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.

Help talk:Naming conventions: Difference between revisions

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
imported>PJDEP
imported>Radicell
No edit summary
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| border="2" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4" class="wikitable" width=100%
|-
! Archives
! Archived Topics
|-
| align=center | [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1|Sept 2007-Jul 2008]] || <small>{{ArchiveLinks|Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1}}
|-
| align=center | [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2|Oct 2008-Apr 2009]] || <small>{{ArchiveLinks|Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2}}</small>
|}
{{Tocright}}
{{Tocright}}
<br clear=all>
{| style="background-color:#C0C0C0;border:2px outset #9999bb;text-align:left;padding:2px 5px;font-size:70%;"
|colspan="2"| {{blurb|color=#BBBBBB|border=#FFFFFF}}[[Image:Archive.jpg|22px]]&nbsp;'''Archives:'''
|-valign="top"
|[[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive_1|Sep&nbsp;2007&#8209;Jul&nbsp;2008]]:
|[[Help_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_1#Naming_conventions|Naming conventions]] • [[Help_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_1#With_the_new_idea_in_motion...|With the new idea in motion...]] • [[Help_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_1#Super_Strength|Super Strength]] • [[Help_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_1#Naming_Conventions.2C_they_are_great_but...|Naming Conventions, they are great but...]] • [[Help_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_1#Power_renaming_checklist|Power renaming checklist]] • [[Help_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_1#Is_it_a_name.3F|Is it a name?]] • [[Help_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_1#Question|Question]]{{blurbclose}}
|}
<br clear=all/>
==Power Name Origination==
==Power Name Origination==
{{:Heroes Wiki:Ability name origination}}
{{:Heroes Wiki:Ability name origination}}

== Conflicting sources ==

I don't think it's happened yet, but I'd just like to raise this issue because with our luck, it will happen sooner than later. :) I'm thinking of "experts" in the world of ''Heroes'' (Mohinder and Chandra, the Company and Assignment Tracker 2.0, possibly Hiro as a manga guru, and perhaps the individual who actually holds the ability), and the situation of two "conflicting" sources. For instance, if we use a quote from an episode to name a power, but then an "expert" names it differently in a secondary source. Example: suppose [[Lukas Bahn]] shows up in an episode, and somebody says, "Wow! You have the power to detect evolved humans!" We would naturally name his ability "evolved human detection". But if he also has an accompanying [[Assignment Tracker 2.0]] profile, suppose it says something different, like explicitly naming the power "ability sensing". I'm not sure our naming conventions cover such a situation, but may I posit that we use in-world "experts" over others, regardless of the source? -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 17:44, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
*Good question. My opinion on this is when we look at how the name is given in a canon source. When the AT is shown on screen, it gives an explicit name to the ability, whereas someone else on the show can give a description of the same ability. I think if there's an explicit name, we use it, but if it's based on a description or coined term, we go with the explicit name. I do agree that there should be some difference between scientific/expert versus comic/manga knowledge. An example of this is with Mohinder naming Monica's ability versus Micah naming it. Micah and Hiro have a deep knowledge of comics/manga, so their terminology may differ with a more scientific name, such as something Mohinder or the Company would name it. I would say that the Company and Mohinder have devoted great amounts of research on abilities, so their terminology would be the most accurate. Hiro and Micah's terminology is better than a descriptive one, but since they're knowledge comes from comics/manga, it shouldn't be trumped by a respected source like Mohinder or the Company. --{{User:Baldbobbo/sig}} 18:00, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
** Couldn't agree with you more. So experts trump descriptions, even if they're in a near-canon source. As well, the Sureshes and the Company trump comic geeks...but do comic geeks trump the users themselves? For instance, if Hiro says to Daphne, "You have super speed!" (which he pretty much has, but not with that exact quote), and Daphne says later, "I have enhanced speed," what do we use? I guess it would depend on the context (I say, as I answer my own question). For instance, if she said something silly like "Did you see how enhanced my speed was?", well that would be debatable. But if she said something like "My speed is enhanced by the power of the sun," that would be her demonstrating that she knows a bit about her own ability. Context. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:39, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
***That's a good note to make is context. Monica, for instance, had no clue about her ability, so her description would most likely be way off. However, Sylar has a great understanding of what his ability is, so his description of it is very accurate. As for the near-canon source, I wouldn't want to say that something from [[Heroes Evolutions]] is valued more than something from an episode, but explicit names given in the AT's or GN's should be valued over vague descriptions given in episodes. I would want to say that if an ability is given an explicit name versus a descriptive name, then the explicit name should be valued. I don't really want to say that a near-canon source trumps a canon source, but if the canon source is a name derived from vague statements versus a Company AT that explicitly names an ability, I would prefer the explicit name.--{{User:Baldbobbo/sig}} 18:53, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== Hierarchy redux ==

So with the above section, we've determined that Scientific experts (Suresh, Company, possibly Pinehearst) trump Comic book geeks (Hiro and Micah), which trump descriptions by user, correct? Do we need to re-examine the [[Template:power names|conventions template]] and modify it to reflect our new standards? If we do, how would this be as a hierarchy? <br />
Canon Expert (Sci and Comic book) <br />
Canon Description Derivative <br />
Common name<br />
Description<br />
Possessor --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 01:34, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
* Ryan and Bob were debating scientific vs. comic book experts as regards to ability names, but I'm not sure it's really a new standard. They're just clarifying the existing viewpoint of scientific over comic book names when the status level is equal. I agree agree with that and the info. could probably be added to the help.<br />However, I think the point Admin was making on [[Talk:Gravitational manipulation]] is a different issue, and that the following line of [[Help:Naming conventions#Ability names]] could be clarified/corrected: Names derived from a canon or near-canon description (invisibility from "Nobody sees me! I'm invisible!", flight from "I think I can fly!") should be treated as though the name is from a canon or near-canon source.<br />We are not following this in the ability which was originally named "vortex creation", which is a name derived from an episode (canon) source that described Stephen Canfield's ability as to "create vortexes". Instead we are using the assignment tracker, a Heroes Evolutions (near-canon) source that explicitly named it as "gravitational manipulation". According to the existing guidelines, derived names are supposed to be treated as though they have equal level, but we are not doing that. Instead, we are using a reference that was explicitly made at near-canon level over a derived canon name.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 03:46, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
** Well said, Miami. I don't think we need to redo the entire hierarchy or even to modify the guidelines very much. The guidelines are pretty clear and are well thought out. The [[#Conflicting sources|above section]] simply takes the idea that in certain situations, a near-canon source would take precedence over a canon source. Canfield's ability is a perfect example: Meredith (reading from Company files) said in an episode (a canon source) that Canfield can create vortexes, so we used the name "vortex creation." Then the [[assignment tracker]] profile (a near-canon source) was released, and we used the name it gave instead of the name from the canon source. However, the reason for this is because the canon source never explicitly gave the name--we used a description based on words from a reliable scientific expert (the Company files) in a canon source. But the near-canon source is also a reliable scientific expert, only the name of the power is explicitly given, so we ended up using that name instead.<p>As for modifying the help page, at the very most, we could add a bullet to the [[Help:Naming conventions#Guidelines for names derived from Heroes sources|Guidelines for names derived from ''Heroes'' sources]] section. But even that is not necessary, in my opinion, so long as we look at each name individually and consider it on its own, which we do ad nauseum. :) -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 03:54, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
*** Ok, good that we agree on the issue being discussed. However, I would like to note that I disagree that being explicitly given should mean that a higher-level source gets trumped by one of lower level. I think one reason that line of help guidelines I am referring to was written that way was because names/terminology based on words spoken in the episodes would be more familiar to viewers. Imho, that's one of the compromises made to make the wiki more accessible to those who only watch the show and that's more important than using an explicitly-cited name.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 04:37, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
****Just want to add here (mainly for those of us just joining us) that we do a similar thing with actual people's names. If there's a more commonly used name for someone, we keep using it even if a more explicit name is available later. That's why Sylar is still Sylar and not "Gabriel Gray", why "Eden McCain" didn't become "Sarah Ellis", and why Bob Bishop's name wasn't changed to "Robert Bishop".--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 00:53, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
****I understand where you're coming from, but the problem comes from when we assign "levels" to how canonical a name is, and I'm guilty of this as well. In general, people use the words from a canon source, and form them as a description of an ability, then claim it's a canon source. It's true, it's from a canon source, but it's still a description, which would make it a level 5 on our little scale. However, the secondary sources from HE and GN's may explicitly state what an ability is called, which would be a much higher level. The issue lies with how we define these levels, which is discussed above. I feel that some abilities aren't named explicitly in a canon source (such as Stephen Canfield's ability), but are described in canon sources. This doesn't mean that it's a level 1 definition, it means that it's still a level 5, but from a canon source, which means it's a better description than something from a GN. However, if it is clearly defined in something higher (i.e. an explicit name or a name given by the user/Company/Mohinder, etc) then it has more precedent, and outranks it in importance. So, even though Stephen Canfield's ability is described in a canon source, it is not explicitly named, as it is on his assignment tracker. Similarly, Peter has called [[lightning]] by name in canon sources, even though there's the assignment tracker map tip that names it otherwise. If Peter described it as something else, then we would take into account the explicit name. However, Peter ''names'' the ability as such, so that is a canon source. Like I said, I'm guilty of stretching our rules for naming something based on canon sources (see [[precognitive dreaming]]), and that is still being highly discussed for what the name is. Ultimately, an ability should be named explicitly by the highest source. If a canon source doesn't do this, then the next highest source should be used. Hope that long explanation helps.--{{User:Baldbobbo/sig}} 04:50, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
***** Ditto. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 04:55, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
***** I understand where you're coming from, Bob, but there's a difference between (1) describing an ability yourself, (2) taking words from a source and converting their tense to form an ability name, and (3) taking words from a source and using them to come up with a descriptive ability name. The first and third are descriptions (level 5), but the second could be level 1 as I still maintain "vortex creation" was. The name "body insertion" is a good example of level 5 paraphrasing as Future Peter saying he put his current self inside the body of Jesse Murphy is an example of a descriptive name since the term "insertion" cannot be directly derived from "inside" ("insertion" comes from "insert").--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 05:24, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Checking to see what the 2 cents chipped in looks like and it looks like I got $5! ;) On topic, With regards to this, the hierarchy appears, at first glance, to imply that we favor we favor information from the canon source of eps. But then again, we have a few exceptions to that rule which seem to cause some battles on the talk pages. Im thinking, for clarity sake and more clearly establishing what we favor in deciding ability names, we need to revamp the hierarchy as I outlined above. Looking above and below, Im now thinking for clarity we might want to have the hierarchy look like this:<br />
#Canon Expert (on screen AT's & Company/Pinhearst, Mohinder, Comic book geeks, user descriptions in that order) <br />
#Near-Canon Expert <br />
#Canon Description Derivative <br />
#Near-Canon Description Derivative <br />
#Common name<br />
#Description<br />
#Possessor
I think some of the debates generated by new abilities would be quickly solved if our hierarchy was modified like that. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 01:45, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
* Thanks, SVD. Due to reasons stated on this page, my preference is something like:
#Canon Expert (on screen AT's & Company/Pinehearst, scientists, comic book geeks, other characters who explicity name an ability in that order) <br />
#Canon Description Derivative <br />
#Near-Canon Expert <br />
#Near-Canon Description Derivative <br />
#Common name<br />
#Description<br />
#Possessor<br />
I changed the order, removed user descriptions from the canon expert category, added other characters to that category, and generalized Mohinder into scientists.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 02:09, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==2nd reason==
A second reason, and just as important, is that the levels themselves define a line of trust. A good example is if someone wrote a hardback novel in which the Company explicitly called Nathan's ability aerokinesis, we probably would not rename his ability such cause such novels are often much less canon than the show. We would most likely note it, but not use it as the name itself. The trust issue is also present with the assignment tracker. We don't know who writes all of the entries, but we do know from interviews that at least some of them were written by writers who are not main staff of the show. Thus, imho, aside from entries that are displayed on the show, the tracker remains near-canon and info. from it should be treated as such and not override names from descriptions voiced in the show of equal scientific authority.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 05:06, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
* I don't think there's a question about using a hardback novel over an episode, or even [[Heroes Evolutions]] content. I think it really boils down to trusting near-canon sources more. I think the hierarchy helps us if there's a conflict with two explicitly named abilities in a canon and a near-canon source. For instance, in an episode, Mohinder says to Monica "I've identified your power as [[adoptive muscle memory]]." Three days later, her assignment tracker profile comes out and the power is listed as "photographic reflexes." Well, in that case, I think we would use Mohinder's description because it's from a canon source. On the other hand, in an episode, Sylar described one of his powers as being able to freeze things, so we call it [[freezing]]. However, Sylar never explicitly named the ability--if an assignment tracker for Tracy comes out and calls the power "cold manipulation", we would use that, despite the fact that it's not from a canon source. It's less about canon vs. near-canon, and more about explicit vs. descriptions. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 05:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
** Actually, that's not the same situation cause Sylar is not as authoritative a source as the Company when it comes to knowledge about abilities. Thus, there is an additional reason there. If it was the Company doing the describing in the first case instead of Sylar, we might have decided differently.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 05:33, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
*** I'm not so sure Meredith was reading an actual description from the Company files when she was describing Canfield's ability, or if she was was simply telling what he could do. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 05:37, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
**** Deciding on the individual example is a separate issue from deciding on the guideline, Ryan. However, the files are right in front of Meredith and Sandra and we see them reading them. I don't think it needs to be clearer than that. It is still the Company's information being relayed, and also I was corrected that it was Sandra that did the talking.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 05:54, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
***** But I could read Canfield's assignment tracker profile and say the exact same thing after reading it: "He creates vortexes and makes people disappear forever." It doesn't say that in the file, but that's the conclusion I could come up with.... Yes, an explicit canon name should win over an explicit near-canon name, but a description based on canon words should not win over a explicit name given in a near-canon source. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:09, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
****** 1) It's not the assignment tracker entry that Sandra read, it was Noah's copy of their Company files which presumably is more authoritative than the brief summary listed in the assignment tracker; 2) It is not just a description based on canon words, but canon words of changed tense. As I explained in the previous thread, there is a difference (this is not the same situation as "body insertion" which is a descriptive name).--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 18:19, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
******* Who is to say that one set of files is more authoritative than another? I'm sure there is more there, but all we've seen are fingerprints. Sandra said, "He creates vortexes. Makes people disappear forever." That is a description of what he does, not a name for what he does. "Gravitational manipulation," despite its flaws, is a title for what he does. One is explicit, the other is not. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:25, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
******** First off, Company file info. supposedly contains the most up-to-date information on a character, and new info. could mean a new name. The assignment tracker is someone else coming back later and creating a summary of that information and putting it in the computer. What Sandra said is a description of what he does, but it's info. from the Company and her words can be changed in tense to become a title for what he does. It is that principle to which I think that line of the help refers to, and I continue to think that a title being explicit doesn't give it priority over information that can be trusted more.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
********* Her words can be changed to become a title, but her words are still not a title. "Gravitational manipulation" is, and nobody is changing any words around or messing with tenses. Thus, "vortex creation" is a title that comes from fans but derived from a description in a canon source; "gravitational manipulation" is a title that comes from a near canon source. If a title is given explicitly, why wouldn't we trust it? -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 20:46, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
********** Cause the title comes from a near-canon and not a canon source--that's why I don't trust it as much.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
*********** So you would rather take a description from an episode and change it into a title than trust a title given in an assignment tracker profile simply because it's from Heroes Evolutions and not from an episode? Wow.... Thank goodness they showed several assignment tracker profiles in ''[[The Butterfly Effect]]''! -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 00:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
************ Yes, a description someone said; thank goodness indeed! :) BTW, there is a secondary reason, which I mentioned in the prior thread--that doing so is a kind of compromise that helps to keep the wiki accessible to those that just watch the show.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 00:10, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
************* I disagree on both points. I don't think we should compromise. I also don't think we should favor descriptions (spoken or written) of abilities over explicitly given names for those abilities. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 00:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
************** Let's agree to disagree then. I've posted on [[Talk:Gravitational manipulation]] for others to come read this thread, and I asked Ted to weigh in on the change Bob and you proposed so that we can get some other opinions, and then check consensus if necessary.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 00:40, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
************** I agree with Ryan definitely. I don't think we should favor descriptions over explicitly given names, it doesn't make sense to me. As for "keeping the wiki accessible to those that just watch the show", I don't know what you're talking about here. We document the show, the graphic novels, and virtually any other source of information. Everything is fair game and we have policies to determine which information is most reliable. If we were only interested in the show itself we wouldn't be documenting the abilities displayed in the graphic novels... and for instance [[Hana Gitelman]]'s article would be '''much''' shorter.--[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User_talk:Admin|talk]]) (01:26, 16 October 2008 (EDT))
************** I agree with Ryan. I believe an explicit name should trump and descriptive name. Even if the description is canon.--[[User:Invareday|Invareday]] ([[User_talk:Invareday|talk]]) (15:20 23 October 2008 (EDT))
==2nd reason (part 2)==
Just to be clear, this is not about normal descriptive names but names that are derived from spoken descriptions being trumped by an explicit name of less canonicity. I agree we shouldn't favor descriptions over explicitly given names. Descriptions are level 5, but to be clear level 5 is for descriptions users make and that is not what this discussion is about. "Flight" is a good example of an ability with level 1 in name origination. Peter says "I think I can fly" to Nathan in ''Genesis'', and from ''fly'' we derived the name flight. Thus, we have a title which comes from a spoken description but is canon (level 1) nonetheless.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 01:43, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Same source conflicting with itself ==

