Heroes Wiki talk:Ability name origination

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Excellent idea.--Hardvice (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2007 (EST)

  • I know on more than one occasion someone raises the question of where a particular name originated, so this should become a big help as it gets filled out. Feel free to add any you come across or know off the top of your head. (Admin 01:23, 15 November 2007 (EST))
  • Agreed.--Ice Vision 15:07, 15 November 2007 (EST)
    • I just came across this page. What a fantastic idea. It's good to have references like this to help support arguments and discussions on the talk pages. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Do you think that we could have a color-coded system for the naming patterns? Just so that one row that lists the types of sources can be in different colors for each box so you can see which ones were which more easily? Sorta like the terrorist alert one? --Piemanmoo 03:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)

water mimicry

  • Was water mimicry descriptive or canon? I thought they essentially came out and said "he has the ability to mimic the density of water." (Admin 01:29, 15 November 2007 (EST))
    • I guess it's descanon. It wasn't explicitly named, but the name is taken from the description. Not sure what you'd call that. We'll probably need notes anyway, to clarify things like that the Haitian's power to cancel abilities and his power to erase memories have been referred to separately, ditto Hiro's time travel/teleportation.--Hardvice (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2007 (EST)
      • I changed it and Bliss and horror to "Near-canonical Description" since they're somewhat similar. They didn't come right out and say it was the name, but they did describe the power near-canonically and the name was taken from those descriptions. We can always change the term if there's a better one. (Admin 01:54, 15 November 2007 (EST))
        • Howabout just "canon description"? The description itself is canon. I just so don't want to re-open the Bliss and Horror bucket of worms. It's a canon name, even if it comes from a description. ETA: oh wait, you're right. They're both GNs.--Hardvice (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2007 (EST)
          • Yeah, if you check the edit history I made the mistake of calling them canonical descriptions at first, too. Then I realized they're considered near-canon and renamed them since I knew it would be confusing if we called them canon here and near-canon on the sources page. (Admin 02:09, 15 November 2007 (EST))


It's in the Genesis files, isn't it? Noteworthy here or no?--Riddler 17:26, 15 November 2007 (EST)

  • Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. I'll change it now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2007 (EST)


Does anybody know the link where the writers referred to Eden's power as "persuasion"? I think it was a Behind the Eclipse, but I'm not positive. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2007 (EST)

  • Sylar called it persuasion in Fallout. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 17:37, 15 November 2007 (EST)
    • "The power of persuasion, and this whole time, you were the girl next door." Good catch!--Hardvice (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2007 (EST)
    • Nice. I must have missed that way back when. Good job. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2007 (EST)


Would Brian Davis being called "telekinetic" in Six Months Ago be considered a source?--Ice Vision 16:43, 17 November 2007 (EST)


I think it'd be good to move this to the Heroes Wiki namespace, but I think an introduction for the table is in order beforehand.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2007 (EST)

  • I added an introduction, and a category, and I switched it to use 'ability' instead of 'power'. If you don't like the changes, please feel free to correct them, but I think this article needs to move to the "Heroes Wiki" namespace soon.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (EST)
  • I agree, I think this page deserves to be an actual page instead of a subpage. Jason Garrick 22:09, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Some of these should be adjusted

But I'm not quite sure what the best way to change them myself is. The Graphic Novels more specifically. Dehydration is listed as descriptive based on "Descriptions in The Golden Handshake", while Crumpling is listed as Near-canon. We should remain consistent on these, since in none of them are they explicitly naming the powers, so the basis for each name would be the same.--Riddler 23:46, 3 January 2008 (EST)

  • Most of them distinguish between a descriptive name (one made up entirely with no underlying source) and a name based on a canon/near-canon description (i.e. we took words from an episode/novel and changed the part of speech--"fly" to "flight", "freeze" to "freezing"). That's an important distinction to preserve.--Hardvice (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)
    • I fixed the ones I noticed.--Riddler 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST)


Could the table on this page be automated using dpl? It seems like double the work to update the power names template on the power talk pages, and then to update this page as well. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (EST)

