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:Theories/Archive 2

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:Theories/Archive 2 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Theories. Archive.jpg

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)
        • I noticed something that is anoying, when you go in the recent changes section, if someone edited a Theorie, you'll see something like :
(diff) (hist) . . Theories‎; 17:13 . . (-1) . . Ryangibsonstewart (Talk | contribs) (→Explosion - link to wikipedia).
But clicking on the Explosion link goes to the Explosion page and not to the Theories#Explosion, is it possible to fix this so it would be easier to navigate. It's no big deal! --FrenchFlo 11:33, 31 January 2007 (EST)
Ah, great point, FrenchFlo. In order to get to the explosion section of the theories page, click on the arrow (→), not the word explosion. It may seem counterintuitive, but that's just the way it is. (Or you can always just click on theories, and it'll take you to the main page). - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2007 (EST)
  • Isn't it possible to classify all the Theories section we have alphabetically ? It's a real mess at the moment and it takes times to find the sections you search for. (If the answer is right I could do it tommorow, now, it's time to sleep here ! --FrenchFlo.(talk).(contribs) 17:07, 31 January 2007 (EST)
    • They are alphabetical. The issue is that people are alphabetical by last name, but the links are formatted first name first so that the jump links will work. But "Niki Sanders" is alphabetized properly under "S", not "N".

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)

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)
  • "...an injury to the brain can prevent her from healing..." In actuality, what was preventing her from healing was merely that something large and organic (tree branch in her head) was preventing the process. Soon as it was removed, regeneration kicked in though she was long pronounced dead. Although this should have caused brain damage, she's showed no signs of it. Her brain was certainly damaged when it went through her skull, but after the regen process completed she was back to relative normality. It's possible a smaller object lodged in her, like a bullet for example, would be pushed out of her body by the regeneration process. There's also arguments in the scientific community that every cell in the human body has genetic code that is a blueprint for making the entire being. Therefore, if Sylar ever removed Claire's brain, and put nothing organic in the skull cavity to prevent her regeneration process, it might take awhile but Claire's regeneration of tissue would theoretically develop an entirely new brain. Maybe she'd be right as rain, maybe this new brain would be devoid of memories, but she wouldn't be dead. -- ZachsMind 03:00, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • At some point Sylar and Professor Suresh discuss how the brain is what controls the ability. This is ultimately what leads to Sylar removing the brains of others with abilities to gain their powers. It only makes sense that removing Claire's brain would prevent her from being able to regenerate it. -- AlphaAnt 19:47, 31 January 2007 (EST)
      • That is following the presumption that Suresh & Sylar actually know what they're talking about. They're guessing along with the rest of us. This may be why it's important to save the cheerleader, because her ability may be the one thing that sets her apart from the others - every cell in her body has the power to regenerate. Perhaps Matt's ability is only cerebral. Most other characters may be limited to a psychosomatic causation. The mind leads and the body follows, but for Claire, the standard rules don't apply. -- ZachsMind 17:48, 1 February 2007 (EST)
        • That is quite an assumption you are making there. Unfortunately, the scene where Claire was laying on the autopsy table prevents it from being a possibility. She had a stick through her brain, and because of that the coroner was allowed to make incisions. As soon as the stick was removed from her brain, the incisions that the coroner made were able to heal. Her being a different kind of mutant goes against the concept of the show. In zombie movies, the creators establish what kind of zombies they are by defining what kills them. Some of them are destroyed when the brain is destroyed, some are not. But once that definition is set, the movie must stick to it. By creating Claire as a different kind of evolved human, they're making her a "different kind of zombie." -- AlphaAnt 11:27, 2 February 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)
    • Just a suggestion. I have been spending some time reading the theories; I like the premise of this, page alot. It helps reconsider things forgotten, and missed. The Scratch-outs, though kinda make it difficult to read and flow from theory to theory. Since the idea of scratch-outs are being applied to theories that have been found to be impossible , what if we moved all of the scratch-outs off of the Theories page altogether? I mean, if they are impossible then they are no longer true theories. We could created a linked page off of this page called something like 'theories put to rest', or whatever, and then move the scratch-outs to it. Then this theories page would just be the current active and 'possible' theories only. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11:07, 02 February 2007 (EST)
      • I quite like that idea. We should probably make a page called "disproven theories". The only problem I see is with theories that are partially disproven. I guess they're okay to stay here. (I only see one anyway. It would clean up the navigation of this page, and shorten it considerably. Let's see if anybody else agrees. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2007 (EST)
        • OK, I have taken the 'Theories' page, and whittled out of it all of the non-striken entries into a new page just for them. I have renamed that page as: Disproven Theories, and we can add it as a link from this page. I have not yet went in and removed the strikes or added the new link from this page though....wanted to get some larger depth of agreement before doing this. I think it will help to unclutter the main Theories page, so we now could move entries over to the new Disproven Theories page instead of striking them out. At least things will be easier to read.--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 15:07, 02 February 2007 (EST)
          • Looks great! I'm just going to go ahead an remove those old theories now — no point in keeping them on this page, right? It should clean things up a bit. I'll also add links in the appropriate sections. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2007 (EST)
          • A few things we should consider: 1. Theories is used by some of our, um, less Wiki-savvy editors. I'm guessing that now, instead of striking out theories or moving them to the Disproven page, most casual editors will just delete them. That's going to make for a lot of extra work. 2. I'm also guessing that we're going to get a lot of disproven theories added back to the Theories page. Having them struck out, with an explanation as to why, on the theories page was mostly a deterrent to having people keep adding the same disproven theory over and over again. In my mind, that was the only real reason to keep disproven theories. If they aren't here, I for one would just as soon get rid of them entirely.--Hardvice (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2007 (EST)
            • I just read your post, Hardvice. Well, I took all the old ones off. You make some good points, though. I'm not sure anybody is really going to add any of those disproven theories back in - they're mostly along the vein of "Mr. Muggles is Sylar" and other random ones ("Matt is in a different timeline") ... But you're right, I don't see much purpose to the disproven theories page - I liked it because it's just a way to clean up that horrendously long theories page. But I feel the same way about the DT as I do about old spoilers - they're pointless, but not so pointless that they should be removed completely. I guess it's like an archive. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:14, 2 February 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)

