Talk:Melting

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Ability Naming Conventions
The following sources are used for determining evolved human ability names, in order:
Episodes
2. Near-canon Sources Webisodes,
Graphic Novels,
iStories,
Heroes Evolutions
3. Secondary Sources Episode commentary,
Interviews,
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 melting's name.
Source/Explanation
Described as "ability to melt" in Gabriel Gray's primatechpaper.com profile (Building 26).

Touch?

Sylar didn't have to touch it to affect it. His hand was hovering over it. Anomy 22:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)

  • I thought he actually touched it. We'll get a few more opinions and modify the page if needed. --Ted C 22:34, 12 February 2007 (EST)
    • He was definitely hovering over it.--Hardvice (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2007 (EST)
    • He was hovering from my perspective, too. (Admin 01:19, 13 February 2007 (EST))
  • Okay... I might of missed it. I'm not sure. Anyone know where I can get a torrent of it? Anomy
  • I also thought he did not quite touch it. He did get pretty close. I wouldn't so flatly assert that the power only works when touching something. I would say something more like, "It is unknown what the range of this power is, but it appears to be something less than one foot."--E rowe 22:51, 12 February 2007 (EST)


A Puddle By Any Other Name...

Induced Amorphousness

The phrase that properly describes what Zane could do is induced amorphousness and I'll tell you why. Molecular destablization does not describe any solid being turned into a liquid or amorphous state. It instead insinuates a breakdown of complex molecules into their most primitive states (i.e., elements). That'd make solid ice turn into hydrogen and oxygen - gases and not liquids. Most other destablizations of complex molecules to their most simplistic elemental states would also not result in an amorphous liquid. The end result would look nothing like what was depicted. It'd also cause a greater instability of combined molecular processes, often leading to explosions as such products broke down at room temperature. Melting would require a heat source, or the resulted objects would show signs of being heated, and some of the things heated cannot do so at room temperature. A cellphone wouldn't just turn into an amorphous mass that was the same color. Metal components inside would reveal different colorization. If you look at the geology of igneous rocks as compared to metamorphic you'll see what I mean. ane couldn't have been melting things, as there was no sign of heat. He simply took any item and turned it into a gelatinous substance which had no shape or form and would eventually return to a solid at room temperature. This isn't destablization so much as removing the form and shape of a given object. I'd also prefer just calling it "puddelization" but would probably be over-ruled. -- ZachsMind 19:34, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Liquefaction versus liquification and other variants

So it's "liquefaction" now? I think "liquification" is much better. More accessible, and just as descriptive. I vote to change it back. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2007 (EST)

  • Agreed. Liquefaction, while technically just as correct, sounds antiquated and looks...I don't know, wrong? --ZyberGoat 23:54, 12 February 2007 (EST)
    • I'm not super-pleased with either, to be honest, but until we know more about how it works, I guess either is fine. "Liquefaction" is technically the correct word, since "liquification" is a relative newcomer mostly limited to industrial uses. Bleh. I just can't make myself care. I'm distracted by the three new Star Trek references and the lack of Tawny.--Hardvice (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2007 (EST)
      • Man, you really like Tawny, don't you! I don't think we're going to see too much more of the power, but yeah, let's wait to change it. (I still hate it, for the record). — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2007 (EST)
        • I thought for sure I was going to get here tonight and find an article called "molecular destabilization". --Fcphantom 00:55, 13 February 2007 (EST)
          • See, that's where I was leaning!--Hardvice (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2007 (EST)
            • So was I. Based on what we saw it looked like he was breaking down the molecular bonds and the object was essentially falling apart at the molecular level. Though I like how liquification is vague enough where we're not speculating on the exact mechanism. Let's go, Mohinder, it's time to get to work making files for these powers (and showing them to us!) (Admin 01:22, 13 February 2007 (EST))
              • Oh. I was thinking of, um, "melting". :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2007 (EST)
                • I specifically avoided "melting", because they objects don't seem to get hot, and melting is, to my mind at least, specifically the adding enough heat to something to change it to a liquid state. --Ted C 09:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
                  • Right. I wasn't suggesting we call it that. Just pointing out, um, my nonscientific mind.RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2007 (EST)
              • My biggest point of contention with calling it "liquefaction" is that the objects don't appear to remain liquid. They melt, but then they seem like they're just set in their new shape. I think a name that focuses on the melting rather than the change in state would be more appropriate, since the change in state is temporary and only occurs during the use of the power.--Hardvice (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2007 (EST)
                • To me it looked like they remained a liquid even afterwards. All the spots all over the place looked like pools of liquid that had spread out thin, but I'd have to take another look at them. (Admin 02:02, 13 February 2007 (EST))
                • You can see a gap (and even shadows) under some of them, though, and a lot have rounded edges: Melted objects.jpg
                  • When I think of liquefaction, I think of soil liquefaction, but that may just be because I live in Utah where if there was an earthquake most of the cites would be gone do to it. -Level 03:37, 13 February 2007 (EST)
  • i like "liquification" better. --Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 23:02, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Usually Liquification in Comic book super power terms is used in the way of one turning themselves into a liquid or water... like how we have "water mimicry". But in this instance since the subject does not gain heat during the process (or that pot would have set fire to paper mat), it seems (from my A in chemistry last year) to just increase the kinetic energy within the material causing it to become a liquid. so the molecules that make it up move faster and more freely. But apparently Zane was only able to do it to a certain point cause theoretically he should have been able to make it a gas as well. As far as naming goes I am fine with liquification. only because melting wouldn't be correct and everyone already knows it as liquification and it already makes sense.--.Vault 20:26, 4 December 2007 (EST)

