Talk:Disintegration

Ability Naming Conventions
The following sources are used for determining evolved human ability names, in order:
1. Canon Sources	Episodes
2. Near-canon Sources	Webisodes, Graphic Novels, iStories, Heroes Evolutions
3. Secondary Sources	Episode commentary, Interviews, Heroes: Survival
4. Common names for abilities	Names from other works
5. Descriptions of abilities	Descriptions
6. Possessor's name	If no non-speculative description is possible
Note: The highlighted row represents the level of the source used to determine the name for Disintegration.

my two cents...

just merge it with Trevor's ability, and call it shattering. at the very least we should ask BTE if the two abilities are the same, or even similar. --Piemanmoo`

• We can't call Trevor's ability shattering because no concensus was reached and Tom can't have Trevor's ability. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 05:07, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Name

• I think Molecular destabilisation would be a good name because it seems that the ornament has been destablised, not shattered. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 05:07, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

• I'd call it Resonant Molecular Destabilization because the ornament vibrated quickly before destabilizing, which could be because of a high-pitched sound that human's cannot hear, and it reaches the resonant pitch where the molecules just fall apart. --Madheroesfan 06:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • It could be due to high-pitched sound, but that is speculative. I think this would be a great place to test out Consensus check 2.0. Remember to only enter your name and a reason under the power name that you oppose. --Radicell 06:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Can you guys remember to leave a space between the last sig and the next ability name? There are some blocks that almost made me miss an possible name. Also leaving links for the two names I added, please read before opposing them: crumbling and collapsing. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Personally, I like "collapsing" or "crumbling". They both sound good. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
        • People, you're supposed to sign only in the names you don't support. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 11:38, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Consensus

Tom's ability

• Opposed, we have enough details about the ability, to give it a proper descriptive name. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/21/2009 16:26 (EST)

Merge with Trevor's ability

• Sound effects and other cues distinguish it from Trevor's ability; I highly doubt it's the same ability. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 07:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, Tom cannot have Trevor's ability. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 07:52, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Too speculative. -- Altes 08:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Not the same --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, not the same, different effects. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed -- Trevor makes things shatter, tom make things "Fragment" --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• In favour- Meredith's flames are red, Flint's are bright blue. We still see these as different manifestations of the same power: pyrokinesis. Why can't we say Tom and Trevor have the same ability, with the same kind of difference? The only thing that seems to be different is the visual cues, same as the colour of flames.- Swmystery 11:11, 22 April 2009 (GMT)
• In favour. Theyre basically the same ability. Like Flint has Pyrokinesis even though the flames are blue. Bosco13 15:42, 22 April 2009 (GMT).
• Opposed, Trevor appeared to use outside force to shatter the glass, where as Tom destroyed the doll seemingly from the inside --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Molecular destabilization

• Incredibly speculative. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 07:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• The ornament just broke into pieces, not into molecules. -- Altes 08:57, 21 *Too speculative. --Piemanmoo 10:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• NO! Just no! --Isaac Mendez 14:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, too speculative. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Agreed, too speculative. --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Resonant molecular destabilization

• Incredibly speculative. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 07:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• The same as above. -- Altes 08:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Too long and speculative. --Piemanmoo 10:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, same reasons as Piemanmoo. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, a bit over complex. I like names that new viewers would easily understand such as shattering Bosco13 15:42, 22 April 2009 (GMT).
• Opposed, too speculative. --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Shattering

• I say it fits better for Trevor's ability. -- Altes 08:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• This isn't what happened. --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed. Doesn't look much like shattering to me. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, the items do not shatter, shatter suggests to break apart with force, these fragment/collapse --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Agreed. I think it should be merged with Trevors ability and be renamed shattering. Bosco13 15:42, 22 April 2009 (GMT).
• Agreed, the doll imploded --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Disintegration

• Neither the angel nor the glasses were disintegrated.--Laudo 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Agreed. --Cro Magnon 09:50, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, no disintegration. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed -- disentergration seems to suggest nothing is left behind, or if something an ash/cinder counterpart --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Agreed, it appeared to be more of an implosion --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Matter obliteration

• The matter in question wasn't obliterated completely... it was fragmented. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 07:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, same reason as Thrashmeister. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 07:52, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• The same. -- Altes 08:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Ditto. --Cro Magnon 09:50, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Obliteration would mean it nearly ceases to exist, all this did was make it crumble into pieces.--Piemanmoo 10:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Ditto --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, there was no obliteration. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, obliteration suggest forcefully exploding --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Agreed. --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Telekinetic Disintegration

• Incredibly speculative. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 12:24, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Nothing suggests he's telekinetic. And if it is related to telekinesis, Sylar would be able to do it already. Also incredibly speculative, as put by Thrashmeister. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Ditto --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Agreed --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Crumbling

