Talk:Dehydration - Revision history

imported>MiamiVolts: /* Rename: Rapid Dehydration */

2008-01-04T06:23:49Z

Rename: Rapid Dehydration

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:23, 4 January 2008
(No difference)

imported>MiamiVolts: /* Rename: Rapid Dehydration */

2008-01-04T06:23:49Z

Rename: Rapid Dehydration

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:23, 4 January 2008
Line 43:		Line 43:
	** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))		** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))
	*** I'm not strongly opposed. I just don't think it makes any difference, and I tend to favor shorter, clearer names, instead of needlessly biggified ones.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)		*** I'm not strongly opposed. I just don't think it makes any difference, and I tend to favor shorter, clearer names, instead of needlessly biggified ones.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)
			**** I don't think Claire or Adam have any control over how rapidly they regenerate cause it's a mostly passive ability. However, Rollo Fusor's accomplice does seem able to control dehydration's speed as she doesn't kill Haram the first time we see her dehydrate him, so I'm not sure "rapid" is always appropriate. It is canon, though, so I don't disagree with using it as long as we note that.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (EST)

imported>Hardvice: /* Rename: Rapid Dehydration */

2008-01-04T05:12:56Z

Rename: Rapid Dehydration

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:12, 4 January 2008
Line 42:		Line 42:
	* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)		* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)
	** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))		** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))
			*** I'm not strongly opposed. I just don't think it makes any difference, and I tend to favor shorter, clearer names, instead of needlessly biggified ones.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)

imported>Admin: /* Rename: Rapid Dehydration */

2008-01-04T05:03:23Z

Rename: Rapid Dehydration

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:03, 4 January 2008
Line 41:		Line 41:
	* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))		* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))
	* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)		* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)
			** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))

imported>Hardvice: /* Rename: Rapid Dehydration */

2008-01-04T05:00:31Z

Rename: Rapid Dehydration

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:00, 4 January 2008
Line 40:		Line 40:
	It also removes the "Descriptive" from the thing up above that says why we chose the name.--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 23:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)		It also removes the "Descriptive" from the thing up above that says why we chose the name.--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 23:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)
	* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))		* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))
			* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)

imported>Admin: /* Rename: Rapid Dehydration */

2008-01-04T04:56:14Z

Rename: Rapid Dehydration

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:56, 4 January 2008
Line 39:		Line 39:

	It also removes the "Descriptive" from the thing up above that says why we chose the name.--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 23:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)		It also removes the "Descriptive" from the thing up above that says why we chose the name.--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 23:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)
			* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))

imported>Riddler: New section: Rename: Rapid Dehydration

2008-01-04T04:53:37Z

New section: Rename: Rapid Dehydration

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:53, 4 January 2008
Line 33:		Line 33:
	**** I don't care too much one way or the other, but I personally think that "dehydration" is a better term, and that "water vampire" should be mentioned in the notes. In fact, I'll add it to the notes right now. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:58, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		**** I don't care too much one way or the other, but I personally think that "dehydration" is a better term, and that "water vampire" should be mentioned in the notes. In fact, I'll add it to the notes right now. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:58, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
	***** That's a good approach. I probably should have just done that. As long as our article mentions the company's nomenclature it gives the vital information regardless of its title.--[[User:E rowe\|E rowe]] 18:06, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		***** That's a good approach. I probably should have just done that. As long as our article mentions the company's nomenclature it gives the vital information regardless of its title.--[[User:E rowe\|E rowe]] 18:06, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

			== Rename: Rapid Dehydration ==

			It would, by the naming conventions, be more accurate, since in the first comic of the series, it states: ''<nowiki>'special'</nowiki> whose ability to rapidly dehydrate...''

			It also removes the "Descriptive" from the thing up above that says why we chose the name.--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 23:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)

imported>Lost Soul: +power names template

2007-11-18T14:57:07Z

+power names template

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 18 November 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{power names\|5\|eos=Based on descriptions in ''[[Golden Handshake]]''}}
	Reading this page, I kind of feel like it's speculating that Pizet was killed by dehydration. He looks pale and dead, but his face doesn't exactly look shriveled, the way he would look if all the water and moisture were removed from his body. It's surely possible (and very probable), but I couldn't find anything that conclusively said Pizet died of dehydration. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 15:25, 24 July 2007 (EDT)		Reading this page, I kind of feel like it's speculating that Pizet was killed by dehydration. He looks pale and dead, but his face doesn't exactly look shriveled, the way he would look if all the water and moisture were removed from his body. It's surely possible (and very probable), but I couldn't find anything that conclusively said Pizet died of dehydration. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 15:25, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
	* He looks a bit shriveled to me. Killing him wouldn't require him to be virtually mummified. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:53, 24 July 2007 (EDT)		* He looks a bit shriveled to me. Killing him wouldn't require him to be virtually mummified. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 16:53, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

