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>SacValleyDweller
imported>Radicell
No edit summary
 
(192 intermediate revisions by 23 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}}
<br clear=all>
==Power Name Origination==
==Power Name Origination==
{{:Heroes Wiki:Ability name origination}}
{{:Heroes Wiki:Ability name origination}}


== Conflicting rules/guidelines ==
==Naming conventions==
* Nicely done, Hardvice. This will make a handy reference when trying to decide on appropriate names. ([[User:Admin|Admin]] 23:06, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
** It can probably be expanded with things other than powers and characters, but again, Halo 3...--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 23:07, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


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. --[[User:OutbackZack|OutbackZack]] 15:25, 24 December 2009 (EST)
== With the new idea in motion... ==
* 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.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP|Need further explanation?]] 15:37, 24 December 2009 (EST)
*Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, merry christmas :) (serious discussion resumes) .--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk: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?
Should this page be updates too? Right before "Descriptive names", something like:
"If there is little information on the power and how it works, it should be named with the holder of the ability until more information is learned.([[Maya's ability]], [[Alejandro's ability]])"


'''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.
?--[[User:Riddler|Riddler]] 23:53, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
* Probably--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 00:00, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
* I think that if there's little information on a power and how it works, we should simply not have an article. Such is not the case for [[Maya's ability]] and [[Alejandro's ability]]--we have seen the powers in action, can describe in detail what occurs, can make pretty accurate conclusions about what's going on, and know full well the consequences of the powers. What we don't have is a name for the powers, mostly because they don't have counterparts with powers we've seen in other media, like [[flight]] or [[telepathy]]. When we didn't know much about the powers after ''[[Four Months Later]]'', we didn't write an article. Now that we have been smack dab in the middle of the powers, we have a wealth of information, but no name. The help page should be updated, but I don't think we should be encouraging the creation of powers articles when little or nothing is known about the power. That's my only concern. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 07:30, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
**Nicely updated. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:16, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
*** Excellent. This will be mucho helpful for reference in the future. I am glad that when I stepped of on a limb earlier this week, and did the [[Maya's ability]] and [[Alejandro's ability]] change, that it stuck, and everyone seemed to accept it and we moved on with it. I was half-expecting to get it nixed for being too-speculative, but I am glad it ended up being something that we can have as a fall-back when we just can't get the naming convention hammered out when undoubted EH powers are being bandied about. We will definately get a chance eventually to get the names tiddied up anyway, and this will help keep the characters from being so much in limbo as to being EHs in cases like this. It should also help supress the newbies from continuously jumping in with names like 'Beubonic Death Ray' and 'Puking Pestilence', etc...until a firm canon-name is eventually given. <small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer|talk]]) 10/4/2007 17:18 (EST)</small>


Even if the naming conventions aren't changed, they should explain these issues better.
==Super Strength==
If we already changed it, I'm not sure, because it says super strength in the beginning. But if we did change someone tell me i'm stupid for ranting. I have so much to say, i just don't know what to say first. haha. Okay, lets seeeeeee... First off, I think we should definetely changed Enhanced strength to super strength. The columns above say Enhanced strength is a descriptive name. I don't think it is at all descriptive. Someone gets enhanced strength from steroids! haha lol. But it's not like no one uses the term super strength. When I first joined I was very confused to why enhanced wasn't super. And with all the other names like lightning and muscle mimcry, I think it is only fair to correct to use Super Strength. And changing the rules in the middle of a constructive decision wouldn't be fair. It'd be a little Monkey Scopes. See you later amigos. [[User:Jason Garrick|Jason Garrick]] 15:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
* Yes, it has already been changed. This page wasn't updated. It was "descriptive" because the only source for calling it "enhanced strength" was that that was a description of the ability. Now it's canon. Simple enough.--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 16:09, 5 December 2007 (EST)
**Alright, thanks for telling me. :) [[User:Jason Garrick|Jason Garrick]] 16:16, 5 December 2007 (EST)
* When was it ever called super strength? It's been consistently called just strength more. --{{User:Heroe/sig}} 21:09, 5 December 2007 (EST)
** ''[[Powerless]]''--Micah said it. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:36, 5 December 2007 (EST)


