting with "An-", I just don't see the connection, apart from wishful thinking.--Hardvice (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

  • It's an amusing theory. It's getting to the point where it's starting to sound like a conspiracy theory! :) Maybe I should start a theory that Heroes Wiki is a project by The Company to gather information on all the evolved humans in the world... hmm... (Admin 12:15, 11 September 2007 (EDT))
    • This is by *no* means a stretch. When I search "Anya Angela" in Google, I get: Angela Thomas (aka Anya Ixchel), at University of Sydney; Anya/Angela, a Myspace user; Angela (Anya) Holloway, an artist in Ontario;...need I go on? Regarding Admin's conspiracy, maybe Admin is hinting at the truth... that the mysterious Admin is really an employee of NBC and Heroes Wiki itself is part of Heroes 360, one of its projects to garner a fanbase for the series. I like that conspiracy theory better. ;)--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
      • Some people named "Angela" choose to go by "Anya", but that doesn't make Anya a nickname for Angela. Some people named "Marion" choose to go by "John" and some people named "Paul" choose to go by "Pee Wee". :) They're two separate names with separate etymologies and histories, and implying a stronger connection, apart from a few random people who have chosen to use one name instead of the other (or in addition to the other) seems disingenuous. "Steve" is a nickname for "Stephen"; "Anya" isn't a nickname for "Angela"--it's someone using a different name. And "Anya Ixchel" is a Second Life character belonging to a girl named Angela--by that logic, "Leia" is a nickname for "Carrie". :) --Hardvice (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
        • They both start with "An-" and end in "a". I guess we differ in defining what is a nickname, then, cause if people are choosing to go by that name, then, imho, it is a valid nickname. "Graceful" and "angelic" are very similar in meaning, imho. There are much weirder nicknames... For instance, "Dick" is a nickname for "Richard". Dick doesn't sound at all like Richard, but most people agree it's a nickname for Richard. "Richard" comes from the German for "Strong ruler". "Dick" comes from Romany meaning "to look, to see". Word detective goes into detail in how this came to be. To read the origin, see here. Other strange but accepted nicknames include "Bess" for "Elizabeth", "Mickey" for "Michael", "Minnie" for "Mary", "Ned for "Edward", and "Sally" for "Sarah". To see some more, check here, but by no means is that an all-inclusive list.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Is it just me?

Does the Angela Petrelli notes section seem like a on-page discussion / argument? I think someone should clean that up a bit. Also, can you believe it's less than a week away? =P--Riddler 23:18, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, it's exiting about the premiere! However, looks like Angela's page has already been cleaned up.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Thoughts on this idea

  • I have to say I really like the look of this idea. My only concern is that it would require some of our more, uh, casual users, who are frequent contributors to the theories pages, to be editing a portal (which can be a bit daunting). If we implemented the theories on tabs thing like Lostpedia has, this would also complement that very well.

    That said, I would really like to either implement this idea or remove the red links to the individual theories pages because they're clogging the hell out of Special:Wantedpages.--Hardvice (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
    • I believe we're just waiting for "Theories" to become its own namespace. I don't care one way or another about the portal--it's a great piece of navigation, but requires a bit of maintenance. Plusses and minuses either way. I like the tabs idea, and it'll help navigation quite a bit. Luckily, we don't need to choose between a portal and tabs, since they're completely compatible with one another....I agree with the red links--I don't mind red links in general, but these links make it really hard to sort through special:wantedpages and find what really needs to be taken care of. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
      • Admin said he would take of making the Theories namespace two weeks ago and again last week, but we're still waiting. If Admin doesn't take care of it by tommorrow, I suggest we go ahead and use the pseudonamespace. There's not much time left before the season begins and it would be nice to be ready for the premiere with a bit less redlinks.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
        • I don't think there's any rush to get it switched over right away. Using the pseudonamespace would just create more unnecessary work because then each page would have to be moved, deleted, then moved back--big hassle. It's probably just best to wait for Admin to take care of the namespace in his own time. I certainly wouldn't want to put any pressure on him, as I'm sure he's busy with real life. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