AWI jump

The theories jumps are being finicky. Can somebody figure out how to make AWI jump more specifically to the theories page? Thanks! - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Never mind, I edumacated myself. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Nathan

Someone posted that Claire is 17 years old, but she's only 15. Actually, she had been victim of the fire 14 years ago when she was 18 month old that means she's about 15 years old and her mother had her when she was 19/20 years old (21years minus 18month), according to the Odessa newspapper... Finally, about nathan's age, do we know it for real ? Or is it just assuming ? --FrenchFlo.(talk).(contribs) 17:04, 31 January 2007 (EST)

  • Also, Claire tells her father that she's "almost 16" in The Fix. --ZyberGoat 18:59, 31 January 2007 (EST)


Space Time Manipulation

"From a writing stand-point, it doesn't make sense for Hiro and Issac to have the powers that they do if they cannot use those powers to change future events." On the contrary it makes perfect sense. One choice a writer can opt to make is utilize time travel as a narrative device and not a plot device that actually changes things; to observe events without dramatically altering them. This would allow the writers to use Issac's paintings as foreshadowing, or Hiro's trips back in time for flashbacks. A writer or group of writers can make the conscious decision to not allow their characters to change events that have already transpired in the narrative, in order to avoid having to retell their story over and over again taking new variables into account. Hiro's preoccupation with rifts and paradoxes is reminiscent of the film series "Back To The Future," which was mostly about trying to fix rifts that foolhardy travel through time created. Though entertaining, the paradoxes monopolized the plotline. If that's the tale one wants to tell, fine. However, in the case of Heroes, if Hiro had to spend more than an episode or two trying to undo a rift, it could get real convoluted, and there's no guarantee you could resolve it to the audience's satisfaction. Also any viewer not as interested in Hiro as they are in other characters might get bored and leave. If a writer opts to keep their characters from doing something that would cause a rift, this conveniently avoids having to spend inordinate amounts of time resolving such mistakes, which less audiences would find intriguing. With Isaac, if his paintings don't appear to fortell the future every time, then it doesn't appear he has any ability at all. When a writer incorporates an Isaac painting into the story, that picture has to pay off somehow in future events, but it also has to have a twist as often as possible, so that it does happen, but not the way the reader expects. So again, from a writing standpoint, it makes perfect sense to keep Hiro and Issac from directly changing future events. -- ZachsMind 19:50, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Size concerns?