--[[User:Referos|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. [[User:Swmystery|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. --[[User:Radicell|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.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk: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. [[User:Altes|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. [[User:Swmystery|Swm]] 08:03, 25 December 2009 (EST)
****** Yep, exactly what I'm saying :) [[User:Altes|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. [[User:Swmystery|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.--[[User:Referos|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? --[[User:OutbackZack|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. [[User:Swmystery|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? --[[User:OutbackZack|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. [[User:Swmystery|Swm]] 11:59, 25 December 2009 (EST)
**** The name given by Noah is very descriptive, like [[electric manipulation|lightning]] or [[rapid cell regeneration|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. -- [[User:Altes|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. --[[User:OutbackZack|OutbackZack]] 12:56, 25 December 2009 (EST)
* I've made a [[User:Referos/proposal|draft]] for a possible change in the naming conventions so that we have a concrete example in order to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.--[[User:Referos|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. --[[User:Ricard Desi|Ricard Desi]] ([[User talk:Ricard Desi|t]],[[Special:Contributions/Ricard Desi|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. [[User:Swmystery|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.--[[User:Referos|Referos]] 12:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)
*Bump, as these issues have to be resolved even if the naming conventions remain unaltered--[[User:Referos|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. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|Contributions]] 19:00, 28 December 2009 (EST)
*****I have the same story as IE. --[[User:Skullman1392|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. --[[User:Ricard Desi|Ricard Desi]] ([[User talk:Ricard Desi|t]],[[Special:Contributions/Ricard Desi|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. [[User:Swmystery|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." --[[User:Ricard Desi|Ricard Desi]] ([[User talk:Ricard Desi|t]],[[Special:Contributions/Ricard Desi|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. [[User:Swmystery|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).--[[User:Referos|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. [[User:Swmystery|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 [[User:Referos/proposal|this proposal]]? I hope it establishes a compromise between having the highest canon level and the best accuracy.--[[User:Referos|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 [[the Company|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?) - [[User:Josh|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh|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.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk: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. [[User:Swmystery|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. --[[User:Ricard Desi|Ricard Desi]] ([[User talk:Ricard Desi|t]],[[Special:Contributions/Ricard Desi|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. [[User:Swmystery|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".--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk: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? [[User:Swmystery|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.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk: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. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|Contributions]] 16:07, 9 January 2010 (EST)
**********I'm just not understanding why the ability name has to be changed if everything is properly documented in the article following it.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP|Need further explanation?]] 17:34, 9 January 2010 (EST)
***********Because calling A is described as A, you don't call it B. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|Contributions]] 17:45, 9 January 2010 (EST)
************Except we do....--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP|Need further explanation?]] 09:44, 10 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? [[User:Swmystery|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 [http://heroeswiki.com/Talk:Healing_touch#Moving_this_page latter's talk page].--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk: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. [[User:Swmystery|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.--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk: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. [[User:Swmystery|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. [[User:Intuitive Empath|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath|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)".--[[User:PJDEP|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk: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. [[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'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)


== Naming Conventions, they are great but... ==
== Links to rules and discussions ==
I'm having a little problem with all the renaming and pointing back to the naming conventions as the logical way to name an ability. But the reality is that the "canon" sources aren't always reliable. Like I am perfectly fine with calling Monica's power "Adaptable Muscle Memory" or whatever it is called because Suresh knows what he is talking about when it comes to abilities. But what we fail to remember is that when this show is about normal everyday people just getting these abilities out of the blue. I don't know about you all but if I started glowing and making little explosions from my hands, I wouldn't call it "Induced Radioactivity". I would call it glowy explosion... and just because thats what i call it doesn't mean that that is the correct name for it. Which is like Micah calling Niki's ability "Super Strength". He just calls it what he as a 11 year old boy is familiar with. That certainly doesn't mean thats the correct name for an ability. Where as a creator in the show, like a writer or director in a commentary or interview should have a higher place in the hierarchy because they would know what to call it if someone had asked them. So while some canon sources are reliable many are not considering their characters are normal every day people and don't know whats happening to them. So i just believe articles like "Freezing, Lightning, Super Strength" and a couple others should be looked over again and thought out if that is indeed the correct name for them. And lets face it, Heroes did rip off a lot of abilities from other cartoons, comics, and other sources so why not just take their names?


