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:Disproven theories

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

James Walker

  • Can't it still be true about that theory? NBC hasn't said anything and we don't know what order Sylar preformed the head opening in. He could've opened it, taken cyrokinesis and then frozen him.
    • He was frozen in the middle of eating breakfast with his hand still in the air, so the freezing had to be very sudden and prior to death. (Admin 17:16, 7 March 2007 (EST))
      • Unless he killed him, took his brain, posed him telekinetically, and then ... nah, I can't even say that with a straight face.--Hardvice (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2007 (EST)
    • See here for a previous discussion. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Claude DL

how has the claude protect DL theory been disproved? just because DL was unaware of his powers doesn't mean some else is? Linderman was aware of Isaac power.JD 22:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Linderman was aware of Isaac's powers, and so was Isaac. D.L. did not have powers until April 2006; Claude was to be shot for protecting somebody in 1999 or earlier. (BTW, D.L. would have been 24 in 1999.) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Yup. If the Company could tell back then that people where evolved before they displayed powers, they never would have had to give Claire to Mr. Bennet. And since it was the Company he was protecting the person from, it's their abilities to identify evolved humans that counts.--Hardvice (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Hi. Is disproven a standard English word??? It isn't in the dictionaries I've checked (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and (There are lots of occurrences of it per Google, but none authoritative language-wise from what I saw.) According to the dictionaries, there's proven and unproven, but no disproven. The proper related form is disproved.

I think disproven could be replaced with either debunked, refuted or disproved. All three have the sense of showing the falseness or error of an idea. Refute is a synonym of disprove. Debunk is not an exact synonym -- being used usually for legends, rumors or hoaxes (with an element that such claims have been cited as though they were established fact) than for theories (which strictly speaking implies proposal and further need for proof) -- but sounds cooler (to me) than refute and disprove. --Mercury McKinnon 08:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I can't say since I'm french and grammar isn't my best friend but I like this kind of post ahah :) This website is about to be perfect and I like it :) --   FrenchFlo   (talk)  (contribs)  08:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Hey, Frenchflo. Actually, I was/am a bit apprehensive that this foray into semantics might get a big "who the f*** cares!" response. Merci beaucoup!  :-) --Mercury McKinnon 08:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Well I think I'm not the only one here to be perfectionnist, and remember, we don't have many things to do since Heroes is on a break. So if we can use the occasion to improve this Wiki quality I think it's a good thing. Let the talk continue! --   FrenchFlo   (talk)  (contribs)  08:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
        • I care very much about grammar. I don't care that "disproven" is not in the dictionary. It's perfectly understood, and is a fine word, in my opinion. But if someone would like to go through and change all the links/jumps (there are a lot on the theories pages), well, I'll let them tackle that one. :) In the meantime, I've taught the word to my spellchecker, and I'm happy to follow in Shakespeare's footsteps. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
          • Disproved is probably the right word but I don't think it sounds right. -Lөvөl 14:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
            • On the other hand, I thought disproven sounded wrong, which is what got me to look it up. If folks don't think disproved theories has a good ring to it, how about debunked theories?
        • I also care very much about grammar and spelling. I just don't care about this page, since it should probably just be deleted. As far as I'm concerned, this is just another reason to get rid of it. The bigger reason is that it serves no actual purpose ... what's the point of a list of either "disproven" or "disproved" theories? It's like the Island of Misfit Toys.--Hardvice (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
          • I know that I check the disproven theories before I post a theory to make sure that what I'm about to post hasn't already been disproven...otherwise I may repeatedly post a disproven theory.--ASEO 15:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
            • I don't have much use for the Theories pages myself -- less so for Disproved Theories -- but ASEO's got a point I think. As for not caring much for a Disproved Theories page, there are many occurrences of disproven in the Theories pages (as Ryangibsonstewart said above), which bug me a bit and I would want to see corrected. (I posted here rather than on the Theories pages only to centralize the discussion.) --Mercury McKinnon 06:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
        • "Real" words do not exist. Groups like those that make dictionaries or those who define terms legally have words that are accepted or not, and it is usually up to their professional discretions(Oxford English Dictionary's rule of thumb is it must be published independently 3 times). Linguists recognize that a language is a living evolving thing that is constantly changing.