Keep your minds out of the gutter, people. :-) Anyway, I was just wondering if any thought had been given regarding this page's massive size/length. It's getting kind of...unwieldy, what with all the strike-outs, constant additions, and near-duplicates. I like that the theories are condensed, but it's becoming one gigantic forum-thread of a page. Discuss. --ZyberGoat 01:42, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, we've had some discussions about it, and I'm really beginning to agree now. Not only is it difficult to edit, it's difficult to even navigate. I'd like to see the theories still stick to the orginal idea of being located in a central place. Maybe we could have a "Theories (people)" and a "Theories (items)", and then just a regular "Theories" page. They could even be tabs of each other. To solve the jump problem, we could either do redirects (now that they support jumps), or add a "people"/"items" variable to the theories template. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2007 (EST)
I do like Lostpedia's tabs-and-subpages approach, but I guess the centralized pages make it easier to ignore peruse. I think breaking it down is a good idea, and splitting people, events, items, and everything else makes sense. It shouldn't be too hard to add a variable to the theories template that directs to the right page, and it would be an excuse to make a real portal for theories. That said, I'm kind of worried. Theories attracts some of our more ... casual ... editors. I have a feeling we'll constantly be scraping theories off and putting them on the appropriate page, and thus getting lots and lots of duplicates.--Hardvice (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2007 (EST)
In all honesty, it really makes no difference to me. I both want to encourage people to contribute, and discourage people from adding silly theories. (Did you see that one about Linderman made of waffles? Must be from some crackhead!) I'm absolutely fine leaving it on the long page - I can navigate it just fine - it just takes a bit longer. Let's see if anybody has a strong opinion one way or the other. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2007 (EST)
Wait, Linderman isn't made of waffles? My mind is blown. --ZyberGoat 02:12, 1 February 2007 (EST)
Linderman = Unseen
Waffles = Unseen
∴ Linderman=Waffles

The logic is flawless, I tell you!--Hardvice (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2007 (EST)
We're through the looking glass here, people. --ZyberGoat 02:37, 1 February 2007 (EST)
  • OK, we'll stick to the current format. Maybe at the end of Season 1, we can start trimming things down (anything to keep us busy over the summer hiatus, right?) In the meantime, I'll do my best to start cutting down on duplicated theories (i.e. not needing a theory saying "Sylar's after Molly" under the Sylar heading AND the Molly heading, etc). --ZyberGoat 03:57, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Different Forms of English

I once again got into a lingual back and forth over spelling. I am a Canadian, and like Australians, Britons, and Americans, we all have our own versions of the English Language. This Wiki may be based in the US, but its users are international. No one is more or less correct than the other. Unless it is decided that us foreign users must use only American spellings, which may mean that we will have to go out and find new spell check dictionaries and software, I suggest that international spellings be left alone and not "corrected". If you agree or disagree, please say so. It is bad enough that NBC is treating us international fans as second class citizens, it just stings when it (intentionally or not) happens to us in the Heroes Community. --WolvenSpectre 19:08, 3 February 2007 (EST)

This is a tricky subject, mostly because I am not always aware of spellings from counties other than America. I know my basics (color=colour, vandalize=vandalise, soccer=football), but I'm limited. I do think we should try to have a standard, though, and we shouldn't be offended if somebody edits one of our contributions. Afterall, we're all guilty of fixing others' spelling mistakes. If I offended anybody by changing spelling to an American version, I apolgize. My intentions are simply to try to make the site as uniform as possible, not to treat anybody as second class citizens with a latent imperialistic agenda. As much as possible, I just want everything standardised standardized. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2007 (EST)
I feel you, I do. It's a pain in the ass to remember to Americanize (see? I got one!) spellings. That said, I do it, just so there's a single standard in use. Multiple spelling conventions makes articles look sloppy and poorly edited. In general, life on a Wiki is much, much smoother if you don't worry overmuch about what happens to "your" edits. Also, if you're using Firefox, the built-in spellchecker easily manages multiple dictionaries, so that's what I did. It will cheerfully correct me if I accidentally attempt to spell things like a civilized person.--Hardvice (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Okay, my ignorance is showing now. Firefox has a built-in spellchecker? I'm sitting here searching for it, but am unable to find it. Um, where is it, or how do I access it? Man, that'd help you so much so you won't have to go back and fix all my mistakes. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2007 (EST)
What version are you on? It's built in starting in 2.0. Tools-->Options-->Advanced-->General-->Check my spelling as I type (and I think you have to install a dictionary, though I don't remember where (I know you can add a new one by right-clicking a text field, selecting "Languages", and "add a new dictionary"). You do need to make sure "spell check this field" is checked in the context menu (it likes to turn off from time to time ... must be a hotkey I don't know and accidentally hit). And unlike Opera, it does share your user dictionary with each language, which is pretty nice. I've taught it all the character's names, and I can spellcheck Theories in just a minute or two. Quite nice.--Hardvice (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2007 (EST)
Ah, there's the problem — I'm on 1.0. I think my grandma is more up-to-date than I am. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2007 (EST)
Excuse me, as I made my point kind of harsher than I intended, I think it came from the frustration with NBC getting a little misdirected, all the extra work I do on grammar and spelling because of my learning disorder (especially spelling I received a negative percentage on a report card once... really!!!), and being constantly told by American Users online that my spelling is "wrong" and that I should "Learn English". I am not doing the "This entry is mine" thing, I learned that the hard way through Wikipedia. I guess it is like RGS said, I don't want to check every respelling of a word I know is correct in Canukistanian through every other English dictionary.