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>
All in all I don't think a hierarchy is fit. I think it should be situational and dependent on the ability and what all characters name it.--[[User:.Vault|.Vault]] 08:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
*A few random, disorganized comments from me...I agree, the hierarchy is not perfect, and I agree, we might need to put some extra emphasis on comments from writers. However, I do believe strongly that we should not always be looking for a scientific name for the powers. The reason so many of them sound so scientific is because Chandra and Mohinder are both scientists, and are responsible for labeling so many of the powers. If they were poets, our article names would look very different. I have been very vocal about maintaining "bliss and horror" as the label for Guillame's power because it preserves the culture and the context of his power. Even when [[Interview:Joe Kelly|asked]], [[Joe Kelly]] said "No one would have named it in his village because they think of it as a spiritual power given by the Loa." As ''Heroes'' becomes more global, it's really important to me that we respect the cultures from which these powers emerge. We also need to remember that not all powers necessarily ''have'' names. Another way to say that is that there ''is'' no "correct" name for many of the powers; we just have to label them because articles need titles. So Micah saying "super strength" is not him misnaming something, it's him giving a name to a phenomenon he's observing. And he does it with the best background knowledge he has: comic books, not science. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with respecting what the power holder's intelligent son called the power. If I had the power to emit radiation, I ''wouldn't'' call it "glowy explosion", but I ''would'' call it something like "radioactivity"--and I hoped very hard that Ted would have said something like that so we could get rid of "induced radioactivity"....So yes, I think we need to revisit some of the conventions we have. I don't have a perfect solution, and I don't think one exists. Micah has said he "talks to machines"; I think "technopathy" is a much better term than "machine talking" or "talking to machines" (though I wouldn't be opposed to the latter). Perhaps it comes down to discussion and consensus if we want to override the existing hierarchy, which I think is also what basically what you're saying, if I'm understanding you correctly. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:18, 6 December 2007 (EST)
*Super and Enhanced mean the same exact thing, but enhanced is more exact than super. Now if we are going to call it super strength, why not change the others to Super Speed and Super Hearing. We have no canon sources for those, so why don't we change them to match up with the other Super/Enhanced physical attributes to attain some greater continuity on this site?--[[User:Dracomaster4|Dracomaster4]] 03:00, 10 December 2007 (EST)
*I have some comments about names for abilities:
'''1)Description:''' The most important thing we should be aiming when naming an ability? It should be descriptive. In other words, it should be possible to guess the general function of the power just by knowing it´s name. It´s okay to require common knowledge from other works (comics/sci-fiction), like "Telekinesis" or "Telepathy", but I strongly think we should avoid names that make people think "And what the hell does this power do?".


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:
'''2)Standardization:''' If we are naming all abilities with scientific and formal names ("Adoptive Muscle Memory", "Induced Radioactivity", "Telepathy", "Telekinesis" ) instead of the casual names given by the characters ("Muscle Mimicry", "Going Nuclear", "Mind Reading", "Moving Objects With Your Mind"), then we should stick to it. It just feel awkward, strange and uncyclopedic to have, at the same time, names like "Rapid Cell Regeneration" and "Super Strength". Also, we should try to use few different adjectives and nouns. For example, we have "Space-Time manipulation", "Mind manipulation", "Whatever manipulation". Later on, if we find an ability to control the weather, it should probably be named "Weather manipulation", too (and not "Weather control"). This includes the "Enhanced" powers as well. I think it looks more professional if we choose a style and name all powers according to it.


''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>
'''3)Scientific names:''' Whatever style we choose for naming abilities, we should stick to it. I believe the best option would be to name them scientifically, when possible, for two main reasons:


From [[Talk:Siren's_song#Myth_and_Commonality|Siren song discussion]]:
a)To help communication between the various languages of the Wiki. Scientific names, generally derived from Latin or Greek, have a higher chance of being similar in other languages. Take for example "Telekinesis". It´s called "Télékinésie" in French, "Telecinese" in Portuguese, "Telekinese" in German and "Telequinesis" in Spanish. Ok, I know this won´t be possible with all the powers, but just wanted to note this.