imported>E rowe: /* Rename: Water Vampirism? */

2007-08-07T22:06:38Z

Rename: Water Vampirism?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:06, 7 August 2007
Line 31:		Line 31:
	*** OK. But dehydration seems like more of a generic word a person might use to describe what the power does, whereas "water vampire" is the technical name the company uses for someone who has the power, just like it uses the name "empath" for someone with Peter's power. I would tend to think that when a canon source indicates that one of the experts on special abilities in the Heroes universe, such as company members and the Sureshes, has systematized and named powers, then our articles should defer to those names. Why should it matter if the power is used at night or day?--[[User:E rowe\|E rowe]] 17:42, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		*** OK. But dehydration seems like more of a generic word a person might use to describe what the power does, whereas "water vampire" is the technical name the company uses for someone who has the power, just like it uses the name "empath" for someone with Peter's power. I would tend to think that when a canon source indicates that one of the experts on special abilities in the Heroes universe, such as company members and the Sureshes, has systematized and named powers, then our articles should defer to those names. Why should it matter if the power is used at night or day?--[[User:E rowe\|E rowe]] 17:42, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
	**** I don't care too much one way or the other, but I personally think that "dehydration" is a better term, and that "water vampire" should be mentioned in the notes. In fact, I'll add it to the notes right now. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:58, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		**** I don't care too much one way or the other, but I personally think that "dehydration" is a better term, and that "water vampire" should be mentioned in the notes. In fact, I'll add it to the notes right now. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:58, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
			***** That's a good approach. I probably should have just done that. As long as our article mentions the company's nomenclature it gives the vital information regardless of its title.--[[User:E rowe\|E rowe]] 18:06, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Rename: Water Vampirism? */

2007-08-07T21:58:03Z

Rename: Water Vampirism?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 7 August 2007
Line 30:		Line 30:
	** I agree. I think dehydration is a concise, appropriate term for the ability. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 15:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT))		** I agree. I think dehydration is a concise, appropriate term for the ability. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 15:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT))
	*** OK. But dehydration seems like more of a generic word a person might use to describe what the power does, whereas "water vampire" is the technical name the company uses for someone who has the power, just like it uses the name "empath" for someone with Peter's power. I would tend to think that when a canon source indicates that one of the experts on special abilities in the Heroes universe, such as company members and the Sureshes, has systematized and named powers, then our articles should defer to those names. Why should it matter if the power is used at night or day?--[[User:E rowe\|E rowe]] 17:42, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		*** OK. But dehydration seems like more of a generic word a person might use to describe what the power does, whereas "water vampire" is the technical name the company uses for someone who has the power, just like it uses the name "empath" for someone with Peter's power. I would tend to think that when a canon source indicates that one of the experts on special abilities in the Heroes universe, such as company members and the Sureshes, has systematized and named powers, then our articles should defer to those names. Why should it matter if the power is used at night or day?--[[User:E rowe\|E rowe]] 17:42, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
			**** I don't care too much one way or the other, but I personally think that "dehydration" is a better term, and that "water vampire" should be mentioned in the notes. In fact, I'll add it to the notes right now. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:58, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:23, 4 January 2008
Line 43:		Line 43:
	** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))		** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))
	*** I'm not strongly opposed. I just don't think it makes any difference, and I tend to favor shorter, clearer names, instead of needlessly biggified ones.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)		*** I'm not strongly opposed. I just don't think it makes any difference, and I tend to favor shorter, clearer names, instead of needlessly biggified ones.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)
			**** I don't think Claire or Adam have any control over how rapidly they regenerate cause it's a mostly passive ability. However, Rollo Fusor's accomplice does seem able to control dehydration's speed as she doesn't kill Haram the first time we see her dehydrate him, so I'm not sure "rapid" is always appropriate. It is canon, though, so I don't disagree with using it as long as we note that.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:12, 4 January 2008
Line 42:		Line 42:
	* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)		* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)
	** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))		** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))
			*** I'm not strongly opposed. I just don't think it makes any difference, and I tend to favor shorter, clearer names, instead of needlessly biggified ones.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:03, 4 January 2008
Line 41:		Line 41:
	* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))		* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))
	* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)		* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)
			** True, but if he wants to change all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration would you have any problem with it? I personally don't think it's worth the work and don't want to bother renaming it, but if someone wants to tackle changing all the instances of Dehydration to Rapid Dehydration I personally wouldn't mind and the naming convention doesn't seem to prevent it. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (EST))

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:00, 4 January 2008
Line 40:		Line 40:
	It also removes the "Descriptive" from the thing up above that says why we chose the name.--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 23:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)		It also removes the "Descriptive" from the thing up above that says why we chose the name.--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 23:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)
	* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))		* Sounds reasonable to me. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 23:56, 3 January 2008 (EST))
			* The "rapid" seems unnecessary, although it's used in the novel. Rapid in "rapid cell regeneration" is important because everyone can regenerate cells. I can't dehydrate things, rapidly or otherwise. And even without the "rapid", it's still a near-canon description. "Dehydration" comes from "rapidly dehydrate" just as much as "rapid dehydration" does.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)