Talk:Acid secretion

From Heroes Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Acid Generation)
Jump to: navigation, search
Ability Naming Conventions
The following sources are used for determining evolved human ability names, in order:
1. Canon Sources Episodes
Graphic Novels,
Heroes Evolutions
3. Secondary Sources Episode commentary,
Heroes: Survival
4. Common names for abilities Names from other works
5. Descriptions of abilities Descriptions
6. Possessor's name If no non-speculative
description is possible

Note: The highlighted row represents the level of the source used to determine acid secretion's name.
"Acid secretion" is explicitly listed on Leonard's Assignment Tracker profile at


Why was this moved without discussion? "Corrosive fluid generation" seems to be more precisely drawn from the novel. They say he "generates corrosive fluid" that's "like acid reflux". That's not the same as saying it is acid, and it's worth noting that not all corrosive substances are acids. The new name seems both speculative and "outranked" by the old name.--Hardvice (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

  • I sorta wondered that too since they explicitly say "generate corrosive fluid", but acid sounded cooler so I didn't wanna start anything. >_> --NellaBishop 18:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
    • I wasn't the one to rename it, but I see why and agree with the rename. Since "acid reflux" is mentioned, "acid" does come from an equally near-canon source. While it's true that not all corrosive fluids are acidic, it seems that the fluid Cushing secretes is.
  1. Bases (the alternative to acids for corrosive fluids) as I know them don't dissolve metal that fast; my guess is that Cushing secretes is maybe hydroflouric acid or more likely a super acid if it actually burnt skin (HF affects bone, not skin). It's important to note that not all corrosive substances are fluids. Certain plasmas, such as oxygen/argon plasma are more corrosive than even the best super acid, but the key point is that they aren't fluids at room temperature and the canon source says he only generates fluids.
  2. Wikipedia has a good primer on corrosive fluids. It is common to label a corrosive substance as acidic. In addition, acid generation is listed as a comic book superpower on Wikipedia, and by Marvel (Anarchist, Zeitgeist and Man-Thing).
  3. And although the artist's viewpoint is a less important source on the tier, Ryan has mentioned that Atkins calls the ability "acid hands".--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Nevertheless, we have a near-canon source that says it is "corrosive fluid" and is like acid reflux. One is naming the fluid; the other is comparing it to something else (and unrelated--he's not belching stomach acid all over people). That should trump anything else. More importantly, I dislike the idea of articles being renamed without discussion.--Hardvice (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I don't see the comparison making it less important. While it is true he isn't belching it, the comparison is to stomach "acid" so the fluid being an acid is supported by the near-canon source. However, I agree with Hardvice that the article shouldn't have been renamed without discussion.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
  • No, the comparison is to it being like acid. Nathan's power allows him to fly like a bird, but it would be wrong to conclude from that that Nathan is a bird. It's just as speculative to conclude that his corrosive fluids, which are like acid reflux, are necessarily acids. Is it a safe assumption? Probably. Is it an assumption? Definitely.--Hardvice (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm actually really glad they described the power in the graphic novel because I was afraid we would have to go with "acid hands" as the name. DJ Doyle is a comic book fan and I believe he made sure to describe the power on purpose. It could have just as easily been said, "Cushing generates acid from his hands" or something like that, but it wasn't. I would use the words that the author used in the text over the interpretation that the artist (who had no contact with the author) used in an informal email. "Corrosive fluid generation" fits the bill, in my opinion. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Hardvice, Nathan doesn't fly like a bird, he flies like a supersonic jet. But that's beside the point. Assuming it was confirmed that he did fly like a bird, we could conclude that he uses air pressure to propel himself in flight cause that's how birds fly. I think we could use a similar comparison to derive that acid is required to create an effect like acid reflux, but I'm going to stop myself short here cause you've already said you disagree with a comparison being equal so the argument is not going anywhere.