''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.''
b)Now that Heroes is becoming more global, I think exactly the opposite: scientific names would be better than "cultural names". We know different people can have the same power. While Guillame in Haiti may call his power "Bliss and horror", someone in a different country may discover this ability and call it "Endorphin manipulation", and another person in another continent, after finding out that he or she has this power too, may call it "Drug simulation". One of the reasons Science uses strange and complicated names is to allow an interconnection between cultures. However, I do think it would be interesting to add a page/section about how different people from different cultures reacted from the discovery of evolved humans abilities.


''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)''
'''4)Explicitness:''' Well, I think this has already been commented. I won´t list all the absurdities that would happen if we gave full credit to any random comment from any random character, but we should certainly develop some guidelines to decide when a character statement may be invalided. Sometimes, characters are wrong, sometimes they lie and sometimes they are just having a casual conversation about their powers. I think we should analyse the context of the statement (not so much the character´s background) and see if this statement would conflict with other naming conventions. Sylar wasn´t talking explicitly about his power name when he said he could freeze thing, but I do think "Freezing" is much more descriptive than "Cryokinesis". Also, we can always try to adapt what a characters said; even tough Micah said "Super strength", I still think "Enhanced strength" would be perfectly canon.--[[User:Referos|Referos]] 14:39, 8 December 2007 (EST)
*Regarding scientific names: I don't think we should name all our powers with scientific names. Some don't have a scientific name, and many would require us to speculate how the power works in order to apply a name with a "scientific sound" to it. For instance, [[flight]] would most definitely have to change if we wanted to use all scientific names. However, for as many times as we've seen flight in action, we really don't know how it works. Do Nathan and West manipulate wind? Do they levitate? Hover? Glide? Do they defy gravity? Do they propel themselves, or do they control the atmosphere around them to be propelled through the air? Or is it energy they're manipulating? Maybe it's a form of magnetism they use to fly, or perhaps they're telekinetics who can only move their own bodies. Shall I go on? ... My point is that assigning a scientific name 1) assumes speculative reasoning in many cases, and 2) ignores the culture of the character with the power. If a new character has the same power as Guillame and he happens to give his power a scientific name, then we can (and should) revisit the name we have. But how in the world can we come up with a name for what he does without assuming we know how it works? Does he manipulate endorphins, simulate drugs, or is it something different entirely? We really have to put canon sources above all others. We can discuss individual cases where we would break this rule, but the show is our Bible--everything else is just really good input. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 16:18, 8 December 2007 (EST)
*Actually, the Genesis files name it as "Flight Potential". Anyway, I do know Chandra didn´t research all powers and certainly didn´t name all of them. I just think it feels strange that, in the same page, we have a)scientific names, b)formal but unscientific names ("Dream/Mind/Space-Time manipulation", c)metaphorical names (Bliss and horror) and d)Names from comics (Super strength).--[[User:Referos|Referos]] 21:35, 8 December 2007 (EST)
* I for one can't endorse ''any'' naming convention that puts names made up by fans--no matter how scientific or cool they sound--above names actually used in the show or by the show's creators. Our first job is to document, not to create. And every time we use a descriptive name, we're risking speculation that is not supported by what we know. Sometimes that's our only option, and when it is, we frequently have to opt for our best guess. But using such a name when we have a name that's been given to us seems like speculation for speculation's sake.--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 01:16, 9 December 2007 (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)
== Power renaming checklist ==

When a power article changes names, the following articles may need to be updated:
* The article itself (change references to the old power, if needed)
* The article's talk page (update the [[template:power names|power names]] box)
* The article's theory page, and [[Portal:Theories about Abilities]]
* [[Template:Power]]
* [[Portal:Abilities]]
* [[List of abilities]]
* [[Template:PowersTOC]]
* Examples pages
* [[Template:Examples]]
* The character's page (especially the [[template:character box|character box]], Evolved Human Abilities section, and any other necessary changes)
* [[:Category: Related Articles Pages| Related Articles Pages]]
* The Peter/Sylar power templates (like [[Template:Peterexposed]])
* An episode's Story Development banner
* [[User:Admin/Power name origination]]