*What's the protocol for the same source conflicting with itself? In the GN [[Graphic Novel:Golden Handshake, Part 4|Golden Handshake Part 4]], it is explicitly stated in the blurb that [[Fusor]] was actually [[Rollo Fusor's accomplice|the woman with the Dehydration ability]]. Two pages later, it is ''implied'' that she is not (she refers to Rollo in response to Haram mentioning the name Fusor), and that her patsy was actually Fusor. Based on the discussion about experts trumping non-experts with naming conventions, shouldn't the blurb, which is effectively a narrator, and so 'outside the world and unbiased,' trump what the characters in the novel say, especially since two of themn were being actively fooled in the story? The only character I can see trumping the blurb in terms of expertise in this situation is the woman herself, but she never actually states that Rollo is Fusor...she merely mentions that Rollo was her distraction in response to Haram commenting on it not being Fusor all along. That's more of an impication than an explicit statement, and so shouldn't the actual statement take precedence here? There's also the idea, which is speculative I admit, that the woman is actually more of a main character than Rollo and, since it is not clear otherwise, 'deserves' more than him. What I mean is that since there is conflicting information, the deciding factor could be that she is an evolved human and a main character whereas Rollo is neither? I have no problem leaving things the way they are (though I do feel the evidence warrants switching them), but I was curious what we do about this type of discrepancy in general. --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 23:13, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
**I think what you're asking is what happens when we are told some assumption about a character and then later learn it was a lie? In that case, we do revise things per the new information, but in the histories/synopsises we try to preserve the story to make the revelation meaningful. A simpler example is with Isaac when the police barge into his place thinking Simone is dead, only to find what appears to be a living breathing Simone. It's really Candice pretending to be Simone, but Isaac and the viewer don't learn that until the police leave, Noah enters and Candice turns off that illusion. Thus, Candice is not mentioned in his history until the point of the revelation. I hope that clarifies things.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
***That's good to know too, and is part of what I was asking, but I also was curious about sources of equal canonical value (in this case, the same exact source) conflicting with each other. From what you've said here (and what has been discussed before), it seems that we should try and determine what information is more reliable within the context of the story, since the sources are equal. If that's the case, I think we should definitely consider calling the woman 'Fusor' and the man as her accomplice named Rollo. --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 00:37, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
**** As for what happens when two conflicting sources arise that have equal canonical value, it is correct that we try and determine what information is more reliable within the context of the story. If both are correct (i.e. Bob and Robert for Bishop's first name), we've been using the name that is more commonly referenced. However, in the Rollo Fusor example the lady never got an identity (in the story, she's never directly referred to as Fusor, so to do so would be speculative). If you disagree or have other questions about Rollo Fusor or his accomplice, those issues can probably best be raised on their respective pages.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 01:20, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
*****Thanks for the responses. I was going to, but I don't think it's that big a deal, especially since the discrepancy is already in the notes section, and it would likely just result in people posting the relevant quotes and things staying as they are. I do have a quick follow up to something you said though. If the blurbs are not considered part of the story, do they hold equal canon value to the panels in the GN (or did I misinterpret your comment about not being referred to as Fusor in the story)? --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 02:04, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
****** No mistake. From what we've heard, the blurbs are written by NBC's promotional department, and not the featured writers. Thus, they are noteworthy but not as trusted.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 02:15, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
******* I actually didn't realize that. In light of that info, I would actually rescind my entire argument with regards to Fusor. :) --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 02:31, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Nicknames...what qualifies ==

I was discussing whether a specific designation qualified as a nickname [http://heroeswiki.com/User_talk:Baldbobbo#Spock here], and I got to wondering what criteria we're using to have something qualify as a nickname. It seems that anytime someone is called something by another character, even once, it gets listed, and I was curious if this is what was originally intended. For instance, with regards to the aforementioned discussion, Hiro has listed as his nicknames: Carp, Timewarp, Pikachu. Are all of these really nicknames? I would submit (ie - agree with Bob) that only 'Carp' truly qualifies, but the de facto convention seems to be to list anything that the character has been called (in which case I think Spock should be added to Hiro's page, as Ando calls him that in ''[[Genesis]]''). Basically, I'm just asking: what are the criteria we are supposed to be using to list something as a nickname? --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 00:09, 10 November 2008 (EST)
* I'm not sure there is definite criteria for nicknames, but it'd probably be easier to just list those that have been used on more than one occasion. I'm not opposed to using anything a character has been called, if that's what was decided before. Maybe Bob can elaborate?--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)
* [[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]], didn't mean to step on anything at the Usutu page; I didn't realize there might have been a legitimate nickname for Usutu when I corrected some vandalism. To answer the question, I would say any nickname used repeately in the show is acceptable, especially if it's used consistently by someone ("Carp" by Adam, for instance). One-off nickname's probably don't belong. --[[User:Ted C|Ted C]] 12:38, 10 November 2008 (EST)
** No problem at all. I've been trying to undo the vandalism, but it seems to be several people working together (or one on several accounts) and so I may have missed some stuff, and wasn't sure if the removal was separtate or due to that. As for the nicknames, I agree. Maybe I'll try and start fixing that up later today too (and we can leave Usutu's off, as it was used only once). Maybe I'll move the one-time uses to the notes sections. Thanks for replying. :) --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)
*** A lot of the nicknames are really just judgment calls. For instance, if Nana calls Monica "Mon" even once, I'd say that's a legitimate nickname. If it's Bob saying it jeeringly, I'd say it isn't. However, if someone (even Nana) says "Listen, Sweet Cheeks, I don't want fries with my burger," then no, I don't think that's a legitimate nickname. It's a judgment call. It's not something that's overly important, and I'd personally rather err on the side of including too much than too little...but I don't think Elle's nickname is "The Bitch", I don't think that Hiro's nickname is "Spock", and I don't think we should include every single name that's ever been used for a person. That's my two cents. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)
**** What about Pikachu and Timewarp for Hiro. To me, they're the same thing as when Ando calls him Spock. --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 16:58, 10 November 2008 (EST)
***** If you want my judgment, I don't think they're nicknames that Hiro goes by, or nicknames that persist. I've seen those names on the page and I've never edited them out (implying my consent), but I won't add them there, either. Again, it's one of those things that I think really doesn't matter too much in the end. If somebody feels strongly about it one way or another, we can make a policy...but I think until then, we can just use our best judgment. If you're asking my judgment, I don't think they're legitimate nicknames. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:05, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Canonicity revisited ==