Oh and I use Opera as my browser, and I forgot that it uses the same built-in spell checker (actually it used it first) and I could switch dictionaries easily among the different Englishes, but when You do you lose all the user added words, and with my spelling problem I don't look forward to rebuilding those dictionaries all over again. (I know...cry me a river)

Please just think of this as a big misdirected, Charlie Brown like "ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!"--WolvenSpectre 20:56, 3 February 2007 (EST)

WS, I know how hard it can be. I'm dyslexic myself, and I also think I'm pretty attuned to details, much like you. Great combination, huh? Wow, a negative percentage? What does that mean, that they're marking you off for future mistakes, too? Wow. ... I would never say your Canadian spelling is wrong. In fact, you taught me manoeuvre, which I had never seen before. I would say, though, that we just need a standard. Nothing personal. I'm glad we're all on the same page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2007 (EST)
Ah yes, the -26% I received on a grade six report card. Memmmmories...

Oh, one year there was a suggestion for a pioneering new way to bring up spelling back in the good old days when they believed if you could not spell you were Deaf and Dumb and probably Crippled too. They believed that every time a school aged child made a spelling mistake it could only be from laziness, not that that was never true, but they weren't aware of the way pre-adolescent and adolescent brains worked, not to mention learning disorders, at the time.

One of the main ways was what was known as punitive grading. This is where you were rewarded on assignments and tests X1 marks for correct answers and lose X2 marks for incorrect answers. I don't have a learning disorder that fits one of the more common syptymologies (ie dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADD, etc) but basically it makes my mind work more phonetically and more around the construction of words, which goes out the window for many smaller common words and homonyms. -26% is 58% answers correct and 42% answers incorrect.

After having to explain a negative mark on a report card of a student with A's and B's and 58% correct to the Saskatchewan Department of Education, they cancelled the policy halfway through the year. --WolvenSpectre 00:39, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Definition of "Theory"

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)
        • Separated this into a separate section since it seems to remain a point of discussion in Theories. I agree that we're not Wikipedia and that any criteria for what qualifies as a theory should not be made out of a sense of obligation to be encyclopedic. However, the difficulty with the current system or lack thereof is not so much a distinction between "good" and "bad" theories but between theories and non-theories. As analogy, if theories were cars, it wouldn't be an issue of whether a brand new Lamborghini is a "good" car while a broken-down Honda is a "bad" car, so much as an issue that those two are cars whereas a piece of a fruit or a bucket of paint is not. For instance, I could put up, "I will have wild sex with Niki," and claim that until this is disproven by the end of the series, it should remain on the theories page, but most people would rate this as not qualifying as a theory. It seems like by avoiding making the distinction between "good" or "bad" theories, we're avoiding making any distinction at all between theories and non-theories. But I think with the direction the Theories page has been heading, we will eventually be faced with having to making that distinction (though not necessarily immediately) and faced with having to establish some sort of criteria as a lower bound for distinguishing between theory and fantasy or whatever else it may be. Perhaps in order to be a theory, it should an explanation or notable revelation that explains currently unanswered questions that are relevant to the story or character interaction? Whatever the case, when that time comes, I'm not sure an all-out edit war or outright page deletion will be the only inevitable outcomes. At least, I'd like to hope that there will be some other alternative. Glue 06:13, 4 February 2007 (EST)
          • "I will have sex with Niki" would be deleted because it's in the first person. :) --Hardvice (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2007 (EST)
            • I just looked at your user page and noticed you're a lawyer. Dagnabbit! =) --Glue 20:32, 4 February 2007 (EST)
            • Hey, it would be a valid theory if it was posted by the actor playing Ando... or DL... or Nathan. Only the person would have to be corrected. ;P --WolvenSpectre 20:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
          • I guess someone is already trying to deliberately press this point now? I just noticed that someone added a Waffles section. (Although, compared to some of the other "bad" theories, I find the waffles one rather amusing, hehehe. They're even closer candidates to what a theory is than some of the other submissions.) Glue 06:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)