• Too close to Crumpling, and not really an apt description.--Laudo 16:14, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • We have precognition and precognitive dreaming. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Again, they don't really crumble, crumble is being broken off into small pieces, the whole thing crumbles though --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • From the link I gave above: "Crumbling: transitive verb-to break into small pieces; intransitive verb-to fall into small pieces or to break down completely." Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Collapsing

• The word 'collapsing' seems to indicate that the action is reversible.--Laudo 16:14, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • From the link I gave above: "Collapsing: intransitive verb-to break down completely." Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Fragmentation

• Too wide, could mean he can break things apart without being in small pieces. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
• Agreed, we need to be more specific until the powers are shown more --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Object destablisation

• Opposed, too vague. --Ego 20:28, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
• Opposed, same as above. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:34, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Fracturing

• Opposed, doesn't really describe the effect. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:34, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

moved dissent discussion involving opposition to Tom's ability naming convention

• (To not generate discussion within the consensus-check items, I've pulled the following two replies out of the above list. I don't think we want to hold arguements over names within the consensus checks themselves; but rather, just list our opposition to the names in the list we are opposed to.) --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/22/2009 13:21 (EST)
  • A name can't be opposed because you don't like it, or because another name is better. The name can only be opposed if the name is deemed incorrect. "Tom's ability" is an accurate name for this ability. There are others which are better, but opposing a name because others are better is simply not how it's done. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Tom's ability is incorrect, when there are sufficient attributes, characteristics, and details provided about an ability to name it based on those attributes. The only time XXX's ability should be used, is a temporary placeholder where the ability is either barely or vaguely used in such a way that it is yet un-namable. The ability that Tom presented was very clear; the only problem we have, is agreeing to one of several acceptible and equivalently suitable names. Tom's ability is incorrect, because of the amount of details we have been shown concerning this ability. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/22/2009 13:18 (EST)
      • No, "Tom's ability" is never incorrect. This ability is definitely Tom's ability. It might not be the best name, but it's not an incorrect name. Having details about the ability does not change whether this name is correct or incorrect. In fact, "Tom's ability" is the only name that is neither too broad nor too narrow. I agree with you, it's not the best name, but it's not incorrect. One of the tenets of the new consensus check system is that only absolutely incorrect names should be objected, not just names you don't like. In the end, if everybody follows the consensus check correctly, there would be several names left over, and we would make a choice from there. "Tom's ability" is always valid. Not ideal, but valid. Any opposition to that name will be ignored. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Gesture

When Tom uses this ability, does he makes the same hand gesture as Trevor? NuparuMahnika

• Nope, Trevor held his hand like a gun. Why, I have a name - Gun mimicry!))) -- Altes 08:49, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Linderman never kissed people when healing them, but Ishi did. Gestures seem to be more of a personal preference rather than a required aspect. --Piemanmoo 10:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Well, apart from kiss, there were no other effects. I always expected that healing should be going with some sort of light, but it never did. -- Altes 11:08, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Then what gesture did Tom did then? NuparuMahnika
        • Like when you hold your thumb and the next finger together to make an O shape.--Fr0z3nB0nes 13:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Object Disentergration

That's what I thought of when I first saw the ability.--WarGrowlmon18 18:15, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Video

Is anyone able to upload the video of Tom's ability on YouTube? --Ikkian 19:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Tom's ability = Trevor's ability?

It seems to me that both powers are very nearly the same. The hand gestures are different, and the looks of the "shattering" aren't quite the same, but is that any different from the red flame/blue flame difference between Meredith and Flint? That brings up a related thought: can two people share a "So and So" ability?--Cro Magnon 10:59, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

sonic disintegration?

I was thinking sonic disintegration, because the object didnt disintegrate until tom clicked his fingers...so im thinking maybe the sound of that causes the effect, also it vibrated slightly before hand thats why im thinking sonic? --petrelli 20:53 ,22nd April 2009.

• Probably related to vibration, and no need for the block bolding and italizing. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:00, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • My guess was in relation to ultrasound waves. I watched that part again today and there were high-pitched sounds for a while before he snapped his fingers. There has to be a correlation.--Ikkian 17:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Fracturing?

The one fact about what we saw is that the item broke apart into many pieces. To fracture something is to physically break it. Tom's ability broke the item into many pieces. How the power did it is unknown, but the basic fact is the item was broken by Tom's ability. Whatever the actual power turns out to be, the result of it appears to be the complete fracturing of the figurine into pieces. --Ego 20:47, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

• I think fracting is a bit too open for it, there are countless descriptions to what he did, finding the best description is what's tough. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)