I was typing this out on the [[Talk:Lightning|lightning talk page]], but it got too off topic for there so I decided to move it here. Since the other sections were so long and we seem to be revisiting the issue, I figured I'd start a new section as well. :)
:My opinion is that we should always strive to get all powers to the top level of canon and then leave them there, though only when they have been definitively identified as names, as opposed to descriptions. Further, conflicting information from lower canon sources should be relegated to (and ''absolutely'' included in) the notes section or, in cases where it is very "reliable" information (like the [[assignment tracker|A.T.]]'s), cited in the opening description as 'also known as,' or 'known by [[the Company]] as.' The only time I think lower canon levels should trump higher ones is when it's absolutely definitive that the higher level offered a description and not a name. To be honest, I've always thought that the 'viral' parts of ''Heroes'' ([[graphic novels|GN]]'s, [[Heroes Evolutions|Evolutions]], [[Webisodes|Webisodes]]) should be considered canon, and not near-canon (especially since so much of the information in those sources never appears in the show (ie - there are no such people as [[Fusor]], [[Santiago]], [[Echo]] (yet), etc in canon as we have it currently defined, but I consider them as canonical as (and moreso than some) other characters that have been shown in canon)), but I can understand why it was split up. As a final side note ''on the discussion above'', I'm not sure that I'd necessarily rank the Company over [[Mohinder]]/[[Chandra]] in terms of canonicity either...I'd put them as equals. While the Company may have been at it longer, they plainly don't know more about the [[abilities|powers]], as they went through great lengths to get Chandra's information and recruit Mohinder. As a final side note ''on this post'', I think that 'community consensus' should be added to the top (or tied with the top) of the list. :) --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 02:29, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:: Regarding making the content from graphic novels and Heroes Evolutions canon instead of near-canon: I disagree. The information in those sources goes through a lot of scrutiny and editing and review from the writing and production staff, but not nearly the same amount as the content from the episodes. Therefore, if there is an explicit name given in a canon source, it should trump an explicit name given in a near-canon source. That said, I think explicit names in near canon sources (like the [[assignment tracker profile]]s) should outrank descriptions from canon sources. For instance, Sylar has described his abilty in more than one episode as a "hunger". However, his AT 2.0 profile lists the ability explicitly as [[intuitive aptitude]]. I think the name of the power should stay as "intuitive aptitude" (and I'm glad to see that it is). -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 10:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::: I understand and accept the distinction; I just disagree with it, though if that's true (that a lot more thought goes into the episodes) I might be tempted to rethink my position. ;) I do agree that episode names should trump all else (save, possibly, a unanimous community consensus). As for Sylar, I don't recall him referring to his ''ability'' as the hunger (though I certainly could be forgetting something). I always took his comments about the hunger as being a symptom of his ability (which it, of course, is), not as describing the actual power itself. I am very fond of intuitive aptitude as a name (possibly my favorite of all), and would not like to see it changed...ever (of course, if events occurred forcing our hand, I'd support it...I just wouldn't like it). --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 12:42, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::: Ryan, I agree. I think in the past we've gotten way too hung up with canonicity and ignored the explicitness of the name. It's very simple to just believe that canonicity should be the single determining factor, but when you take a step back it doesn't make sense to rely solely upon that. Since we're striving for the '''name''' of an ability, we need to determine when that name is explicitly given to us and when we're relying on some degree of interpretation in picking the name. Assignment trackers are verified to be written by the writers and very explicitly name the ability. With the exception of files/documents/assignment trackers shown in episodes or them explicitly saying, "Your ability is called..." the very explicit name in the assignment tracker is what we should use. The majority of people seem to feel this way, too, and while a majority does not imply consensus it's an important component to me when it comes to having to make an important decision that does not have full consensus. Short of what I feel are any really good reasons not to, the policy will be amended to this end. ([[User:Admin|Admin]] 11:40, 9 December 2008 (EST))
:::: So based on this new policy of explicitness being the priority, shouldn't electromagnetism be merged with [[electric manipulation]] for consistency? Please see the discussion at [[Talk:Electromagnetism#Explicitness trumps all?|Talk:Electromagnetism]]. Thanks.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 13:51, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::: I replied there, but as far as I know nothing is changed concerning the Electromagnetism article except that there seems to be discussion as to whether to merge it with Lightning...and now instead the name of the article it might be merged with is Electric manipulation rather than Lightning due to the rename. ([[User:Admin|Admin]] 13:58, 9 December 2008 (EST))

== Reliability of assignment trackers ==

Just a few quick comments on this, since the issue has been hotly contested in recent days.

Evidence that the assignment trackers are not updated regularly with information the Company has, and thus of somewhat questionable reliability (though I think they are still very valuable and should, generally, be trusted):

# [[Richard Drucker]] and [[Hana Gitelman]] are listed on their respective assignment trackers as having different abilities, but they were decided to be grouped as one, ignoring the "explicit naming rule."
#* I see them as synonyms, not different abilities. Two names for the same thing. The decision was a blend of multiple sources: one said their abilities were the same, one said their abilities had different names. I interpret that to mean they have the same ability, but they're called different names. Others have added on the fact that Drucker died in [[1992]], before "digital" communication was popular. That's disputable, but makes sense. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
# [[Echo]] is listed on [[Jesse]]'s tracker as having a similar ability, but Jesse is not listed on Echo's.
# Nobody is listed on [[Knox]]'s assignment tracker under 'Persons with similar abilities,' even though [[the Company]] knows of several.
--[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)
* I don't think updating regularly negates explicitness or even reliability, as you alluded to. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
** The explicitness was in reference to Hana and Richard, since they are explicitly named differently, but we decided to group them together. As to the reliability, if they're not updated with new information, that (to me) indicates a lower level of reliability than if they were. For instance, if we found out more information about Stephen Canfield from the show or a GN that renamed his ability to dimensional displacement (eg - Noah discovered new evidence that the power really just placed someone in a pocket dimension, and commented that the Company had gotten it wrong), and this was not updated to the assignment tracker, then we'd have to conclude that the A.T. was not providing reliable information about Stephen's power. --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 19:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)
*** Then let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I don't want to assume that the abilities that are explicitly named are not reliable just because some biographical data is not updated. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 22:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)
**** Sorry. I should have composed this section better so as not to cause misunderstandings. I didn't mean that the names we're given aren't reliable. I just wanted to note that the A.T.'s are not infallible, and that this should be considered when we engage in the hotbed of controversy that is naming abilities. ;) I realize (between this and the [[Talk:Enhanced strength#Heroes Interactive|enhanced strength]] post) it may seem like I'm stirring up trouble for no reason, but I just wanted to note this point on the discussion page. Despite my recent arguments against several of the names derived from the A.T.'s, I consider them a very valuable source of information. I just felt the point should be made that they do contain errors and inconsistencies, and that should be beared in mind when discussing whether the information contained therein should trump less explicit canon. --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 22:30, 13 December 2008 (EST)
***** Agree completely. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 23:11, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion to re-evaluate<!-- our present process of retaining 'noname' abilities as the default name (ie: Alejandro's ability) -->==
I would like to suggest we re-evaluate our present process of retaining 'noname' as the default for ability names. (Presently the following 10 and counting)...
*[[Alejandro's ability]] (named 10/2/2007)
*[[Mohinder's ability]] (named 9/24/2008)
*[[Future terrorist's ability]] (named 10/8/2008)
*[[Trevor's ability]] (named 11/11/2008)
*[[Edward's ability]] (named 11/10/2008)
*[[David's ability]] (named 12/31/2008)
*[[Matt's ability]] (named 3/24/2009)
*[[Linda's ability]] (named 4/11/2009)
*[[Crazy grin man's ability]] (named 4/12/2009)
*[[Tom's ability]] (named 4/21/2009)
We should be able to arrive at a process for each of these, that is based on the attributes of the ability as we've been shown, that is not grossly speculative, and that would be much better than retaining no-name as the default, and keeping it for lengthy periods of time (ie: Alejandro's been dead for a year and a half. We have plenty of sound information on Alejandro's power to have named it by now.) Even if it came down to something like we start out with a noname ability as the default for an ability that is vague or unclear, and after a reasonable amount of time, (say a month), if a valid consensus name hasn't been determined, then the admin team makes an group executive decision to pick a name to replace the initial noname default. With the expansion of new people with abilities via iStory, GNs, and Evolutions...beyond the episodes themselves, we really need to establish a better default naming scheme than noname, when a clear consensus isn't arrivable. I personally, would be fine with the quality of Admin members we have hear making an executive decision upon a name when the membership as a whole cannot reach a clear and obvious consensus.<small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer|talk]]) 04/22/2009 15:17 (EST)</small>
* FYI: that had been the policy initially, and was used to decide the name for Guillame's ability, which is now "Bliss and Horror". Then, Admin decided that shouldn't be the way things are handled, because he could always decide there isn't a consensus and impose whatever name he wanted. That's how we got to the current situation where names default to the possessor's name if there is no general consensus.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
** Then why not the one with the least complaints becomes the name, rather than the one everyone agrees on, since many people forget that they've voted and won't change it. --[[User:345tom|345tom]] 15:47, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
*** Cause in a consensus, opinions don't count as votes. They count as arguments that are supposed to be proven or disproven in discussion in order to reach an agreement. If you are interested in using voting as a means to decide names, then that is a separate discussion.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 15:53, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
* And I would say then, a return to the orignal process would be best, albeit slightly alter it. Instead of Admin alone making the decision, the entire Admin-Team (all 5 of you guys) should discuss and come up with a name when a group consensus cannot be reached. Surely we can trust you guys as a group to come up with a valid name together, when the membership as a whole is uncertain or unsure. That would allow the present consensus policy to remain in place for most all cases, but it then would also prevent lingering noname examples from remaining and lingering without resolution, like the 10 examples above. <small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer|talk]]) 04/22/2009 16:19 (EST)</small>
** I guess you didn't understand me. The only time I recall this being done was for Bliss and Horror, and then it was all of the administrators, not just Admin, who gave their opinions. However, later, Admin decided that shouldn't happen again and that the possessor's name should be used if no name consensus is possible amongst all the users. I can't speak for him, but my impression was that he didn't think his or the administrators' opinion should supersede that of the other users.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 16:44, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
*** MV, OK, now I understand what you were saying. I can agree too, with Admin's desire not to want to superceed the opinion's of other users. That a very admirable approach. However, in this particular case, we're looking at a situation where there is no user opinion being superceeded; rather, a situation where the membership has been unable to either decide between multiple viable choices, or to come up with a viable choice. In this case, it shouldn't be considered superceeding for the Admin group to be a final court of arbitration, so to speak...or perhaps consideration for LDBs suggestion of holding a vote only after the present consensus process has generated acceptible options. <small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer|talk]]) 04/22/2009 16:50 (EST)</small>
**** It's Admin's choice as to whether or not he reinstates administrator consensus checks as a possibility, because if the administrators don't agree that means it would fall to him to make a final decision.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
***** Ah, the "nuclear bomb" route. :) As an administrator who was involved in the famous [[talk:bliss and horror|bliss and horror debate]] of '07, I can say it really pained me to make an administrative decision which ultimately placed my opinion above the opinions of other community members. (I'm being dramatic, of course. There was no pain, just some minor injuries.) One can look at it in a few ways, so maybe I'm a bit biased about the situation. But we were a younger site back then, still finding our footing. We had also never really been presented with a situation like Guillame's, where we couldn't name his power, or where the name suggested by the graphic novel was just so weird. I mean, we even had a debate about the influence cultural should play in the naming process (hence the birth of "the drunken monkey's kiss" and "stench of a thousand corpses"). We're a little more established now, and our naming conventions really do guide our process for naming new abilities. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the naming convention came as a result of the bliss and horror discussion. We really don't have to need for the admins, as smart--and handsome--as those guys are, to make executive decisions. In fact, I think the only other time the "nuclear bomb" route was used was in determining explicitness (read: [[Assignment Tracker 2.0]]) over canonicity. Consider those two examples to be our Hiroshima and Nagasaki. :) <p> Regarding the suggestion to revisit abilities named for their users, I think for the most part we don't need to. Once every so often, somebody suggest a new name for [[Alejandro's ability]]. I am not opposed to renaming the ability. But I also have never heard a name that covers all aspects of the ability...so I make no secret of the fact that I am often the one who opposes names for that ability. Show me a name that covers all aspects, and I'm on board. On the other hand, an ability like the [[Future terrorist's ability]] really can't be named since we know so little about it. Though there have been some good attempts over time, every name I have heard is based on some bit of speculation. Again, if I heard a name that didn't speculate, I'd be behind it. Until then, I'll oppose (much to the chagrin of some community members, I know...) I won't go into a discussion about each of those ability names here, but for the most part, pretty much all of those abilities listed above fall into one of those two categories: names either don't cover the ability's limits (either too broad or too narrow), or the names are too speculative. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:14, 22 April 2009 (EDT)