the Tea!

something I just realized: When confronted with Mohinder's DNA test, he looks towards the kitchen and a split-second later the tea starts boiling. Since there was no fire on the stove where the teapot was on, it showed that Sylar made it happen to get out of a tight spot.

Now, which power did he use for this? His telekensis wouldn't boil the tea for him, but I'm thinking that maybe he used his new power to change the tea from liquid to gas, and that its not limited to liquefaction. But the tea could have been out of range, as he needed to put his hand nearby the toaster to melt it, or he was just doing that for showing mohinder. Or maybe he comehow combined telekinesis with his new power to evaporate the tea from a distance?--Piemanmoo 03:20, 13 February 2007 (EST)

  • I was waiting to see if anyone brought this up. I think the stove was indeed on, but right before it started whistling Sylar looked at the kitchen and there was this crackling sound. I cant tell if it was Mohinder opening his case or not, but I didnt see any other movement at the time that would explain the noise. I was wondering if he used a power to cause it to boil... perhaps even his newfound one if it works that way. Plus the whistling seemed to begin stopping a split second before he touched the dial. For now I'm assuming it wasn't significant, but if we find out he has a power that can be used to accomplish this it will be interesting. (Admin 03:28, 13 February 2007 (EST))
    • I think for now it's enough to say that he caused the tea to boil, but we shouldn't attribute it to a power. It wasn't 100% crystal clear that Sylar caused the tea to boil, but I think it's clear enough that we can at least say it was of his doing. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)
      • I don't think we can say that, it's speculation. The water could just have easily boiled on its own. The timing may have just been a decision on what would present the scene in the best way. (Admin 20:37, 14 February 2007 (EST))
        • Right, let me clarify. I don't think we should say anything about Sylar boiling the water in the article space, but among us fans in the discussion pages, I'd say he boiled the water. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
      • I would wanna see the original script first to see if that was intended. I just took it to be a production issue. Maybe they couldn't have an open flame on set that day. If they did intend to telegraph it, the direction was poor in that regard. I wouldn't say the teapot is a clue. -- ZachsMind 19:56, 14 February 2007 (EST)
        • I agree it wasn't very clear. But something tells me they don't have too many restrictions about open flames on the set. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2007 (EST)
          • I stand corrected. In the online commentary at the nbc website, one of the producers points out the teapot. Sylar did indeed use telekinesis to make it sound like the teapot was whistling when it really wasn't. "I just loved the fact that Sylar used his telekinetic ability to make the pot boil, in order to get out of the room." The producer (I think his name is Adam Armus) also used the word "melt." Though I stick to my scientific approach. The items don't melt. -- ZachsMind 23:48, 14 February 2007 (EST)
        • I'd like to point out that in my original edit for this episode, I mentioned it.. and it was just scrapped. Anomy 23:53, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Commentary transcript

For reference:

Adam Armus: And here is his ability: the ability to melt ...
Kay Foster: Toasters!
Adam Armus: Toasters.
Kay Foster: It's a very specific talent that he has.
Adam Armus: The ability to change molecules and create liquid goo out of solid objects.
Kevin Chamberlin: So it's actually not just melting metal?
Adam Armus: No, it's the ability to melt any object he can find ...
Kay Foster: Right.
Adam Armus: ...and we'll see later that he melts all kinds of stuff.