New Namespace

For some reason, this discussion page is not showing up properly under the correct talkspace. It is listed as an article called "Theory talk:Evolved Humans" rather than being the discussion page for "Theory:Evolved Humans". I'm not understanding exactly why that is. Any enlightenment would me much appreciated. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Even weirder, I accessed the diffs through my contributions, and the old talk page for Miami's user subpage came up...when I cycled back and forth through the diff pages, the order changed depending on whether I was going forwards or backwards. Something seems very screwy. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Try refreshing your cache. It's working fine for me now, and just to be sure, I did a search in the "Theory talk" namespace and it came up fine.--MiamiVolts (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
      • Yeah, I've tried that...more than once. Earlier I was at my home computer. I'm at my work computer now, and it's still not coming up correctly. It's in the mainspace, and at the top, the tab says "article" not "theory" or "discussion". Nothing returns in a search in the theory talkspace, and it lists no contributions for me the theory talkspace, no matter how many times I refresh my cache. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
        • I've no clue, then, cause it's still working for me...--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
  • You were right, Ryan. I made a typo when I setup the "Theory talk" namespace. I was supposed to define it as "Theory_talk" but accidentally defined it as "Theory talk" so in effect there was no discussion page reachable for Theory namespace. Fixed now. (Admin 11:38, 21 September 2007 (EDT))
    • Thanks. It's working now. And thanks for all your continued hard work, Admin. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
      • Weird. The problem is fixed, but it's still showing up as a redlink on special:wantedpages. However, when I click on the link, it takes me here (with all this text). It also says that it's not linked anywhere. Clearing my cache doesn't do anything either. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
        • "Theory talk:Evolved Humans" is still showing up as a red link on special:wantedpages. Is it showing up for anybody else? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
          • Yeah, it is still there. -Lөvөl 14:23, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
            • I'm totally stumped. I've deleted it, restored it, deleted its article page, and it still shows up. Granted, every time it shows up, it says that nothing links to it, but there it is, right at the end of special:wantedpages. Rrgh. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Power theories in evolved human theory pages

I've noticed that on a few of the pages in this category, there are theories which are only really related to the power of the character in question. Shouldn't those theories be on the theory pages for the specific power? Perhaps some lesser-explored and unique powers should stay on the character pages, but some others, especially those which already have dedicated pages, I think, should make use of them. This is a bit more important in the new season, with characters sharing duplicate powers. --Anomaly 04:47, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

  • It really depends on the theory. A theory that says, for example, that Niki must have enhanced durability to be able to use enhanced strength definitely belongs on Theory:Enhanced strength, because it would apply to all people with that power. But a theory like "so-and-so's power isn't really {power x}, it's {power y}" would belong on the character's page, not the power's page, because it presumably applies only to that character and not to everyone with the disputed power.--Hardvice (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

St. Joan

Shouldn't St. Joan be listed on the miscellaneous theories page, as, like Uluru, she only exists as a character in the metafictional 9th Wonders comic? Joser Kyind 16:20, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I came here to say the same thing. She's technically non-existant right now. We don't have one for Daredevil or Hulk, do we?--Riddler 17:31, 17 November 2007 (EST)
    • Also, David shouldn't be in here. --Riddler 17:33, 17 November 2007 (EST)
      • What now? Why shouldn't David be here? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2007 (EST)
        • Never mentioned by Mohinder to be on the list, never mentioned to be an evolved human in any way, we don't see that the head is cut open (even if it is described) and we never have seen it mentioned if Sylar took an ability from him. Jackie Wilcox was a mistaken victim (granted he didn't finish her, but that was after he realized it was the wrong person), who says the David wasn't a mistake victim that WAS finished?--Riddler 20:58, 17 November 2007 (EST)


  • This portal is rather large. Would it be okay to automate using DPL?--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Angela Petrelli theories in this section

Shouldn't the theories on Angela Petrelli now be moved to the evolved human section? Seeing as we know she has an ability now it seems silly to keep her in the 'People' section.

  • Yes, she can be moved here now that she has an ability. Mohinder can be moved too if he has an theory article.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Julien Dumont and Kaito Nakamura

Two things: First of all Julien Dumont is dead as of Into the Wild. Shouldn't his image be faded now? Decondly; why is Kaito's theory on this section? We have no proof yet that he is an evolved human. We know he is but we have no proof, and if he's being put here then shouldn't all the Company's founders be here too? We have as much evidence on Kaito being 'special' as we do of any of them. The only source we have is a deleted scene in the Season 2 DVD, which I thought had been decided as non-canonical. - FlamingTomDude, 12:56, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Right you are on both accounts. Feel free to make the changes. If you don't know how to do it or can't figure it out, leave a message on my talk page. (I won't check this talk page regularly, so I won't necessarily know if you reply below.) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

"Evolved Humans" versus (Another name)

Since it is clear that individuals can be given powers, and not have to 'evolve' them, perhaps it would be appropriate to change the name of this section to "Theories on Individuals with Abilities" or... since people can apparently loose abilities now too, maybe "Theories on Individuals that had/have abilities"... or something more concise than that... Just putting that out there.

Company founders

Has it not been confirmed that all the founders had abilities? shouldn't the founders photos be moved here, or is this only for people who've been seen using there abilities? and why isnt Usutu here?345tom 13:28, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, if Kaito and Harry Fletcher are here(and it isn't confirmed that they have abilities), why Charles Deveaux, Paula Gramble, Victoria Pratt and Carlos Mendez aren't here?--Nacho9000 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)

  • Because nobody has started theories on them yet.--Citizen 13:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Future Ando

Should Future Ando not be listed on the people with abilities page now? Considering we have the future versions of Sylar, Peter, and Hiro...