== Is it a name? ==
This seems to be a discussion that comes up a lot but which the convention doesn't yet address: is something in a canon/near-canon /secondary source a name or not? We've had this problem with Bliss and Horror, Lightning, Telescopic vision, Replication/Duplication, etc. Part of the problem is that we're frequently using descriptive text to derive a name, but even when it's named explicitly, we need to be able to determine if they're naming the ability itself or merely its effect. Some times, perhaps most of the time, those will be one and the same. Other times, they won't. We need to be particularly careful with using names for aspects of powers (telescopic vision, teleportation, chronokinesis, mind reading, etc.) as names for the entire ability. The best rule I can formulate based on what we've seen so far is that a given name must include every aspect of the power we've seen for us to consider it as a name for the power. Otherwise, the logical conclusion is that it's a name for an effect, aspect, or application of the power. We couldn't call Hiro's power "teleportation" because it doesn't include time travel, for example, but we could have called Matt's ability "mind reading" up until he displayed the ability to send thoughts (and commands).

In other words, this strikes me as a part of the standard we've been employing all along which has never been formalised (look at the decision to separate lightning from electromagnetism, for example: "lightning" describes everything Elle has done, but not everything the agent has done.) When we accepted "Bliss and Horror" we did so because 1) the name was given and 2) it described everything we'd seen him do. Conversely, we have accepted names which were perhaps overbroad (perception, mediumship, telepathy, alchemy) because they do not contradict what we've seen, even if the do imply more than we've seen. This seems right, too; while these names wouldn't be appropriate for mere descriptive names, they're fine if they come from a canon/near-canon/secondary source. Why? Because when we're dealing with a new, fan-made name, the proper question is "is this the best name for this ability", but when we're dealing with a possible name from a source, the only question is "is this the name of the ability at all"? A name which contradicts what we've seen can't be read as a name for the whole ability, but a name that goes too far has to be.

Any thoughts about how/where to codify this aspect of the standard?--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 13:41, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
* Amen--thanks for (reliably) summarizing a recent issue so succinctly and elegantly. You hit the nail on the head. As for where to add it on the help page? I can't think of an easy way to break it down into a hierarchy or chart or anything. Part of the overbroad/underbroad concept is covered in the [[Help:Naming conventions#Guidelines for descriptive ability names|guidelines section]] under "Breadth"--perhaps that description could be expanded a bit. Other than that, some of the points you covered might be best described in a narrative in the same section I linked above, or maybe under "[[Help:Naming conventions#Guidelines for names derived from ''Heroes'' sources|Special Considerations]]". But yes, we should definitely address the issue on the help page somehow. We have enough consistent examples at this point to cover most possible situations, I think. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 14:09, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
** Okay, I've added a first attempt. LMK what y'all think.--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 14:53, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
*** Excellent. I would add examples to the bottom two bullets. Maybe a good example would be not using "mind reading" for Matt's power or "alchemy" for Bob's power. I don't have much preference on the examples, other than I think a few more examples would really help. Very good, otherwise. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 15:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Question==
N/A 22:28, 21 July 2008 (EDT) Where do naming conventions take place? Online? And if so, I want in, so that I can at least give my input. The abilities, in my opinion, should be general, so as to cover all possible ways that an ability can occur or turn out. Maybe that's just me...--[[User:Shadowulf1|Shadowulf1]] ([[User talk:Shadowulf1|talk]]) 22:28, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
* We discuss them on talk pages of the abilities and here for the general conventions. The guidelines we're following are probably not perfect, but they are very deterministic. If you have suggestions, please feel free to recommend them.--[[User:MiamiVolts|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts|talk]]) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
** It may be my mathematical/computer science background, but the fact that they're deterministic to me is an essential quality of the ability names as we list them here. Part of the naming convention is to make ability names sufficiently broad in instances where we're constructing the name. We do choose, however, to rely on provided names/terms where applicable. If we're provided names/terms by the writers then that takes precedence over any other sufficiently broad term (generally speaking). Since we are a [[Heroes]] wiki above all else then the writers are given (through their various mediums) the final say as to the name of an ability. ([[User:Admin|Admin]] 23:59, 21 July 2008 (EDT))

== 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?
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)

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"