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Nathan flies like a bird, but we don't know what is being compared. Nathan flies like a bird, as they both fly gracefully? Or did Nathan flies like a bird, as they both fly forward, but not backward? It's speculation to say that "Nathan flies like a bird, as they both propel themselves in the same way" when the only canon reference is "Nathan flies like a bird." So, "Cushing's power is like acid reflux", but is speculation that "Cushing's power is like acid reflux as they both involve acid". In this case I think Thompson is referring to the corrosiveness and the deadliness of his power, but not the way he do it, but this is my own speculation. The safest way IMHO is to remove all speculation and use what Thompson said: Corrosive fluid generation. Chrisyudbsname.JPGChrisyudbstalk.JPG 04:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  • This happens every time a name is discussed: it degenerates into a speculative discussion about how we think it works, which just isn't relevant when we have a name given to us. It doesn't matter how Nathan flies, how Donna's vision works, what type of acid Cushing generates, or any of this wank we always get into. We have a naming standard for a number of reasons, and those reasons include making the article easier to find and avoiding speculation. Any explanation that involves "it should be called this because this is how I think it works" is a waste of time when we know we have a name from a canon or near-canon source. Our job is to document, not to speculate, postulate, create, or guess. Why do we have to go through this every time? We have a description of the ability from the novel. We also have a suggestion that it's "like" acid reflux, which does not in any way, shape, or form mean that it is acid. Any speculation as to how it works is irrelevant; we should use the name we're given.--Hardvice (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I have no real strong opinion ether way, but "corrosive" is an adjective and not a noun like acid. Through, that doesn't seem to bother us. --  Seclusion  talk / contribs 23:53, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
    • "Corrosive fluid" is a noun. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
    • "Melting" and "freezing" are gerunds, which act as nouns. For instance, in the sentence "Melting wrenches sure is fun!", "melting" is used as a noun. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
    • Before this was moved it was called "Corrosive Generation" so I was commenting on that. I am far from an expert on grammar through. --  Seclusion  talk / contribs 00:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  • When it was changed I thought that maybe I missed something but was unable to check to see. We will likely get more about it in a few days. -Lөvөl 01:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  • If it's corrosive fluid, it's acid, is it not? Why are people always trying to contradict me? Just change it back if ya don't like it, don't rub my nose in it. If you like it, keep it and don't make a fuss. It's accurate, and so it should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowulf1 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
    • As discussed above, not all corrosive fluids are acids, and since the fluid type is not specified besides a mention of being similar to acid reflux, it remains open for discussion. --Ciwey 07:53, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
    • Well, I'm not an expert in chemistry, but you do know that there's something called "alkali" don't ya? Chrisyu357 08:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
    • Shadowulf, it seems as though you're taking this discussion personally. I have absolutely no idea of the history of this page, who changed it, or what it was changed from. Nor do I care. What I do care about is that the name of the article accurately reflects the ability, and that it comes from the best source possible. I don't know anybody who is "always trying to contradict" you--if I have an opinion that differs from yours, then it certainly might look like I'm contradicting you, but what I'm really doing is just asserting my opinion. (In fact, I rarely even read the signatures on talk pages because I believe in expressing my opinion, regardless of who has a similar or different opinion.) If anybody is "rubbing your nose in it", please let an administrator know so we can see if people are being excessively rude to others--however, this is not the case I'm seeing at all, after reading the comments on this page. Most people seem to be addressing the issues, the name, the source, etc. and not focusing on rubbing any user's nose in anything. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Just to regroup here: what are the arguments in favor of Acid Generation and the arguments in favor of Corrosive Fluid Generation?--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

