Talk:Theories About Characters

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What can be considered Proven/Disproven

(I'm tacking this up here, hoping more people may see it.) Based on general consensus from previous discussions, here's a general guideline to follow before moving something from being a theory to being proven or disproven:

  1. Was the theory explicitly proven or disproven in a video or by the Creators?
  2. If not, can it be generally inferred from the two aforementioned sources?
    1. Keep in mind, stating that something is mentioned on the Pedia is generally not a good source for your reasoning. The Pedia is run by fans, and we can be wrong on occasion. (Proving a character will never be seen again, for instance, based on being moved to the "former" characters list is not accurate.)
  3. Is the theory a joke theory? (Note: These should be found nowhere outside of the P. Monkey section.)
    1. If so, go nuts with disproving or proving. These are meant to be fun!

I basically just compiled this list hoping that some of my pet peeves of moving theories would stop occurring. Feel free to comment or expand on anything. - Shiori 11:34, 21 March 2008 (CDT)


I really like a page for character theories, but I get the feeling some of the "theories" here are just fan speculation. Any thoughts? --Pheon 17:58, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, a lot of the theories have no proof. Like the one that said Charlie might have had an abortion - why? Perhaps the page could be set up a similar way the "theories page" on the Heroes Wiki is? ( where people say their theory, citations from videos, and notes?Babygurl1853 22:03, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I made the theories page and my idea was to make it just like the heroeswiki but i don't know how. --jonas'brother

Clean Up?

I don't know if this matters, and I don't know how to do it... but shouldn't we remove the speculation about characters leaving the messages in the bree blogs, since we know who it is now? And also, it's not really a theory anymore that Alex was the woman in the deep throat video...

I agree... we also know that it's unlikely Kate was a Ceremony girl, since we saw what happens in ceremonies. --Greenie

As a matter of fact, Greenie, it's impossible that Kate was a Ceremony girl, let alone Charlie.   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 23:42, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

agreed again. we should seperate the open theories from the theories that have been closed through confirmation or denied. - platy sep 23

Disproven Theories?

If a theory is disproven, should it be removed from the list?Babygurl1853 22:03, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

If a theory is disproven, just but "disproven" next to it in parathesis (i spelled that wrong lol) --jonas'brother
and why does it say that the theory that jonas and bree have the same parents is disproven? when was it disproven? --jonas'brother

Theories about spin-off characters?

Perhaps a page could be made for people to post their theories on fanfic/ARG characters? I think it'd be interesting to see what people had to say. Babygurl1853 22:05, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

What exactly is this page for?

I've got a theory, but I id thid page just for anyone with an idea, or does the theory have to have public opion behind it?


Some of these theories are either really stupid (like the idea that Kate is really Cassie - what, so Kate went to high school with Daniel and Bree and was in California last year to stalk them?) or are sort of interesting but lack proof (like the theory that Charlie was once pregnant and lost her baby). In all cases, though, I would really appreciate some explanation of the theory, so that we can research, discuss, prove, or disprove the theories. What do you think? --Katiej88 22:17, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

Michelle Clore's Body Guards

I'm not quite as "with it" when it comes to the KM series, but when was it proven that her body guards were watchers? Wouldn't it make more sense that they are Shadows if Michelle is an Elder?? -Nancypants

I think that what was taken as confirmation that her bodyguards were Watchers came from a comment that Greg Goodfried left somewhere that he had played a Watcher in the video at the Second Space Gallery. Ooo, I found it! [1] My question is how has it been proven that Michelle Clore is an Elder and in the Order? All we have of evidence for this is that Dudley and Dr. Griffin said so (and that she's put HoO symbols in her pictures, and that she's got Watchers...) - but still I wouldn't call that incontrovertible proof just yet ... what do y'all think? -Theresa 11:15, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
Arg, I don't know. I'm pretty sure she's supposed to be an Elder. I'm mad that they have watchers being her bodyguards though. I thought Watchers were supposed to be WATCHING the trait positive girls. Not hanging around old ladies. Nancypants
I put a ? after "Proven" that they were Watchers. I mean, we don't know that for sure. I also removed proven from "Elder" and "Order" - just because Dudley says so doesn't mean it's fact. ;-p -Theresa 11:03, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
Michelle Clore's bodyguards were definitely Watchers (see the above post by Nancypants). However, I agree, we have no "official confirmation" that Michelle is an Elder. --Zoey 11:42, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
Well, it was me that wrote that Greg had said "Watcher" on that comment at lg15today, but got confused after the video credits got changed back from Watcher to Bodyguard and the names withheld. But if Zoey says definitely, then it is definitely a definitely! -Theresa 11:49, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
I agree, if Zoey says so, that's good enough for me. Nancypants
Ahaha, shoot, I sure hope I'm right then... *hides* LOL. --Zoey 20:03, 10 October 2007 (CDT)

Wrong Grammar

Is "Disproven" and "Proven" or "Disproved" and "Proved". I'm pretty sure its the first two.