Goofication

I say we change the page name to "goofication" cuz this is goofy. Melting metals like we were seeing can't be done at room temperature. -- ZachsMind 16:24, 15 February 2007 (EST)

  • Is it goofy? Yes. Are we supposed to suspend disbelief and just go with it? Also, yes. The liquefaction power is no less plausible than telekinesis, telepathy, flight, pyrokinesis, etc. --Ted C 16:29, 15 February 2007 (EST)
    • I ain't talking about about suspension of disbelief. I'm talking about using words properly. Melting doesn't describe what's going on. The object in question simply loses shape and turns to goo. Melting requires a heat source. If we saw heat emanating from Zane's hands, I'd be cool with it. But we saw Sylar just look at the thing and it lost cohesion. No heat was involved. Liquefaction is a word used in other situations (as described above) but this one doesn't meet the criteria. ...Maybe decohesion would work..? -- ZachsMind 16:32, 15 February 2007 (EST)
      • Just to be precise, I looked up melt and liquefaction at Webster's online. "Melt: to become altered from a solid to a liquid state usually by heat" and "Liquefaction: the process of making or becoming liquid". Either term is perfectly suitable as used. Even "melt" is acceptable, although it does imply heating. "Decohesion" isn't even in the dictionary, but it if were, it would be the opposite of "the act or state of sticking together tightly", which doesn't accurately describe what this power does. --Ted C 16:54, 15 February 2007 (EST)
  • Let's just hope now that Mohinder's seen it he decides to come up with a term for it. :) (hint, hint, Mr. Kring) (Admin 17:15, 15 February 2007 (EST))
    • I'd even toy around with something like "intermolecular bond disruption", though that may be speculative at this point. (Admin 17:22, 15 February 2007 (EST))
      • Preferably, before the power gets used on him. --Orne 17:23, 15 February 2007 (EST)
      • Pardon me a moment... AAAGH! TECHNOBABBLE! ISN'T LIQUEFACTION BAD ENOUGH?... ah, I feel better now. --Ted C 17:27, 15 February 2007 (EST)
      • Technobabble or not, there is some molecular modification going on. Specifically, turning a solid into a liquid. Yes, extreme heat would do this for metal but that's not to say there's some other force breaking the law of physics that could do the same. I think coming to some sort of scientific phrase would be good Bkdelong 19:54, 15 February 2007 (EST)
        • And I'm quite certain that trying to make up a scientific explanation would be BAD. We have no idea HOW the Heroes accomplish their various feats, and I think it would be a mistake to speculate. What we're trying to accomplish with the Powers pages is to describe WHAT they can do and what limits they have. --Ted C 10:04, 16 February 2007 (EST)
          • Good distinction, Ted. I agree with you -- it's fun to come up with cool alternate names that describe methods, but the primary name should be simple yet descriptive of what they do. KISS. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (EST)
        • I'm a bad person to ask. I love technobabble. I have the Star Trek technical manual. Ever want to know how much energy warp coils need to generate in order to break each warp threshold? I did! :) (Admin 18:19, 15 February 2007 (EST))
          • I'd only want to know if you could tell me the answer in Vulcan. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2007 (EST)
            • It's a shame you said Vulcan and not Romulan. Otherwise, I'd be able to point out that Romulan warp cores are powered by a harnessed quantum singularity, whereas Federation warp cores are powered by a regulated matter/antimatter reaction.--Hardvice (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2007 (EST)
              • Hmm, seems like you just did point that out. Subtle. ... You know, I actually almost went over to Memory Alpha to check my references, but I though, ah screw it.RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2007 (EST)

De-atomisation

should this be changed to match the name on the unlocking evolution wiki? JD 18:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

  • ...You mean the wiki that is full of fan entries, mistakes, and vandalism? Probably not. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
    • It's not canon. Heroe 20:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • They claim Sylar can teleport through shadows, too. Should we add that as well? Like us, they're written by fans. Unlike us, they seem to have no real quality control standards (which is fine, since their wiki is for theories, after all). Sometimes I think we're not watching the same show. In any case, the best articles over there are all about ketchup, gnomes, and crime fighting ninjas.--Hardvice (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I noticed that, however it was one of the original before the tide of insanity swept upon it, including an edit war over evolution v creation, which made me think it was written by a canon source. JD 10:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