==Voting for ability names==
* I personally think that we should use the new consensus to find the unsuitable names, then actually vote for the ability name we want. So the ability with the most the majority of votes would then have the ability named that. Then that way no one can complain, as it would be done democratically. whereas with the current system even if one person disagrees then the possessors name is used. Is that fair? --{{User:Laughingdevilboy/signature}} 16:27, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
** That's another good idea. We just should have some process in place to finalize these nonames. Whether a group vote of the highest two concensus names (after a specific amount of time), or whether the Admin-team itself makes the choice, I would be fine. I think we just don't need to continue to leave these no-names out there indefinately...(like the 1 & 1/2 years for poor old Alajandro). <small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer|talk]]) 04/22/2009 16:37 (EST)</small>
** What if its a group vote then goes to the admins? I think a week is the longest the consensus vote should be held for, especially on older ones like Alajandro. Maybe 3 days for ones that have already had a fair amount of discussing, a week for new ones then an elimantion of all but top two (or more if they are tied) then if its still a draw it goes to admins? --[[User:345tom|345tom]] 16:47, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
*** A form of polling has been brought up before. In effect, it introduces voting to the process, which Admin decided when starting this wiki would not be used. I'm not opposed to adding voting into the process, but it's not my call alone. That's why this is a separate discussion and why I've made this into a separate thread. Depending on whether we use a polling extension or a simple tally on the ability's talk page, both methods have their own drawbacks in terms of how it affects the server. One of the polling extensions has the capability of enabling polling using a system offsite, but that would mean that our users would have to register offsite and we would technically be borrowing someone else's poll in addition to likely not getting a lot of participation. A simple tally would tend to encourage people to obtain multiple accounts to cheat the poll, which needlessly taxes our server with those extra accounts and makes Admin's job of trying to locate the multiple accounts all the more taxing for him. I'm not opposed to seeing if we now have consensus for using one of these systems. I just want everyone to know there are broader issues at work here.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 17:13, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
* OK, good explanation to why pure voting creates a downside. And again, I'm not saying punt our existing consensus model...I'm just saying we need finality to it, so that we don't continue to stay stuck with nonames as defaults for any lengthy period (more than a week or two, month max). If later evidence arises, we can always adjust a name to reflect new info (as we've done in the past). We just need something to finalize the name after the consensus period runs it's course, and no single name has been determined. Something or someone to make a final decision instead of the perpetual nonname default. <small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer|talk]]) 04/22/2009 17:33 (EST)</small>
** I think that's a good desire (to want to arrive at a name for an ability). And although I personally wouldn't mind exploring them or seeing if there is consensus for one, I don't think the current suggestions are good enough to get consensus to change from just having the ability be possessor-named. Keep the suggestions coming, though. That's how we find something better.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 17:47, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
*** What I really don't like is the fact one person has more weight than 20. If one person says I want this to stay as nonames ability then it will (I know an exaggeration and that includes both the new and old consensus). --{{User:Laughingdevilboy/signature}} 17:52, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
**** Yeah, that's an exaggeration. The nature of consensus is to go by the arguments presented. This does allow a minority opinion to block the majority, but in such situations everyone is mutually unhappy. I think the idea is that this will encourage people to compromise and not oppose names that may not be their favorite but are nonetheless valid.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
* It worries me that we are trying to create a process of deciding on names for abilities just to "get rid of" abilities names that are named for their users. I would rather have a hundred "So and so's ability" names than to have speculation on the site, or to have names that are too broad or too narrow. That said, I think our new way of holding consensus checks will involve a fair amount of more traditional voting. Suppose after a session of our Consensus Check 2.0 is through, we have three ability names. If one name does not emerge the clear "winner", I think it would be appropriate to vote on one of those names. However, I am still in full support of having consensus checks in which every person is given the chance legitimately voice his or her opinion, and oppose a name. We are a community, and as such, we should work as one. Again, with CC 2.0, it hopefully makes it a bit easier for people to express disinterest in an ability name without explicitly opposing it, which is so often the case. It's not a perfect system, but I think it's definitely more in line with what I see as true consensus, which is not so much everybody agreeing on one name, but nobody opposing a given name. That's an important element in our community. From there, I think it's fine to take the names that are not opposed and to hold a vote of some kind to determine the best of those names. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:23, 22 April 2009 (EDT)