  • I agree. I believe I created this table shortly before the power names template was created. I wouldn't mind if this table were deprecated now and the information incorporated into the power names template somehow. (Admin 00:09, 4 January 2008 (EST))
    • I defer to somebody more experienced at DPL than Princess Sparkle Panties. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (EST)
      • Ok, see an initial draft here. Let me know if there's anything you want to change and I'll take a look tommorrow.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2008 (EST)
        • My only concern is that it, like the naming convention itself (obviously) fails to differentiate between names given in a canon source (like Adoptive Muscle Memory) and names derived from canon sources (like Freezing). That's not a failing of the table, of course--we could always break them out as separate "levels" and things would work swimmingly. I'm just hesitant to imply that a name that comes directly from a canon source is categorically "better" than a name which is derived from a canon source. I'm thinking mostly about names like "Flight"--technically, the word "flight" is never used to describe the ability, but so many people have said "can fly" that it seems odd to treat it differently. I'm not sure what the best answer is -- we can leave them all lumped together as "canon names", which is not technically true in all cases, or we can break "canon descriptions" off as their own level, and create a somewhat unsettling hierarchy where none currently exists just for the sake of automating a table.--Hardvice (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (EST)
          • We could use 1a (Canon names) and 1b (Canon descriptions), and have them at an equal level to each other. Is that what you meant by splitting them off?--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2008 (EST)
            • Yes and no. The concern is more subtle than just "how do we do it". It's less about the mechanics and more about the underlying principle. In a way, they are the same, and should remain the same thing--a canon source is a canon source. In another way, we need to be clear that some names come directly from canon and some are derived from canon, just so the list is clear and nobody is confused about where the name comes from. If we say that "flight" is a canon name, then people might well wonder when the power was called "flight". I think we're better off handling it by tweaking the individual explanations than by hamfistedly separating that which isn't really separate. Separate is rarely equal, after all, no matter how often we pretend it is.--Hardvice (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2008 (EST)
              • I support making that distinction, and I think making the distinction clear in the explanation is the best route for us. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2008 (EST)
                • I don't really have a preference either way. But just to be clear, there is no field called 'explanation' on the table. You are both referring to the 'Reference' column, correct?--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
                  • Yes. You know, the field that's populated with the explanation (eos) from the sidebar, which is where the actual typing goes.--Hardvice (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2008 (EST)
                    • Thanks. When you say it that way it's very clear.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)
                    • I just modified the individual eos's to note when the name was explicitly referenced as-is to distinguish those cases from those where we are gathering a name from one or more descriptions, and I fixed some grammar and formatting at the same time. View the final result here. Opinions?--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Empathic mimicry

Should Mohinder's quote in The Fix be noted? He said, "Peter's specific DNA allows for a blend. Like colors in a mosaic, resequencing itself to mimic the abilities of those around him." It's a combination of Claude's and Mohinder's statements. --Ice Vision (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2008 (EST)

  • Yes, and thank you. I've been trying to remember where the word "mimic" appeared. Good show. Now, the next question: if "empathic" is based on a canon source, and "mimicry" is based on a canon source, is "empathic mimicry" a canon description? Much as I like the name, I personally still lean towards "no", because the two words have never been linked.--Hardvice (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (EST)
    • Agree. They've been used separately to describe the power, but not together. That would be like naming Monica's power "Adoptive Muscle Mimicry" -- all words used to describe the power, but not a canon name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (EST)

This page needs an update

It does need some updating, but I'm not sure how to do so. If someone could leave a link to whatever template it is that you have to edit. Thanks. --mc_hammark 17:17, 5 December 2009 (EST)

  • If I'm not mistaken this page uses a dynamic page list which would mean the information shown here is from the relevant ability pages. It should technically update itself. I have noticed that it doesn't seem to be up to date, the latest information will probably take some time to add itself - Jenx222 | U / T / C 17:34, 5 December 2009 (EST)
    • The page does use DPL to automatically update itself, but I just updated it to allow sorting. If the content is out of date, you can flush/purge the cache for the page to display the latest version (See Help:Caching for info. on that).--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (EST)

What exactly is electromagnetic manipulation?

I don't think it's a power mentioned in Heroes, but I've been wondering for a long time exactly what it is. If I'm on the wrong page for this type of question, could someone please direct me to the right place to ask this question? That would be lovely. --Slylah77 00:22, 27 June 2010

  • I believe the ability closest to electromagnetic manipulation on Heroes is magnetism. Also, a better place to ask about abilities themselves would be here.

By the way, please sign all of your posts on talk pages. The signature button is the second-from-the-right on the tool bar. --Boycool Two little mice fell in a bucket of cream. The first mouse quickly gave up and drowned. The second mouse wouldn't quit. He struggled so hard that eventually he churned that cream into butter and crawled out. Amen. 20:43, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

    • I'm inclined to agree with Boycool on this, I think the closest thing would probably be Magnetism. Either that or it could be electric manipulation under a different name. --Leckie -- Talk 06:48, 27 June 2010 (EDT)