  • The only canon sources for in-world articles like powers are the aired episodes and the graphic novels.--Hardvice (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Names

seems like a redirect and brief para at the top saying this power is also called... JD 10:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

  • There's no canon evidence supporting the idea that that's how it works--even if the entry to the AE.org wiki was written by a writer for the show (which we don't know), it's still not from an episode, so it's no more canon than an interview would be. It's therefore speculation, and thus belongs (if anywhere) on Theories:Powers.--Hardvice (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Rename

This has bothered me enough. Even is Liquefaction is the technically correct term, it's unfamiliar and kinda weird to say. Liquification is a more approachable term. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 20:05, 29 November 2007 (EST)

  • If we really want to open this one back up, then we have a secondary source reference from the writers to it as "the ability to melt any object he can find", which probably gives us "Melting", not "liquification".--Hardvice (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2007 (EST)
  • According to dictionary.com, the word 'liquification' doesn't exist. A red squiggly line even appears underneath the word when you're editing the page. Liquefaction, however, does seems to exist. It is defined as: 1) the act or process of liquefying or making liquid. 2) the state of being liquefied. It seems to be adequate. Besides, aren't the two words "supposed" to have the same meaning? I hate to say this, but melting doesn't accurately describe the power. Melting requires heat, and that isn't the case. If Zane really did "melt" those objects, there would be burnt plastic everywhere because metals have a relatively high melting point.--Ice Vision 20:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
    • I think we need to go by the secondary source reference, cause that trumps other "descriptive names" but Ice Vision is right about it not being a normal case of melting. What I think Zane/Sylar does is to reduce the melting point of an object to room temperature, thus "melting point reduction" is my first choice. "Cool melting" is my second choice, but it sounds very much like an oxymoron...--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2007 (EST)
      • If we decide to use the secondary source, I think just using "melting" is fine. Since we're writing the arcticle, we can set the limits and explain the definition as it is laid out for us on Heroes. It doesn't really matter what occurs in the real world (namely that melting involves heat) because 1) we're not talking about real world physics, and 2) there's no way to say that Zane and Sylar didn't apply heat. After all, normal flight involves wings, jet propulsion, or other elements that are not present on Heroes. We should not try to explain the mechanics of the powers using real-world examples if they don't fit (and especially if we don't even know the mechanics of the power, as is the case with melting/liquefaction). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2007 (EST)
        • I can live with that. I would say that the name "melting" suffices. However, we should probably add notes about how Zane's melting is definitely not normal melting.--Ice Vision 15:42, 30 November 2007 (EST)
          • This is the only reason I didn't like "Freezing", "Lightning", and "Replication" - While they were mentioned somewhere, they weren't stated as the name of the power, rather than what the person can do (think of what I'm trying to say, it's hard to word it.) Saying one has the power of "Melting" sounds very strange, as does "The power of Lightning" or "The power of freezing." Replication sounds more normal, but it isn't the common name. It's just that the naming conventions make things so... odd.--Riddler 15:45, 30 November 2007 (EST)
            • I completely understand what you are saying, and I completely agree. Sylar says that he can "freeze things", and "freezing" is a odd name for the metahuman ability to cause things to freeze. It's strange that everyday terms are used to describe "non-everyday" things.--Ice Vision 15:52, 30 November 2007 (EST)
            • It may be odd, but I guess "melting" is okay since it is from a secondary source. However, I disagree that is is wrong for us to apply descriptive prefixes or suffixes, and I think we can tell for sure that Zane and Sylar didn't apply heat. There was not any steam that would come from the application of heat. "Freezing" is okay since all the aspects of freezing occurred (frost, lower temperature, even snowflakes) when the ability was used; the same cannot be said of this ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2007 (EST)
              • But if he's really melting things, then "melting" really would be sufficient. Why add a prefix that may or may not be speculative when we don't really have any confirmation of it? Perhaps the power allows for no steam since it removes any water vapor from the air. Or maybe the objects are not room temperature for at least an hour. I personally don't believe any of those things, but that's just my personal belief, not empirical information gathered from the show or from creators who are "in the know". "Cool melting" is speculative too, since we just don't know the temperature of the objects. But even if we did know their temperatures, it's still a form of melting, and simply does not need to have any kind of clarifier. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2007 (EST)
                • Again, not saying "melting" by itself is wrong, just that it is unclear. What I suggested above is that the melting point dropped due to the ability such that the affected matter melted at room temperature. That is still melting. As for the ability removing water vapor from the air, that sounds like an additional ability. I recall Zane said it was a little "messy", but nothing confirmed that it was hot or steamy, or that the humidity had changed at all.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2007 (EST)
                  • So moving the melting point sounds like a very good guess at how he does it...but it's still a guess. Why would we try to add something to the name that is ultimately speculative when "melting" by itself is perfectly fine. There's only one ability on the show capable of melting anything, and anything that's not clear should be discussed in the article's text. The power name should not try to explain the power, simply identify it. "Melting" does that job, and comes directly from a source. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2007 (EST)
                    • Now it also comes to the point where our influence is what helped BBC name Zane's power, and us changing it messes with their information.--Riddler 19:20, 30 November 2007 (EST)
                      • Then BBC may decide to change it if we do. BBC doesn't count as a secondary source, does it? Ryan is right that the name doesn't need to identify how he does it, and it appears we disagree that we know how he does it, so looks like "melting" is the only choice.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2007 (EST)
                        • To be honest, I'm not really sure where we stand on BBC Two. But I really don't want to change it or not change it based on what BBC will do or has done. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2007 (EST)
  • Time to offer my opinion again. I believe "Melting point reduction" is speculation as to how the ability works, and "cool melting" is contradictory. So I think "melting" is our best bet, especially since it's been called that in secondary sources. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
    • It's lame, but it works...and it's not speculative. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Melting is a simple name and doesn't work for the ability.And I agree Liquefaction does sound weird. I think Liquification sounds a whole lot better. --Catalyst 16:48 21 January 2009