== Conflicting rules/guidelines ==
== Conflicting rules/guidelines ==
Line 221: Line 80:
********Freezing is a consensus, but an outdated one, hence the current discussion. Tracy's ability had a stable name for a while, something Jeremy didn't, the name vs effects thing happened with him the moment he appeared, unlike Tracy. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|Contributions]] 18:13, 10 January 2010 (EST)
********Freezing is a consensus, but an outdated one, hence the current discussion. Tracy's ability had a stable name for a while, something Jeremy didn't, the name vs effects thing happened with him the moment he appeared, unlike Tracy. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|Contributions]] 18:13, 10 January 2010 (EST)
*******I just want to clarify, I'm not saying that any of the arguments above are ridiculous, at this point I'm simply offering a counter-argument.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP|Need further explanation?]] 18:35, 10 January 2010 (EST)
*******I just want to clarify, I'm not saying that any of the arguments above are ridiculous, at this point I'm simply offering a counter-argument.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP|Need further explanation?]] 18:35, 10 January 2010 (EST)
******** I've been thinking about this, and now I think that the "we can only use information that's explicitly confirmed by the writers", while certainly valid for the majority of cases, is, in the end, untrue. The sheer fact is that we always, absolutely always, speculate; the mere fact of adding information to the wiki is speculative. Let me explain with this thought experiment: Consider any scene in which Claire appears. For the sake of argument, let's consider the scene with Claire and Peter cutting vegetables from ''[[Let It Bleed]]''. Can you, with 100% certainty, prove that it was indeed Claire, and not a [[shapeshifting|shapeshifted]]-who-[[clairsentience|collected-memories]] Sylar? You can't, because this was never explicitly confirmed by anyone. Adding to the wiki that Claire, and not Sylar, appeared, is a form of speculation ''if we only consider explicit information''. Yet, I'm completely sure that everyone would think it's silly to really think that Sylar appeared. This "speculation" is safe since it's beyond reasonable doubt. Now, consider a different situation: assume that, this time, Sylar ''is'' posing as Claire. This is clear ''beyond reasonable doubt'' to the audience (e.g., two Claires appeared in the same scene, the one assumed to be Sylar used telekinesis, etc), but wasn't explicitly confirmed (i.e., nobody said "Sylar is posing as Claire!" and Sylar didn't shapeshift back to his true form). Again, by the logic of the "we only work with explicit information", it would be speculative to say that it was indeed Sylar; but, again, I think everyone would agree that's okay to say that it ''was'' Sylar. Proof that we do this: we claim Peter replicated West's power without true confirmation, based solely on subtleties in his conversation with Claire. So, essentially, we don't need explicit confirmation -- we can and do base our decisions on non-textual information. --[[User:Referos|Referos]] 20:36, 10 January 2010 (EST)
**********But we don't assume in spite of information explicitly given. For example, Claire was not confirmed one way or another to be the actual Claire (although it's fairly obvious). However, if we were later told that Claire was actually a shape-shifted Sylar in that particular scene, regardless of whether it made sense or not, we'd state that in the article. It's the same idea with level 5 ability names, the names may be speculative (The Haitian may manipulate the adrenal glands or something to make the mind forget, or Tom may actually be only able to disintegrate ceramic objects), but since it was not clarified either way, we do our best to come up with a name based on what information we have. We only ''speculate'' in cases where explicit information is not available. That isn't the case with Jeremy's or Tracy's ability.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP|Need further explanation?]] 22:04, 10 January 2010 (EST)
***********I repeat the argument I made in italics above, because you're still appealing to it, and it still looks ridiculous. What you appear to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that an explicit name is always correct (and so should be used) unless overruled by a newer, but also explicit name. The collorary of this is that an explicit name is always better than a non-explicit name, even if the explict name is completely unfit for describing the ability and the non-explicit name is perfect. This is why we cannot assume things that contradict an explicit source, even if the canon ''itself'' contradicts the explicit name. I spy a contradiction in itself here- the claim is that we are nothing more then documentors of canon, and so we cannot speculate. But when the canon itself changes, as it seems unreasonable to doubt it has in cases like Tracy and Jeremy, we can't change the ability name to something that directly reflects this? Surely if we are documenting the canon, and canon applies to everything we view in an episode, this should apply to the ability name as well? The initial premises of the argument I outline above are also faulty- it doesn't follow that simply because a name is explicit, that it's "better" at doing the job it's supposed to do- i.e. giving a name to an ability. I shouldn't have to point out again how counter-intuitive this logic is when it leads to cases like "Flint controlling water" (which I'm still curious about your answer on- would it still be wrong for us to speculate when the error was so blatant?)The best name is the one that describes the ability the best, explicit or not. [[User:Swmystery|Swm]] 06:11, 11 January 2010 (EST)
************If you're resorting to calling my argument ridiculous you're either running out of points or are becoming slightly immature after hours of debate. I'm going to assume that latter, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'd also love it if my analogies weren't used against me, but that's my own fault. Speaking of the analogy, a slightly varied version was created by a user about a year ago, where someone asked an admin what they would do if Flint's ability was listed as "cryokinesis" as opposed to "pyrokinesis". It's a similar situation to what you're proposing above, and the admin responded with more or less the same response I've been reiterating on this page over the last week. [http://heroeswiki.com/Talk:Puppet_master/Archive_1#Consensus_for_rename_to_puppet_mastery Here's] a link if you're interested. I share this with you not only to support my argument, but to prove that this issue has been contested several times over in the past, and has not led to much of a change. While that doesn't mean that any motion made after is invalid, you should probably become familiar with what has already been argued in the past. And to answer your question (again), if Flint had suddenly been able to control water, I'd vote to keep his ability as pyrokinesis ''because we can't assume that the company did not know that before naming his ability'', because 1) None of us know exactly what's going through the writers heads when they name these abilities, and 2)''It's not our place''. We are not here to create our own ability names, that is something we do when no higher-ranking names are available. We are here to document what has occurred on the show, which does NOT include speculation contradicting the show itself--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP|Need further explanation?]] 14:58, 11 January 2010 (EST)
*************But we are ''not'' creating our own names. Jeremy's power could be renamed to "life and death" or "life flow control", which came from the show. Tracy's ability was also named "water and ice manipulation". Why stick with inaccurate names if the writers ''themselves'' gave us better names? For instance, the entire idea that canon should always trump near-canon or secondary sources was completely created by us! As you said, we cannot know what's going in the writer's head, so how do we even know that, in case of contradiction, an episode should trump a graphic novel, for instance? Perhaps the writers want use an interview or a GN to correct something shown in an episode, while being subtle about it (since explicit retconning is often awkward). That's why I think this entire criterion that we use (canon>near-canon>secondary) is sometimes problematic. Nobody ever actually say that we should use this criterion; as far as we know, the writers treat everything equally: episodes, GNs, interviews, iStory, etc. Agree, we shouln't be creating names when the writers give them to us -- but if there's possible valid names from canon, near-canon or secondary sources (such as in the case of Jeremy and Tracy), we should choose the best name based on ''other'' factors than simply "oh, this was given in an episode; this was given in a graphic novel".--[[User:Referos|Referos]] 11:55, 12 January 2010 (EST)
**************I apologise for that, PJ. It was unneeded. I see the similar criticism and response has been outlined before, and I thank you for the link. I do not, however, see anything in that discussion as to why we should keep using the older names except "The Company (and by extension the writers) used this name, so we must use it too." This is just an appeal to authority, and as such is only as strong as the authority is wise. Where the authority is mistaken, its judgements no longer have any reason to be obeyed. In other words, when the writers get an ability name wrong, we have no reason to imitate their mistake. Further, to respond to your points: No, we do not have access to the writer's thought processes in naming their powers, less so now then we ever did since Behind the Eclipse vanished. But my argument is that we should not need an explicit statement from them (which cannot be relied upon to be given) to document what has been clearly shown in the canon of the series. And I would further argue that it ''is'' our place to do what I suggest, because our place is to document the canon. The canon says beyond reasonable doubt that Tracy's ability isn't just Freezing anymore (for example). Therefore, we should, in our role as documenters, document this development and change the ability name to reflect it. If we've got another canon name to use (as Referos points out), we should use that. If not, then an ability name derived directly from the current information presented to us is still better than an ability name that is canonical, but unfit for purpose, where "better" is understood as "a more accurate documentation of the canon." And this understanding you should accept, because you've been arguing all along that we should aim to document the canon as fully and accurately as possible. Therefore, it follows that we shouldn't keep a name that is no longer an accurate moniker for a power, regardless of the alternatives (or lack thereof) avaliable to us. [[User:Swmystery|Swm]] 14:30, 12 January 2010 (EST)
***************Don't worry about it Swm, I was slightly rude in my response as well and I'm sorry if I came across as tense. After such a large amount of debate, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, I have my views and you have yours. I understand your arguments and why you support them, and I'll leave it at that, I just wanted to add some counter-arguments. I wish you luck in your efforts :)--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP|Need further explanation?]] 17:04, 12 January 2010 (EST)
*** With regards to the idea that we cannot speculate at all...Referos makes an excellent point. We do speculate on things, and the idea that Peter got his flight from West is a great example. There is nothing in canon that explicitly states this...it's just our logical assumption based on him asking Claire if she still talks to West. <br /> The bottom line is that, at times, we have to make decisions, as a community, because we are not given all of the information (eg - mental manipulation), or because we have information that is unclear or can be interpreted in various ways (eg - Siren's song being a name or not), or we have direct contradictions of the same canonicity (eg - can EH's with RCR be permanently killed?). When these situations occur we have to either speculate or be vague. The idea, I think, is to keep the speculating to a minimum, only using it when necessary, and not let it get in the way with what we see and hear, which is another point I agree with...canon is not just what we hear, it is also what we see. <br />To be honest, while the naming convention guidelines are a good framework, I think they need to be redone and be MUCH more detailed to address what we're given. The show has evolved so much that adaptations need to be made. One thing would be to expand the section that differentiates between naming and descriptions, and list where each falls (it may very well be that canon descriptions would be second behind canon explicit naming, but that brings the non-canon AT's into question). We should also have a master list of everyone in the Heroes Universe in terms of expertise, so we know whose opinions trump whose (even if you had a more general tiering system...like having the top bunch separated and then everyone who was a 'know-nothing' equal). --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 20:34, 10 February 2010 (EST)
**** We need more flexibility to better adjust to new, unusual, and nasty situations. We need to balance canonicity and accuracy. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|Contributions]] 20:38, 10 February 2010 (EST)
***** Very much agreed. Here's an example, since Tracy is being discussed a lot. We were given freezing as her ability...then she manifested water manipulation. Some are claiming that we have no choice but to stick with freezing, despite it not being entirely accurate, because that's what we saw onscreen. Well, what if Tracy suddenly, on her own, stopped time and then teleported to Cairo? Are we still forced to stick with freezing and list STM as an aspect of Freezing in the limits section? It's the same thing as water manipulation....it's just that water manipulation ''seems'' closer to freezing than STM does, so people can accept that it's just part of her ability, whereas I imagine if she suddenly stopped time there would be a massive movement to change her ability name or give her a second one. But that is speculative, far moreso imo, than speculating that her power changed when she was shot through the head. --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 20:49, 10 February 2010 (EST)
****** Here's an idea. Currently, there are six tiers, divided in two categories. There is a hierarchy between all six. Let there still be six tiers, but make canon, near canon and secondary have the same "strength" and put them as preferable over the other three. This way there is still a preference for canon and near canon names. GNs, webisodes and iStories are ways to expand the universe. Say that one these is used to retcon or better explain something that isn't clear or is confuse in the show. Saying "if episode, only episode" is denying that expansion, and making the writers waste time needed to develop plots to resolve minutia. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|Contributions]] 18:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)
******* Something else I've noticed. In cases where the ability isn't explicitly named, the first name used for it is generally the one kept if there is nothing controversial about the source of its name. In abilities that are hard to name due to lack of clarity on how it works and what it can do, or the source of the name, the first name lingers for quite a while until it is changed. To avoid naming disputes, I think that if an ability has the potential to have those naming disputes, it should have the default X's ability, so that it can be properly discussed before a "first namer" sets in. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|Contributions]] 16:54, 12 February 2010 (EST)
******** I agree. I'd almost say we extend that further and, unless we have an explicit name from somewhere, start '''all''' new abilities as X's ability until we can hash out what it should be. --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 17:55, 12 February 2010 (EST)

== Links to rules and discussions ==

I just wanted to start a section collecting links and quotes to rule clarifications or discussions about rules with regards to naming conventions. Please add any you feel at all relevant to the topic, and maybe we can supplement the article page to make things a bit clearer.<br>

There was a good deal of discussion, involving most of the admins as well, about naming conventions on [[Talk:Puppet_master/Archive_1#Voting... |this page]]. I haven't had time to sift through the entire thing yet, but here is one quote I find relevant to the issue of clarifying naming conventions:

''At the very least there certainly has to be a consensus among reasonable people that the name should be changed. By default (i.e. without full consensus) we keep the name we're given, but if there's full consensus then it could be renamed. Without getting into a matter of policy, full consensus can override policy since it reflects a unanimous view of the people here which is ultimately the most important thing. But without consensus (which I define as agreement among reasonable people to at least not disagree) we'd stick to the naming convention so we'd use the exact name we're given. (Admin 01:35, 22 November 2008 (EST))''' --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 00:19, 12 February 2010 (EST)<br><br><br>

From [[Talk:Siren's_song#Myth_and_Commonality|Siren song discussion]]:

''Explicitly named abilities would include anything from the Assignment Tracker profiles. Nathan's files and Edgar's list also explicitly name abilities. So do the Genesis files. When Mohinder told Monica, "You're the first we've met with adoptive muscle memory," and Monica replied, "So that's what it's called," that was explicit. However, similes, metaphors, and comparisons are not explicit. They serve as excellent touchstones and have helped name abilities very often, but they would be overruled if we ever had a more explicit name for an ability—like, if the name of the ability was listed somewhere in a form, or as a title, or somebody used the ability's name. "Siren song" is a good example of a name used from Samuel's comparison, when he says that Emma's ability is "like a siren song." He never names her ability, but he gives us a comparison that we can turn into a name.''

''To make the point a little differently, we could take Samuel's quote and make the ability name "song of the siren" if we wanted. However, the minute we are given something explicit (like an Assignment Tracker), we would use whatever is listed there. If Emma's AT listed her ability as "siren music" that's what we would use, regardless of what Samuel said. Hope that makes sense about the "wiggle room"... — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2010 (EST)''

''"Siren song" (or "sirens' song" or any other way it can be spelled) is neither a description of the ability or an explicit naming of the ability. It's a metaphoric comparison of Emma's ability to an actual Greek myth. For our purposes, it describes the ability well...until we are given an explicit name for the ability. To answer your question, though, a description given in a canon source does not trump an explicit name given in a near-canon source. For instance, in chapter 2 of Operation Splinter, Tim Pope explicitly names Red Eye's ability as "primal rage". Now, if Red Eye were ever to appear on the show and somebody were to describe his ability (like "Did you see that guy? He was suppressing everybody's subconscious!" or "I was so scared when he cast feelings of anger upon me!"), we wouldn't use a descriptive term (like "subconscious suppression" or "anger casting") because we've already been given an explicit name for the ability, regardless of the in-world source from which it came. (GN intros aren't part of the GN, by the way—they're not considered a canon or near-canon source.) Hope that all makes sense...In short, explicitness trumps all. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (EST)'' --[[User:Stevehim|Stevehim]] 15:52, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Latest revision as of 11:42, 7 March 2010

Archives Archived Topics
Sept 2007-Jul 2008 [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]]

Oct 2008-Apr 2009 [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The err]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]] • [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2#

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er|

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The er]]


Power Name Origination

Extension:DynamicPageList3 (DPL3), version 3.6.1: Error: MediaWiki\Extension\DynamicPageList3\Query::buildAndSelect: The DynamicPageList3 extension (version 3.6.1) produced a SQL statement which led to a Database error.<br/>The reason may be an internal error of DynamicPageList3 or an error that you made; especially when using parameters like 'categoryregexp' or 'titleregexp'. Usage of non-greedy <code>*?</code> matching patterns are not supported.<br/>The error message was:<br/><code></code>


Conflicting rules/guidelines

There seems to be conflicting rules/guidelines with the naming conventions for ability names. One says along the line that the canon name should always be use, no matter what. However, another seems to says the opposite. I'm not able to get into too much detail at the moment, but I wanted the discussion to move here where it would count as oppose to it being across multiple ability talk pages. --OutbackZack 15:25, 24 December 2009 (EST)

  • The discussion started on Jeremy's ability's talk page, where it was suggested that the debate for name changes for multiple abilities (Tracy's, Ando's, Jeremy's, Edward's, etc.) should come to some sort of final conclusion here, as opposed to continuing multiple discussions over, more or less, the same issue.