How is "Mallory is having some sort of relationship with Mr. Banks/Professor DelMundo." and "Tariq's date will have some connection to HoO/The Order" proven?? Bree is awesome 00:33, 20 November 2007 (CST)


I've been contemplating this page for a while, with its mish-mash of information, and I've come up with an idea. How about we literally separate the theories or color-code them or something (like this):

  • Current theories that have not been proven/disproven
  • More theories
  • Etc.
  • Theory 1 (Reasoning)
  • Theory 1 (Reasoning)

I'm going to reformat the page, feel free to discuss and let me know of any criticisms. - Shiori 10:57, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Just want to say that this new format is fantastic! Nancypants 19:48, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Take 2

'Kay, there's a new categorization added, since this page was getting confusing. I sorted each series into "Notable Characters" and "Minor Characters", each in alphabetical order. To minimize fighting over who should be where, as there always is on the characters page, here's how these should break down:

  • Notable Characters: Characters who are, or at one time were main or supporting characters PIVOTAL to the series, or just other important characters pivotal to the series. This means no Nikki B, but Spencer is necessary.
  • Minor Characters: Characters who are just that: minor. Not pivotal to the series. Nikki B fits here, as well as Bree and Jonas's parent; others.

Feel free to add new categories, but this needed to be done. I, for one, was getting really confused as to some of the more minor characters we've only seen once were, and was getting very irritated looking it up. - Shiori 13:54, 12 February 2008 (CST)


Is it plausible that we use the fact that we ourselves moved people to the "former characters" list as proof that they will no longer be appearing? (ie:Spencer) Just wondering, I mean, unless the Creators sends our Admins a note that says "this person will NEVER be on the show again" how can we know? (At one point it was "proven" Taylor wouldn't be coming back because someone had moved her to the former characters list) Nancypants 19:52, 3 December 2007 (CST)

I was wondering that myself when I was reformatting the page. Honestly, I wouldn't think so. The entire "former characters" section was set up under the premise that the characters are likely to never be seen again, but it's not a fact. I'd say we should nix any "proven to not have any more appearances" characters until it's either confirmed by the Creators or the series is over. - Shiori 23:27, 3 December 2007 (CST)
Yeah, I've been editing out the ones that say they are proven not to have any more appearances. Seems like you and I are the only ones who care about this so I'm glad we're in agreement! <3 Nancypants 20:20, 11 December 2007 (CST)


I'm unclear as to how it Julia isn't a parallel character to Mallory? Is it because of Mallory's relationship with Del Mundo? Seems to sort superficial, don't you think? Especially seeing as how Daniel broke it off with Mallory just a little before Julia broke it off with Tariq. That actually made me wonder if Kate was parallel to Sarah (because of her time missing when she was with the Lullaby Project, too.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

It's moreso disproven because of the role Julia's been playing in KateModern. Mallory was never, EVER even close to a main character, whereas Julia is off by herself advancing the plot of the show and not with Tariq anymore. - Shiori 06:57, 19 February 2008 (CST)


I don't see how it's disproven that Kate or Emma could be biologically related to Bree and Gina. Isn't there enough time between their ages that Kate could have been sold from the same mother before Gina was born or Emma was taken after Gina and Bree were taken?

Yes I think that is plausible. Nancypants 21:06, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

Parallel characters?

I was just wondering why there are so many theories on who is and who is not parallel characters to one another. A parallel character is another character (in the same piece of literature/art or another) that is very similar if not almost exactly the same as the original character chosen. I don't see how that fits any of our characters and it's borderline ridiculous that there are so many (seriously guys, Charlie and Taylor?!) I think these should be removed as they can never be proven or disproven. For example, apparently someone thought Charlie and Sarah were different enough to move that "theory" over to the disproven side, but what if someone decides that they aren't? I really think this is silly and not even a theory but more like random opinions. Nancypants 21:05, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

I completely agree, but if we do remove them, we'll have to tread lightly. I got bitched out when I simply moved the theory of Julia being parallel to Mallory... - Shiori 11:28, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
I really wish to remove them, I think they make the whole page look ridiculous. Any objections? I'll leave it for a while longer but, please speak up and give reason if you think they should stay. Nancypants 20:05, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

Alright, I removed them because of all the afore mentioned reasons and the fact that the only person who even responded agreed with me. I hope that if someone is angered by this they will talk about it on the talk page and give some reasons. I just really think a lot of people don't know what "Parallel Character" means and just think it sounds cool. Nancypants 17:54, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Stupid Theories

Ok I know I'm kind of bitchy about this page, but is this page for serious theories or for jokes? There are so many on here that are absolutely absurd and you just know that no one is working on a theory so ridiculous. Like Lucy being a voodoo witch or Bree being a clone of Gina? How stupid! Is everyone else OK with this buffoonery? (that's right I said buffoonery) Nancypants 20:48, 5 June 2008 (CDT)