  • I'll avoid paraphrasing here. Just see above my points 1, 2, 3 for "acid generation"; Hardvice's reply after my #3, and Ryan's first reply for "corrosive fluid generation". The other arguments are essentially repeats imho.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
    • So basically (in favor of Acid Generation) Chushing's power is described as "generate a corrosive fluid." this is likened to acid reflux. Acids are corrosive, therefore he generates acid, hence Acid Generation is the right name. hmmmm... No, it's being too speculative as to what the fluid is, and it is implying that WE understand the mechanics of the power, despite the fact that the mechanics of the power have not been explained in-show. Also, it's too many logical leaps to prove that the fluid is acid. For all we know, it could be concentrated eye of newt with a PH of 7, and we'd be way off base with the name. It's much simpler logically, not to mention more accurate, to say that, since he generates a corrosive fluid, the power is Corrosive Fluid Generation.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
      • Sounds right...but anybody who puts two and two together will also know that there will soon be an assignment tracker file for Leonard Cushing (and the password will be LCtsn45p). Assuming the new file is added within about a week, it's probably a good idea to wait to see what's listed in the file. If it's longer than that, we should probably go with the results of the consensus check. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
        • But all corrosive liquids are acids... o.O Acids are defined as "corrosive." Jason Garrick 19:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
          • A base can be corrosive (though we call it "caustic"). Though acids are the main corrosive fluids, there are certainly other substances which are corrosive. But in the end, it's not about us determining what the writers meant, or interpreting the words in a completely logical way--it's about us documenting what we've been given. Hopefully we'll be given a definitive name in the assignment tracker page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
            • Speak of the devil! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
              • I really love those assignment tracker pages. Makes our jobs so much easier. :) (Admin 00:03, 9 May 2008 (EDT))
                • Indeed! Cuts down on that interpretation of character dialog/monologue that can be a real drag, not to mention the breeding of sometimes bizarre, sometimes inaccurate names from speculation. :) --SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

The ol' consensus check

Just a standard disclaimer on the consensus check--I'm not sure we really even need one since the substance that Cushing generates is clearly stated to be "corrosive fluid". I'm apt to go out on a limb and say that we really don't even need a check since we shouldn't be looking for consensus if we're just following our naming standards and using the text from the novel. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

  • I think it's worthwhile to reach consensus in this instance because both pieces of text do come right from the graphic novel, though the "acid generation" requires a little more mangling (similar to, but not exactly like water mimicry did) than "corrosive fluid generation". So I think we've seen instances in the past where it was either more or less cut and dry than this one, but consensus at least helps to ensure that all parties discuss understand why one name would be more appropriate over the other. (Admin 20:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT))
  • I also wanted to say I hope no one takes these ability name discussions too personally. I like to look on the very bright side and be impressed that so much discussion goes into some of the less clear cut names to ensure that we end up with the most appropriate name and the most consistent method of applying a name to a particular ability. I think the fact that people are so interested in presenting their points for discussion is laudable. (Admin 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT))

Votes for "acid generation"

  1. for reasons already stated--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  2. --Sad crescentmoon12 13:56, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  3. --The Empath 17:49, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
  4. --Jason Garrick 19:36, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Votes for "corrosive fluid generation"

  1. for reasons already stated in favor of this name--SacValleyDweller (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
  2. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk)
  3. -- NellaBishop 00:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  4. -Lөvөl 01:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  5. --Bob (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  6. --Chrisyudbsname.JPGChrisyudbstalk.JPG 04:46, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  7. --Ciwey 07:53, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  8. --Hardvice (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (EDT) (though I maintain "Acid generation" is a fan-created description, not a near-canon source name)

Ability To:

Ability to: Multi-directional transdermal acid secretion

Doesn't seem to follow all of the other pages, and it doesn't really explain what it does. That "Ability To" section is there for a short summary of what the power does, no? So shouldn't it say something to the effect of: Ability to secrete a highly corrosive acid from ones hands.

?--Riddler 23:03, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

  • Done, no big thing. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
    • On a different note, though the art style on the abilities are different, does anyone else think this is in relation to Felicia's ability?--Riddler 01:30, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
      • No, I don't think Felicia's ability is related to Cushing's ability. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
Aren't corrosive fluids usually acids (or bases)? It only makes sense that you use a simpler name...right?

N/A 13:37, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

  • Shadowwulf1, you're signing as N/A now? The current name comes from the Company's assignment tracker database, which is in Heroes Evolutions, so unless it is mentioned in an episode (which is unlike, imho), the name is probably not going to change.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

User:Shadowulf1 19:17, 17 September 2008 (EDT)Acid Secretion---didn't I suggest this ability name in the first place? Yeah, y'all wre just bein difficult.


Wouldn't the guy mentioned in the Assignment Tracker map be unconfirmed? --OutbackZack 16:14, 10 December 2009 (EST)

  • Yes, yes he would. Fixed. --Radicell 03:32, 11 December 2009 (EST)