I personally can see both sides of the problem, with the first saying (and this is more or less a quote by RGS, I believe) that we document the world of Heroes here, not make our own interpretations. However, the other side of the argument also has important points to make, which can be summed up in an analogy I made a while back; if Flint suddenly had developed the ability to control water as well as fire, would we keep his ability as pyrokinesis just because he had an assignment tracker (made before the development) saying so? Should ability names be kept the same even if the ability evolves to the degree where the user is able to do the exact opposite of what the name implies? Now, I'm not necessarily saying that we should change the name in that case, I'm somewhat ambivalent either way, but it is something to take into consideration. The naming conventions should be made clearer, even if not changed.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:37, 24 December 2009 (EST)

  • Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, merry christmas :) (serious discussion resumes) .--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:40, 24 December 2009 (EST)
  • Ok, here are some problems that I can think of in a nutshell:

Accuracy: The famous "must cover all aspects rule". Essentially, it's becoming a void rule: theoretically, it should have been applied to Tracy (freezing doesn't cover water mimicry) and Jeremy's ability, but wasn't. The main problem is that it seems to conflict with the "must use canon names" rule. According to this rule, canon names should come first, period. But the "all aspects" rule says that accurate names can trump the canon hierarchy. Either we reinforce this rule or we delete it altogether, as it is conflicting with other guidelines.

Explicitness: Not mentioned by the naming conventions, but has been used to trump canon names in favour of near-canon names (see "gravitational manipulation" versus "vortex generation"). If we are going to use this criterion, it should be properly explained in the conventions. Also, we have to determine its place in the hierarchy: is explicitness more important than, say, accuracy? For instance, "healing touch" is explicitly named but is inaccurate as it does not cover all aspects of the ability: should it nonetheless be used, or is accuracy more important?

Reliability of source: Again, not mentioned in the naming conventions, but also used in naming an ability ("clairsentience" comes from Chandra, a researcher, versus "psychometry", from Peter, a layman). I don't have much to say about this right now, but we will have to discuss this too eventually.

Even if the naming conventions aren't changed, they should explain these issues better.

--Referos 15:50, 24 December 2009 (EST)

  • I am of the opinion that the "accuracy" rule should be paramount. The analogy with Flint highlights the issue perfectly for me- if we go for canon as the primary factor, we could end up in a situation where we have a name that's clearly unfit for purpose, but still use it "because it's what the writers used." And that's a ridiculous reason to decide on the basis for a name, quite frankly. What happens if the writers get a name wrong? Do we blindly stick to their name, even though it's wrong? Surely not. If we go for accuracy in naming, on the other hand, the worst that can happen is we use a name that's not been mentioned on the show. And we already do that in cases of descriptive names and "X's ability", and there's no problem with it. Why, then, is there a problem here? It is better to be accurate and non-canonical, then to blindly stick to canon and be inaccurate. In my opinion, anyway. Swm 06:01, 25 December 2009 (EST)
    • Alas, this is not an encyclopedia, and our job, as already stated, is not to make our own interpretations of what is accurate, but to chronicle the information that the show has given us. --Radicell 06:12, 25 December 2009 (EST)
      • I definitely understand that, but there are special cases. Tracy is the perfect example, we were given a canon name for her ability, but before it mutated to include new aspects. In that case, must we stick with the old outdated name event though the ability has clearly become much more? I mean, could the writer's possibly want Tracy's ability to remain "freezing"? Giving it a new name wouldn't necessarily contradict the name given.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 07:25, 25 December 2009 (EST)
        • Well, we have an imperfect canon name "freezing" and a perfect near-canon one "water and ice manipulation". How about using only the names which fully describe the ability and are given in sources? I mean, if a better name isn't given in lower canon sources, we use what we have. However, if there's a "Flint controls water" situation... Well, we'll have to think of a better name ourselves, then. But that should only be done when we really get a contradicting situation, or there will be a risk of abusing the rule. Or -- we can simply accept it's a case of ability development and leave everything as it is. Altes 07:53, 25 December 2009 (EST)
          • I prefer your first option. I'm certainly not suggesting we make up our own names or anything like that. But what does seem best is that we use the most accurate name possible out of all the canon names given, regardless of exactly where in the canon it actually comes from. It's obviously not going to crop up too often, only in cases like Tracy's. We can only make up our own names when none of the canon names are suitable, so we would keep our own interpretation to a minimum. Swm 08:03, 25 December 2009 (EST)
            • Yep, exactly what I'm saying :) Altes 08:06, 25 December 2009 (EST)
              • I would also add that part of "chronicalling the information the show has given us" is giving information about abilities. And when giving information, it's important to be as accurate as possible. That applies to ability names as well, does it not? And besides, if we're not supposed to offer any of our own input, why do we have any descriptive names at all? Such names have nothing to do with any information given by the show. So if you want to only chronical and nothing more, those names will have to go. Swm 08:09, 25 December 2009 (EST)
                • Yes. The way I understand it, to properly document the Heroes universe, it's not only important to consider textual or oral information, but everything that it's shown (for instance, it has been visually shown that Tracy can now manipulate water, but nobody discussed this orally in the show). If we simply stick with names from documents and profiles even when they are unfit, we're only being faithful to pieces of prop, not to the show as a whole. But I think that a good compromise would be: given a set of possible names from canon, near-canon and secondary sources (but not created by fans), the one that should prevail is the one that is more accurate (or the one that is more explicit, or the one from the most reliable source...the specific hierarchy can be discussed later). The canon level criterion should come last, as having an accurate name is more faithful to the show as a whole. Then, we could discuss a specific policy to deal with extreme cases like the Flint situation.--Referos 09:37, 25 December 2009 (EST)
                    • Very well put, and I agree with this method also. However, what do we do when we have an outdated name for an ability (the ability has evolved since being named), and we're never given a new name from any canon source? --OutbackZack 11:45, 25 December 2009 (EST)
  • We'd have to use the only canon name we had, I think. But given GN's are released every weak, I doubt that such a situation would last very long, unless the character was killed. If so, we'd just have to use what we had. Swm 11:47, 25 December 2009 (EST)
    • Now let's take Jeremy's case. Given a name for an ability. The ability became something different making the name outdated. Noah describes the ability different than the name given; however, no new name is given. So do we keep it as the same name or do we make a new name base on the new description? --OutbackZack 11:53, 25 December 2009 (EST)
      • People aren't sure whether he did give another name for Jeremy's power- Life and Death. There's a debate about it on his page. In cases like you suggest, we'd probably improvise a name based on the description given. Swm 11:59, 25 December 2009 (EST)
        • The name given by Noah is very descriptive, like lightning or healing. "Life flow control" isn't good either because Noah attributed it to that Chinese woman, not Jeremy. If we don't accept "healing touch", then Jeremy's ability is the only valid name we have. -- Altes 12:22, 25 December 2009 (EST)
          • The counter point I can make with that is that we consider both the Chinese woman and Jeremy to have the same ability. So what was describe for the Chinese woman would apply to Jeremy. Also, Jeremy's ability is ONLY used when we don't or can't create a non speculative descriptive name. Which I'm sure we can do. --OutbackZack 12:56, 25 December 2009 (EST)
  • I've made a draft for a possible change in the naming conventions so that we have a concrete example in order to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.--Referos 18:28, 25 December 2009 (EST)
  • As several people (particularly Radicell) have pointed out, we are not an encyclopedia. Our job is not to make assumptions beyond what the show tells us. If we are given a name for an ability on the show, it is canon and we need to stick to that. Even if all aspects of an ability are not present in the name, if the show gives us a name, we need to uphold that name. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 23:02, 25 December 2009 (EST)
    • The naming conventions say otherwise, hence the "aspects of an ability" rule. If that's truly what our role is should be, it needs changing, but until that time, there's a debate to be had. Again, if our job is not to make any assumptions, then all of our descriptive names must go and be reverted to "X's ability" if no canon one exists, if you want to be consistant. And I'm willing to bet nobody wants that. Are you seriously suggesting that once we're given a name for a power, that we should keep that name forever, regardless of what happens to the power itself? That seems illogical to me, as names can easily become out of date. If a name is (or becomes) wrong or otherwise unfit for purpose, as it is with Tracy and Jeremy, the name should be changed, regardless of whether it's canon or not. Otherwise you risk ridiculous cases like the "Flint who can control water" situation. Besides, it's not just verbal information that needs to be taken into account here. For example, the show has already told us that Tracy's power is no longer Freezing, it's just not been actually said by anyone. When it's so glaring obvious that the power has changed (compare any other known freezer to Tracy), having to wait for someone to admit it on-screen before we can change it seems unneccessary to me. If you want to chronicle information about the show, you want to do so accurately, otherwise this wiki is pointless. Part of recording information about the show is recording information about the character's abilities, including their names. Therefore, you want to be as accurate as possible regarding the character's names, even where it contradicts what is strictly canon. Swm 06:06, 26 December 2009 (EST)
      • Exactly. The fact that the "all aspects" rule exists means that we're actually supposed to care for a name's accuracy, at least when the naming conventions were initially conceived.--Referos 12:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)
  • Bump, as these issues have to be resolved even if the naming conventions remain unaltered--Referos 18:14, 28 December 2009 (EST)
        • My opinions were already stated here by someone else, I support the changing of the policy to give greater importance to accuracy instead of canon level source. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:00, 28 December 2009 (EST)
          • I have the same story as IE. --Skullman1392 19:33, 28 December 2009 (EST)
            • Disagree. It's not our job to speculate, that's what Theory pages are for. This wiki is here to chronicle information given to us by the show. Canon sources are paramount. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 01:56, 29 December 2009 (EST)
              • "Information given to us by the show" means far more then just strict names. It's everything we watch on TV, read in the GN's, etc. If we come up with a name literally based on what we see (example: Water Manipulation for Tracy), that's not speculation, that's us chronicalling what we've been shown. In fact, keeping the name Freezing for her ability is actually the opposite of what you claim to want, because you're blatantly ignoring the evolution of her power that's been clearly documented in canon, but not verbally acknowledged. The same applies to Jeremy- the show has shown us that he can heal, and that he can kill. If we have a name to that effect, we are not speculating. By being as accurate as possible in naming, we are actually respecting the canon (that is to say, everything we've been shown, past and present), far more then if we keep the literal but outdated names from previous Volumes. Swm 06:51, 29 December 2009 (EST)
                • Actually, until a canon source tells us so, it's speculative to suggest these power names are not still accurate. The writers have said outright that people manifest abilities in different ways. To counterpoint Tracy's ability name as "water and ice manipulation", I would like to note that Tracy does not, in fact, manipulate water. She turns herself into a water-like liquid, and mimics water (but not actually water, also confirmed by the writers). So now we have a near-canon name that is outright incorrect from the get-go. Until a canon source tells us the name is something different, it is not our job to show otherwise. Differences or abnormalities in abilities can be listed on the page itself, perhaps even with a note saying "while Tracy's ability is determined to be freezing, she seems to have levels of control over her own body that other users have not displayed." --Ricard Desi (t,c) 12:04, 29 December 2009 (EST)
                    • What about Noah's car? She's shown standing outside it while it fills up in the Ice Queen graphic novels, meaning it wasn't her own water (or self) that did that. Hence, she could manipulate water as well as mimic it. Also, there's the great big geyser she makes erupt from under the desert in Prodigals, Part 3. If she could only mimic a water-like substance, there's no way she could do that. Swm 12:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)
                  • For "freezing" to be still accurate, it would need to cover the water manipulation aspect. There might be a viable reason for how Tracy can manipulate water by using her core of ability to freeze things, but this is unconfirmed and so equally speculative (compare with induced radioactivty: Ted could release EM radiation, but this was confirmed to be related to his core ability to manipulate nuclear reactions, so the name's still accurate).--Referos 12:52, 29 December 2009 (EST)
                    • Wouldn't it be the other way around? The reason she can freeze things is because of her core ability to manipulate water, as part of that is dropping its temperature. It seems more logical then to say she can manipulate water in other ways because she can drop its temperature. One's an aspect of the other, but it doesn't work in reverse. Swm 13:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)
  • For the people who are opposing changes in the naming conventions, could you please take a look at this proposal? I hope it establishes a compromise between having the highest canon level and the best accuracy.--Referos 09:29, 29 December 2009 (EST)

This is not a matter of accuracy vs. canonicity. For a wiki such as this one, accurate is synonymous with canon. This is a matter of canon accuracy (or rather canon completeness) and using a name that canonically someone uses. What's canon is that the ability both heals and kills through touch, and that the Company called it "healing touch" (when they thought that was all Jeremy did). What's not canon is the notion that the ability "should" primarily be called this.