Heres an Idea!

Molecular Manipulation. Enough said--Psilaq (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2007 (EST)

  • Pure speculation as to how the power works. Enough said.--Hardvice (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2007 (EST)

There is no evidence that he "melts", he liquifies

  • He doesn't really make everything hot puddles. He just liquifies them. So I don't think Melting is a good name. Liquefaction is used often though now. It is even used in SAving the World: A guide to heroes. (Yes i know it is not canon). Jason Garrick 22:29, 12 December 2007 (EST)
  • But it's used in a secondary source, so it's a pretty good candidate. Besides, how do we know that he doesn't apply heat? --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (EST);
    • Right. If the writer of the episode actually says that he has the ability to melt things, well, I'd say that's pretty good evidence that he melts things. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)
      • Oh, I didn't even realize it was used in an interview. Haha. okay then. can I get a link to the interview? I liked to see what else they talked about. Jason Garrick 15:31, 13 December 2007 (EST)
        • That's cool--it's impossible to keep on top of every secondary source. It's actually in the commentary for Run!. I don't know if there's still a link to it on NBC.com, but if you have the Season One DVD, you can check it out there. If not, the relevant parts have been transcribed above. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2007 (EST)
          • Oh okay. I only watched a few commentaries. Thanks. Jason Garrick 16:46, 13 December 2007 (EST)
            • Oh, they're really great to watch/listen to. If you grab some free time, many of them are quite interesting. I particularly recommend the Tim Kring commentary of the unaired pilot, and almost anything with a writer, director, or Jack Coleman. Commentaries are really good when you're doing a project (like eating dinner or cutting out laminations for your second grade class) where you don't have to watch the television intently, but can just kind of sit back and enjoy listening. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Ted Sylar
Burning door handle.jpg Powers sylar toaster melts.jpg
Melting by adding heat
(Company Man)
Melting without adding heat
(Run!)
  • If Zane's power did apply heat, the plastic tarps would have big holes in them from the searing hot liquids. Ted melted a door handle by adding heat, and it turned red-hot and caught fire. But when Sylar melted the toaster, it didn't turn red hot or smoke or burn his hand (which wasn't too far from it). It's as if he just made the melting point lower down to room temperature, where it just fell apart. But that's just an idea on how it works, I dunno. In any case, there is certainly no heat-adding aspect. --Piemanmoo 00:13, 14 December 2007 (EST)
    • Yeah, my suggestion for "melting point reduction" was based on that. But we don't know 100% for sure that some heat wasn't applied so we'll have to leave it as just "melting" for now.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2007 (EST)
      • True, but I think Liquification is a more descriptive term, since it means turning things to liquid without regards to heat. Like how when you put stuff in a blender and set it on "liquifey" it doesn't melt the milk and ice cream and strawberries, but rather it just chops them up until the molecular bonds dont hold so strong and they are a gooey, delicious treat. --Piemanmoo 00:35, 14 December 2007 (EST)
        • It may be more descriptive, but canon or secondary sources beats even the best descriptive name. In this case, we have a secondary source who called it "melting", end of story until the ability is brought up again in the show or by another secondary source.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2007 (EST)
          • Technicaly speaking, it was never called "melting", he just said he could melt things. He also went on to describe it as "[creating] liquid goo out of solid objects". So "melting" and "liquid creation" are near-equal contenders for the title since they were said in the same interview. But if you think we should keep it at Melting, I'm fine with that. --Piemanmoo 01:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)
            • Actually, I'd prefer "melting point reduction" but "melting" is close enough. Heh. ;)--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)
            • Adam Armus is pretty clear about calling the power the ability to melt. In the commentary for Run!, he says, "And here is his ability: the ability to melt." Later he says, he clarifies, "It's the ability to melt any object he can find." -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (EST)
  • Everyone here is assuming that melting involves heat. It doesn't. Melting is the process by which a solid changes state into a liquid. In the normal world, this can only be accomplished by adding heat, energizing the molecules up to the point where their kinetic energy becomes strong enough to overcome the bonds holding them in their solid state. In 'Heroes', though, we don't have to assume that melting must happen in the normal way. This power seems to be an alternative way to energize the molecules. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but when things are melted by this power, don't we see a 'ripple' in the air between Zane/Sylar's hand and the object? This would fit with the idea of externally energizing the molecules. --Yamawhata? 13:31, 1 January 2008 (EST)
    • Please don't say 'everyone' is assuming the applied heat melting method, cause that's not my theory. Reducing the melting point is an alternative method that I suggested which does not involve applying heat, and could also explain the ripple. Either explanation is speculation, though, so it is not mentioned in this article but is noted on my user subpage.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2008 (EST)
    • OK, I'll revise my comment: everyone who says melting can't work because he doesn't add heat is assuming that melting requires heat. Sorry bout that. --Yamawhata? 16:03, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Disintegration touch?