          As for whether "disproven" is a word, it has been in almost every Canadian Math and Science text I had through Engineering and Computer Systems Support.

          Apparently "proven" is a North Americanism of "proved" which has been officially accepted but is still considered "bad form" so many of its derivatives haven't been officially accepted in dictatorial form.--WolvenSpectre 21:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

          • Hi. Actually, the question was specifically is disproven standard English, not just whether it's a word (that some people use, understand and accept). Language is certainly evolving, and what's acceptable is relative, but for the purposes of style guidance on this wiki (as with most anything) don't we need to be able to draw the line between what's "better" and what's less so in a given situation? Would we resort to dictionaries? a Google test? admin consensus? or some other norm? I think going with an objective language reference (like a dictionary) is a reasonable rule of thumb. --Mercury McKinnon 06:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
            • WolvenSpectre has a point, though. We've already rejected a dictionary rule in the case of neologisms like "cryokinesis" because the alternative is awkward labels that don't quite carry the proper connotation. (That's setting aside entirely for the moment the fact that dictionaries are merely records of a language, not sources of languages.) I'm not sure the same reasoning applies here, but I for one would be opposed to a hard-and-fast dictionary rule across the board. There are times when it just doesn't matter that a word isn't in a dictionary.--Hardvice (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
              • I still say this page should be deleted. But if it's not, I agree with the general principle that not all words need to be ... dictionarized. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
                • On the other hand, Mercury McKinnon also suggested refuted theories, which suits the actual content of the page more precisely, in my opinion. —Soleta 14:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
                  • That's fine if you want to change it. However, remember that all the other links would have to be changed -- a redirect would not work in this case because they are jumps, not just a redirect to a page. I'm counting at least 35 changes. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
              • Then we agree. As I suggested, dictionary checks would just be a rule of thumb or base rule rather than an absolute rule. Ultimately, I think consensus would justify whether a certain coinage or turn of phrase better/best suits particular instances. --Mercury McKinnon 22:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


    1. A disproved theory is no longer a theory.
    2. Merely removing a disproved theory rather than archiving it is consistent with our treatment of proven theories.
    3. As more and more theories are disproved, this page will become unmanageably long and will eventually need to be split like the other theories pages.
    4. The only possible purpose of this page is to prevent people from re-adding disproved theories; however, the maintenance required to remove re-adds is less than the maintenance required by this page, especially since keeping this page won't prevent everybody from re-adding disproved theories. Not everyone checks it, and even if they do, the (lack of) organization is such that they may not find their duplicate.
    5. The page needs to be renamed anyway. Deleting it is easier.--Hardvice (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

+ Agree. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

+ Couldn't you have posted this twenty minutes ago? I'm already halfway through proofreading it... :) Seriously, though, I'm convinced. —Soleta 14:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

    • I can't see anyone ever reading it, hassle outweighs benefit. Axe it -- Ohmyn0(talk) 15:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

+ For the AFD, - for the article. Sorry, the temptation to use the new thingies is overwhelming this late.--Bob 03:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Good call on deleting it. I feel like I can breathe a huge sigh of relief now.

RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps we should come up with a tag that is roughly equivalent to Wikipedia's "This Article is marked for deletion" for an entry in theories to show that a user/admin has marked a theory as disproven/disproved and state their reason why. This will give all users, even the less Wiki-Knowledgeable, to refute, update, or discuss why it should not be stricken yet. If after say 4,5,7 days from being tagged and there is a final decision, it can be deleted.

    I would be glad to see this gone, but maybe some of the more humorous or interesting could be collected as an article at season 1's end.--WolvenSpectre 10:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)