Using the Company's name "healing touch" for Jeremy's is not fitting for us, seeing as we obviously aren't using the entire naming system that name is supposed to fit into. (Do you really think the Company adds the word "touch" to distinguish it from the ability from the ability to heal but kill through touch?) - Josh (talk/contribs) 05:44, 9 January 2010 (EST)

    • Someone above said that we must consider all information given to us, not just textual or oral. I know that previously I would agree with this, but now I'm going to have to disagree. We don't throw the unique factors of someone's ability out the window when placing it under a name that some may consider inappropriate, we list it under the limits section. If all of the effects of someone's ability are listed then the ability is properly documented, so we don't have to change a name and risk being wrong.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 13:26, 9 January 2010 (EST)
      • But if the name we decide upon is taken from what we've been shown, even if we come up with it ourselves, how can it be wrong? Look at Tracy for example. The show has shown us she can control water. If we dub her name "Water Manipulation" as a result, that name is not speculative, and can't be said to be wrong. There's no risk involved. Swm 14:15, 9 January 2010 (EST)
        • However, to do that would be to say that the information presented in Nathan's files is outright wrong, without an equivalent source telling us otherwise. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 15:04, 9 January 2010 (EST)
          • On the contrary. Nathan's files came from an episode. The information telling us Tracy's ability is no longer just Freezing also comes from an episode. The sources are equally valid, because it's the same source. Swm 15:06, 9 January 2010 (EST)
            • But none outright said "Tracy's ability is no longer freezing". If we come up with a name ourselves, we may be putting words in the writer's mouths. Do the writer's want her ability to remain "freezing"? Maybe not, but maybe they do. It would be illogical, but we are not supposed to make decisions for them. There is a possibility they want it to remain "freezing".--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:10, 9 January 2010 (EST)
              • There's also a possibility that the writers want Cloaking, Ability Replication, and every other descriptive name on this site to be called something other then what we call it. Yet we have no problem picking an original, accurate name for these cases despite the fact it's not been used by the writers. So why is it an issue here? We're doing the exact same thing. Besides, if the writers had wanted Tracy's power to be simply freezing, surely it never would have evolved in the first place? Swm 15:16, 9 January 2010 (EST)
                • We're not doing the same thing here, because no explicit name was given for cloaking or ability replication. Freezing was given as a name for the ability explicitly in the show. Also, it's an assumption to say that if the writers wanted Tracy's power to be simply freezing it wouldn't evolve in the first place. It's probably correct, but we don't know for sure. So we can't change it.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:23, 9 January 2010 (EST)
                  • Something people seem to be forgetting is that there is time in the Heroes universe. Aside from dates and ages (tons of inconsistencies to make it work), if we have conflicting canon sources, the most current ones should be used. When Tracy first appeared, she had freezing, ok. Then, we saw that she could turn into water. We've been given "water and ice manipulation" in a Graphic Novel. Now for the sake of argument, let's say that when Tracy was first introduced, she could already turn into water and knew about it, and we would have been given the same name. If we found out that she was once bagged and tagged in the past, and her AT said that in some point in the past she could only freeze things and had her ability named "freezing", would we change the ability name to that? Of course not! It's the same thing with Jeremy. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:07, 9 January 2010 (EST)
  • Ah, but that argument works both ways, PJDEP. If the name we use doesn't matter as long as everything's properly documented in article itself...then what's the harm in calling the article something that's not been used in the show? All the information within it will still be true and so correct any initial confusion the name gives, and since the name is the most accurate possible, we're better off overall. I agree completely with Empath. And further, I would argue the cases are exactly the same- in both, we are coming up with a descriptive, original name that describes the parameters of the ability as well as possible. This is true regardless of whether or not an existing canon name has been given in the past. For me, it's very simple- either we are allowed to speculate regarding these names (in which case, there is no harm in changing them when they become outdated), or we are not (in which case all current descriptive names, which are speculative, must go and be replaced with X's ability- which nobody wants). Which is it? Swm 06:16, 10 January 2010 (EST)
    • I'll say it again, most descriptive names are a different case because there was no name explicitly given by the writers, we aren't contradicting anything by coming up with those names. However, with Jeremy's and Tracy's ability, we were given names for those abilities in the show itself. Documenting the limits of an ability does not contradict anything, but giving the ability a new name, even if it makes all the sense in the world, may be contradicting a canon source. Can anyone here say for sure that the writers don't want Jeremy's ability to be healing touch? We can't, and thus, we cannot change the name. I'd love to change it to something more accurate, but we risk being speculative by doing that. And IE, if you still think the names "freezing" and "healing touch" are in consensus, please see the most recent discussion on the latter's talk page.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 09:44, 10 January 2010 (EST)
      • "The writers gave us a name. We have not had an explicit statement that that name is now wrong, therefore we must keep using it, even in the face of blatant, but non-explicit evidence that suggests it is." I am sorry, but I do not think that this is a good argument. If the contradicted canon source is out of date (which both Jeremy and Tracy's are- Jeremy's AT was taken when they mistook his ability for something else, and Nathan's file on Tracy before she developed the capacity to mimic water), then that source should be ignored. Look it at this way- let's say we change Tracy's ability to Water Manipulation, and in tomorrow's episode we get a very clear statement that it's still Freezing. We would have been wrong to move it, but we can justifiably say "the ability no longer looked like Freezing, so we chose the name that fitted best with all the information we had." Now take the reverse angle- if Tracy's ability is confirmed to be something else tomorrow, what's our justification for having kept it the same? "We couldn't use any information that's not directly spelt out for us?" The former of these two seems a perfectly logical justification, while the latter seems faintly ridiculous. The writers cannot be asked or relied upon to give us an explicit, accurate name for every ability as it is introduced or develops. Where they are given, we should use them, certainly. But when they are not, it's more respectful to the canon of the show as a whole to create and use our own, even if they contradict a canon name that's no longer fit for purpose. Swm 10:02, 10 January 2010 (EST)
        • Swm, I'll ask again, can you tell me with 100% certainty that the writers no longer want Tracy's ability to remain freezing? Yes, most evidence suggests that the ability name has changed, but we don't know for sure. Therefore, changing the ability name to something like "water manipulation" may be inaccurate. We can't say for sure that the names were given when there was no plan for Tracy's ability to evolve. Besides possibly not covering the freezing aspect of her ability, we don't know if that's what the writers intended, and may be shoving words in their mouths. We choose descriptive names when no other source is available. That is NOT the case with Jeremy and Tracy.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 12:09, 10 January 2010 (EST)
          • No, I can't. But my argument is aimed at showing that requiring such a gurantee before changing anything is unneccessary and counter-productive. Yes, calling Tracy's ability by something not used in the show may be inaccurate. I get that. But as I said before, if it is inaccurate, it is so in spite of what we have been shown. We are blameless in that case because we chose the best name that we could with the information we had. Are you seriously arguing that, unless it's 100% certain that the writers want it to be called something else (i.e. they name it anew), we can't change it? Even though the writers are human, make mistakes, and may in some instances get an ability name outright wrong? I refer again to the "Flint who can control water" case to illustrate the point. Flint's ability was well documented as being pyrokinesis. But if he suddenly manifested the ability to control water/earth/air/etc as well, but nobody ever gave it a new name, are you seriously suggesting the right thing to do would be to keep the old name, even if it's blatantly wrong, because "we're not 100% certain the writers want it changed?" If you aren't, you shouldn't oppose a change in Tracy's name, because it's exactly the same case (the name is no longer suitable, but we lack explicit evidence the power is not that name). And if you are, then you are doing a disservice to a huge chunk of canon- that being, everything that's not an explicit name for an ability. It's clear what action should be taken in cases like that, and since Tracy's case is the same, the same point stands here. Swm 12:30, 10 January 2010 (EST)
            • PJDEP, when did I say that freezing and healing touch were consensus? I don't remember saying that. And if we do name an ability and it changes again, as we can see by this heated debate (heated as in active, not as in angry), we are very concerned about how we do it, and if required, we will rename the ability. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:28, 10 January 2010 (EST)
              • "Ok, something I find really annoying in this whole discussion: people keep using examples, such as Tracy, to justify inaccurate names. THE TRACY MATTER IS STILL IN DISCUSSION MUCH LIKE THIS ONE. Just because we haven't reached a conclusion it doesn't mean that the current situation is the consensus. This goes for every ability we have an issue with effects and name. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:38, 9 January 2010 (EST)".--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 17:49, 10 January 2010 (EST)
                • Freezing is a consensus, but an outdated one, hence the current discussion. Tracy's ability had a stable name for a while, something Jeremy didn't, the name vs effects thing happened with him the moment he appeared, unlike Tracy. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:13, 10 January 2010 (EST)
              • I just want to clarify, I'm not saying that any of the arguments above are ridiculous, at this point I'm simply offering a counter-argument.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 18:35, 10 January 2010 (EST)
                • I've been thinking about this, and now I think that the "we can only use information that's explicitly confirmed by the writers", while certainly valid for the majority of cases, is, in the end, untrue. The sheer fact is that we always, absolutely always, speculate; the mere fact of adding information to the wiki is speculative. Let me explain with this thought experiment: Consider any scene in which Claire appears. For the sake of argument, let's consider the scene with Claire and Peter cutting vegetables from Let It Bleed. Can you, with 100% certainty, prove that it was indeed Claire, and not a shapeshifted-who-collected-memories Sylar? You can't, because this was never explicitly confirmed by anyone. Adding to the wiki that Claire, and not Sylar, appeared, is a form of speculation if we only consider explicit information. Yet, I'm completely sure that everyone would think it's silly to really think that Sylar appeared. This "speculation" is safe since it's beyond reasonable doubt. Now, consider a different situation: assume that, this time, Sylar is posing as Claire. This is clear beyond reasonable doubt to the audience (e.g., two Claires appeared in the same scene, the one assumed to be Sylar used telekinesis, etc), but wasn't explicitly confirmed (i.e., nobody said "Sylar is posing as Claire!" and Sylar didn't shapeshift back to his true form). Again, by the logic of the "we only work with explicit information", it would be speculative to say that it was indeed Sylar; but, again, I think everyone would agree that's okay to say that it was Sylar. Proof that we do this: we claim Peter replicated West's power without true confirmation, based solely on subtleties in his conversation with Claire. So, essentially, we don't need explicit confirmation -- we can and do base our decisions on non-textual information. --Referos 20:36, 10 January 2010 (EST)
                    • But we don't assume in spite of information explicitly given. For example, Claire was not confirmed one way or another to be the actual Claire (although it's fairly obvious). However, if we were later told that Claire was actually a shape-shifted Sylar in that particular scene, regardless of whether it made sense or not, we'd state that in the article. It's the same idea with level 5 ability names, the names may be speculative (The Haitian may manipulate the adrenal glands or something to make the mind forget, or Tom may actually be only able to disintegrate ceramic objects), but since it was not clarified either way, we do our best to come up with a name based on what information we have. We only speculate in cases where explicit information is not available. That isn't the case with Jeremy's or Tracy's ability.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 22:04, 10 January 2010 (EST)
                      • I repeat the argument I made in italics above, because you're still appealing to it, and it still looks ridiculous. What you appear to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that an explicit name is always correct (and so should be used) unless overruled by a newer, but also explicit name. The collorary of this is that an explicit name is always better than a non-explicit name, even if the explict name is completely unfit for describing the ability and the non-explicit name is perfect. This is why we cannot assume things that contradict an explicit source, even if the canon itself contradicts the explicit name. I spy a contradiction in itself here- the claim is that we are nothing more then documentors of canon, and so we cannot speculate. But when the canon itself changes, as it seems unreasonable to doubt it has in cases like Tracy and Jeremy, we can't change the ability name to something that directly reflects this? Surely if we are documenting the canon, and canon applies to everything we view in an episode, this should apply to the ability name as well? The initial premises of the argument I outline above are also faulty- it doesn't follow that simply because a name is explicit, that it's "better" at doing the job it's supposed to do- i.e. giving a name to an ability. I shouldn't have to point out again how counter-intuitive this logic is when it leads to cases like "Flint controlling water" (which I'm still curious about your answer on- would it still be wrong for us to speculate when the error was so blatant?)The best name is the one that describes the ability the best, explicit or not. Swm 06:11, 11 January 2010 (EST)
                        • If you're resorting to calling my argument ridiculous you're either running out of points or are becoming slightly immature after hours of debate. I'm going to assume that latter, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'd also love it if my analogies weren't used against me, but that's my own fault. Speaking of the analogy, a slightly varied version was created by a user about a year ago, where someone asked an admin what they would do if Flint's ability was listed as "cryokinesis" as opposed to "pyrokinesis". It's a similar situation to what you're proposing above, and the admin responded with more or less the same response I've been reiterating on this page over the last week. Here's a link if you're interested. I share this with you not only to support my argument, but to prove that this issue has been contested several times over in the past, and has not led to much of a change. While that doesn't mean that any motion made after is invalid, you should probably become familiar with what has already been argued in the past. And to answer your question (again), if Flint had suddenly been able to control water, I'd vote to keep his ability as pyrokinesis because we can't assume that the company did not know that before naming his ability, because 1) None of us know exactly what's going through the writers heads when they name these abilities, and 2)It's not our place. We are not here to create our own ability names, that is something we do when no higher-ranking names are available. We are here to document what has occurred on the show, which does NOT include speculation contradicting the show itself--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 14:58, 11 January 2010 (EST)
                          • But we are not creating our own names. Jeremy's power could be renamed to "life and death" or "life flow control", which came from the show. Tracy's ability was also named "water and ice manipulation". Why stick with inaccurate names if the writers themselves gave us better names? For instance, the entire idea that canon should always trump near-canon or secondary sources was completely created by us! As you said, we cannot know what's going in the writer's head, so how do we even know that, in case of contradiction, an episode should trump a graphic novel, for instance? Perhaps the writers want use an interview or a GN to correct something shown in an episode, while being subtle about it (since explicit retconning is often awkward). That's why I think this entire criterion that we use (canon>near-canon>secondary) is sometimes problematic. Nobody ever actually say that we should use this criterion; as far as we know, the writers treat everything equally: episodes, GNs, interviews, iStory, etc. Agree, we shouln't be creating names when the writers give them to us -- but if there's possible valid names from canon, near-canon or secondary sources (such as in the case of Jeremy and Tracy), we should choose the best name based on other factors than simply "oh, this was given in an episode; this was given in a graphic novel".--Referos 11:55, 12 January 2010 (EST)
                            • I apologise for that, PJ. It was unneeded. I see the similar criticism and response has been outlined before, and I thank you for the link. I do not, however, see anything in that discussion as to why we should keep using the older names except "The Company (and by extension the writers) used this name, so we must use it too." This is just an appeal to authority, and as such is only as strong as the authority is wise. Where the authority is mistaken, its judgements no longer have any reason to be obeyed. In other words, when the writers get an ability name wrong, we have no reason to imitate their mistake. Further, to respond to your points: No, we do not have access to the writer's thought processes in naming their powers, less so now then we ever did since Behind the Eclipse vanished. But my argument is that we should not need an explicit statement from them (which cannot be relied upon to be given) to document what has been clearly shown in the canon of the series. And I would further argue that it is our place to do what I suggest, because our place is to document the canon. The canon says beyond reasonable doubt that Tracy's ability isn't just Freezing anymore (for example). Therefore, we should, in our role as documenters, document this development and change the ability name to reflect it. If we've got another canon name to use (as Referos points out), we should use that. If not, then an ability name derived directly from the current information presented to us is still better than an ability name that is canonical, but unfit for purpose, where "better" is understood as "a more accurate documentation of the canon." And this understanding you should accept, because you've been arguing all along that we should aim to document the canon as fully and accurately as possible. Therefore, it follows that we shouldn't keep a name that is no longer an accurate moniker for a power, regardless of the alternatives (or lack thereof) avaliable to us. Swm 14:30, 12 January 2010 (EST)
                              • Don't worry about it Swm, I was slightly rude in my response as well and I'm sorry if I came across as tense. After such a large amount of debate, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, I have my views and you have yours. I understand your arguments and why you support them, and I'll leave it at that, I just wanted to add some counter-arguments. I wish you luck in your efforts :)--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 17:04, 12 January 2010 (EST)
      • With regards to the idea that we cannot speculate at all...Referos makes an excellent point. We do speculate on things, and the idea that Peter got his flight from West is a great example. There is nothing in canon that explicitly states this...it's just our logical assumption based on him asking Claire if she still talks to West.
        The bottom line is that, at times, we have to make decisions, as a community, because we are not given all of the information (eg - mental manipulation), or because we have information that is unclear or can be interpreted in various ways (eg - Siren's song being a name or not), or we have direct contradictions of the same canonicity (eg - can EH's with RCR be permanently killed?). When these situations occur we have to either speculate or be vague. The idea, I think, is to keep the speculating to a minimum, only using it when necessary, and not let it get in the way with what we see and hear, which is another point I agree with...canon is not just what we hear, it is also what we see.
        To be honest, while the naming convention guidelines are a good framework, I think they need to be redone and be MUCH more detailed to address what we're given. The show has evolved so much that adaptations need to be made. One thing would be to expand the section that differentiates between naming and descriptions, and list where each falls (it may very well be that canon descriptions would be second behind canon explicit naming, but that brings the non-canon AT's into question). We should also have a master list of everyone in the Heroes Universe in terms of expertise, so we know whose opinions trump whose (even if you had a more general tiering system...like having the top bunch separated and then everyone who was a 'know-nothing' equal). --Stevehim 20:34, 10 February 2010 (EST)
        • We need more flexibility to better adjust to new, unusual, and nasty situations. We need to balance canonicity and accuracy. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:38, 10 February 2010 (EST)
          • Very much agreed. Here's an example, since Tracy is being discussed a lot. We were given freezing as her ability...then she manifested water manipulation. Some are claiming that we have no choice but to stick with freezing, despite it not being entirely accurate, because that's what we saw onscreen. Well, what if Tracy suddenly, on her own, stopped time and then teleported to Cairo? Are we still forced to stick with freezing and list STM as an aspect of Freezing in the limits section? It's the same thing as water manipulation....it's just that water manipulation seems closer to freezing than STM does, so people can accept that it's just part of her ability, whereas I imagine if she suddenly stopped time there would be a massive movement to change her ability name or give her a second one. But that is speculative, far moreso imo, than speculating that her power changed when she was shot through the head. --Stevehim 20:49, 10 February 2010 (EST)
            • Here's an idea. Currently, there are six tiers, divided in two categories. There is a hierarchy between all six. Let there still be six tiers, but make canon, near canon and secondary have the same "strength" and put them as preferable over the other three. This way there is still a preference for canon and near canon names. GNs, webisodes and iStories are ways to expand the universe. Say that one these is used to retcon or better explain something that isn't clear or is confuse in the show. Saying "if episode, only episode" is denying that expansion, and making the writers waste time needed to develop plots to resolve minutia. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)
              • Something else I've noticed. In cases where the ability isn't explicitly named, the first name used for it is generally the one kept if there is nothing controversial about the source of its name. In abilities that are hard to name due to lack of clarity on how it works and what it can do, or the source of the name, the first name lingers for quite a while until it is changed. To avoid naming disputes, I think that if an ability has the potential to have those naming disputes, it should have the default X's ability, so that it can be properly discussed before a "first namer" sets in. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:54, 12 February 2010 (EST)
                • I agree. I'd almost say we extend that further and, unless we have an explicit name from somewhere, start all new abilities as X's ability until we can hash out what it should be. --Stevehim 17:55, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Links to rules and discussions