Could he and Felicia have the same ability? Therequiembellishere 02:27, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Question?

I am new Heroes Wiki's process of deciding the names for abilities, however the name melting to my mind is merely a descriptive name, which would if I understand this correctly make it a level five source, if we are going to name the ability from the most canon source available I suggest the files from Mohinder's office here which correct me if I'm wrong would be a level two source as Heroes evolution information is near canon.--Nexus 04:44, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Not sure what picture you're linking to, it's a dead link. Mohinder's office started out as BBC content, which was essentially a copy of whatever we had at the time. However, The primatech tracker page was created by writers on the Heroes staff, whereas the BBC content was carried over, similar to what happened with Bridget Bailey. In the case of conflicting sources, we generally try to go with what is more readily accepted. However, the writers in interviews have said numerous times that Zane "melts" the objects. It is discussed previously and extensively on this page, and I would suggest reading it. Thanks.--Bob (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Hello Baldbobo thanks for replying, I had read the previous posts before posting though didn't see this mentioned, however wouldn't Interviews be a level three canon source? and if indeed as you say this was part of the BBC's version of Heroes Evolution and was transfered over, wouldn't it still be the same level of source as the NBC Heroes Evolutions, especially as you have already pointed out they have introduced Bridget Bailey in the assignment tracker map, also I would imagine that Tim Kring would have to sign off all such content whether NBC or BBC.--Nexus 04:44, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
    • The point I was making is that there are conflicting sources for secondary sources (assignment tracker vs Mohinder's office). In that case, it becomes necessary to find something to resolve the issue, and Allan Armus specifically says twice that his ability is "melting things" in an interview. Consider it a tie-breaker.--Bob (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
      • But "Liquefaction" was explicitly named, while "melting" is a fan term based from sources saying that Sylar and Zane could melt things.--Referos 15:45, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
        • No. The assignment tracker from primatechpaper.com explicitly says his ability is "melting", as does Allan Armus in the interview. The content from Mohinder's office was essentially copied from our site, and liquefaction was a fan-created term (people kept calling it liquification, but that's not even a word).--Bob (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
          • By explicit I mean really explicit, like the labels on the Genesis files, Mohinder's adoptive muscle memory, or the terms listed under "unique ability" in the assignment tracker profiles. "Melting" was never named to that degree of explicitness, "liquifaction"[sic] was. But, yes, the spelling mistake makes me wonder if it is a reliable source.--Referos 20:54, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
            • You have to understand the timeline of how things are done on this site versus when it occurred in Heroes. I'd say 70% of the names we use were never explicitly stated on the show. They appeared in graphic novels or on Heroes Evolutions. That's why we have the naming conventions, and the current name is the best name that has appeared that follows our naming conventions. This has been debated already, and has been decided to be "melting". This is kind of a moot point until something new is shown on television or online.--Bob (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
        • As Baldbobbo said, the timeline is actually very important here. We originally named this ability "liquefaction" before any more canonical sources had given it a name. We actually originated that. The BBC's version of Evolutions actually told us that they used us as a reference when creating their information. At the time we were still using liquefaction as the name for the ability. Since then we were offered the term "melting" a few times so we renamed the ability here, but other references don't necessarily rename it on their end as well. While melting is arguably not the ideal description it is the most authoritative term we've been provided so far (authoritative names being determined by our naming convention which favors terms provided by writers or actual episodes). (Admin 00:08, 28 August 2008 (EDT))