I just wanted to start a section collecting links and quotes to rule clarifications or discussions about rules with regards to naming conventions. Please add any you feel at all relevant to the topic, and maybe we can supplement the article page to make things a bit clearer.

There was a good deal of discussion, involving most of the admins as well, about naming conventions on this page. I haven't had time to sift through the entire thing yet, but here is one quote I find relevant to the issue of clarifying naming conventions:

At the very least there certainly has to be a consensus among reasonable people that the name should be changed. By default (i.e. without full consensus) we keep the name we're given, but if there's full consensus then it could be renamed. Without getting into a matter of policy, full consensus can override policy since it reflects a unanimous view of the people here which is ultimately the most important thing. But without consensus (which I define as agreement among reasonable people to at least not disagree) we'd stick to the naming convention so we'd use the exact name we're given. (Admin 01:35, 22 November 2008 (EST))' --Stevehim 00:19, 12 February 2010 (EST)


From Siren song discussion:

Explicitly named abilities would include anything from the Assignment Tracker profiles. Nathan's files and Edgar's list also explicitly name abilities. So do the Genesis files. When Mohinder told Monica, "You're the first we've met with adoptive muscle memory," and Monica replied, "So that's what it's called," that was explicit. However, similes, metaphors, and comparisons are not explicit. They serve as excellent touchstones and have helped name abilities very often, but they would be overruled if we ever had a more explicit name for an ability—like, if the name of the ability was listed somewhere in a form, or as a title, or somebody used the ability's name. "Siren song" is a good example of a name used from Samuel's comparison, when he says that Emma's ability is "like a siren song." He never names her ability, but he gives us a comparison that we can turn into a name.

To make the point a little differently, we could take Samuel's quote and make the ability name "song of the siren" if we wanted. However, the minute we are given something explicit (like an Assignment Tracker), we would use whatever is listed there. If Emma's AT listed her ability as "siren music" that's what we would use, regardless of what Samuel said. Hope that makes sense about the "wiggle room"... — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2010 (EST)

"Siren song" (or "sirens' song" or any other way it can be spelled) is neither a description of the ability or an explicit naming of the ability. It's a metaphoric comparison of Emma's ability to an actual Greek myth. For our purposes, it describes the ability well...until we are given an explicit name for the ability. To answer your question, though, a description given in a canon source does not trump an explicit name given in a near-canon source. For instance, in chapter 2 of Operation Splinter, Tim Pope explicitly names Red Eye's ability as "primal rage". Now, if Red Eye were ever to appear on the show and somebody were to describe his ability (like "Did you see that guy? He was suppressing everybody's subconscious!" or "I was so scared when he cast feelings of anger upon me!"), we wouldn't use a descriptive term (like "subconscious suppression" or "anger casting") because we've already been given an explicit name for the ability, regardless of the in-world source from which it came. (GN intros aren't part of the GN, by the way—they're not considered a canon or near-canon source.) Hope that all makes sense...In short, explicitness trumps all. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (EST) --Stevehim 15:52, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://heroeswiki.ddns.net/index.php?title=Help_talk:Naming_conventions&oldid=209563"