Shoudn't it be Liquefaction?

  • It says so in this pic...Zan Taylor Profile. NiveKJ13 14:35, 2 November 2008 (EST)
    • This was discussed above. The main reason it's listed as melting seems to be that there was a 'tie' in canon sources (Mohinder's apartment vs. Assignment tracker), and a tiebreaker in the form of episode commentary. However, I don't see the assignment tracker ion question listed on either the assignment traker page or the interactive map page. If there is one, it should be added to the appropriate page. If not, the power name should be changed to liquefication, according to naming convention.--Stevehim 15:54, 2 November 2008 (EST)
      • It's Sylar's assignment tracker. It states "ability to melt". If the BBC thing is considered Second Level Canon, though, I'd say Liquefaction trumps Melting, in that it's named, not described. That's only if there is in fact a "tie", though.--Riddler 16:13, 2 November 2008 (EST)
        • Ah I see. Thanks. But looking at it, it says 'the ability to melt items.' While we could extrapolate to 'melting,' I'm not sure that's valid. The blurb is not listing the precise names of abilities (as it says 'radioactivity,' not 'induced radioactivity'), and so the fact that another source of equal canonicity specifically states the ability should trump this. Plus, if we're not willing to add a '-y' to Puppet Master, I don't see why we'd add an '-ing' to melt. For that matter, we already have Hana's ability not specifically matching her AT, since it was combined with Richard Drucker's. --Stevehim 17:47, 2 November 2008 (EST)
          • Puppet Master is different than Melting, as PM is explicitly named, and Melting is a part of a blurb. I do agree on using the other source, but only if they are considered to be on the same level canonically. --Riddler 17:54, 2 November 2008 (EST)
            • That's what I mean. If we're considering the blurb in the AT the same level of canon as the title, then we shouldn't be allowed to change it at all (as per the Puppet Master discussion). If we're considering the blurb to be of a different level of canon than the title, then it should be trumped by Mohinder's lab, which is the same level of canonicity as the AT (ie - as the most reliable part of the AT). In either scenario, the power should probably be changed to liquefaction. --Stevehim 18:09, 2 November 2008 (EST)
              • The BBC Two picture showing liquefaction is a secondary source because it's not part of NBC's Heroes Evolutions, so the discussion about some near-canon sources trumping canon ones does not apply. Also, the ability was described as "melting" in an episode commentary, which I trust to be more canon than the BBC Two content. There is no need to re-hash explicit over non-explicit descriptive for this name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
                • Well, it's been decided in the past that at least some of the Mohinder's office info is part of Evolutions because of their appearance on NBC.com. Only four of the twenty-five research files are included, however, and Zane's isn't one of them. It also only includes four of Bridget's e-mails, but we include all twenty-six on our site with no differentation between "official" and non-official. I'm not sure how the BBC content should be handled in this case.--Tim Thomason 12:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Canonicity

  • Upon rethinking, since Sylar's AT was in Building 26, it would still say "the ability to melt matter", so this name is now canon, right?-- Psilaq R.- \m/ -_- \m/- 21:00, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
Do you have a picture? That would be fantastic. Therequiembellishere 21:33, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
Here's the image. The facsimile of it is found at Assignment Tracker 2.0/Sylar. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2009 (EDT)