Talk:Ability theft: Difference between revisions
imported>Ryangibsonstewart m Talk:Power absorption moved to Talk:Power theft: More specific (and sinister) description - less confusion with Power mimicry |
imported>Ted C |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: I'd lean more towards "power theft" than "power stealing", just because of the format of the other names so far. If something better comes to me, I'll post. --[[User:Ted C|Ted C]] 17:47, 8 January 2007 (EST) |
: I'd lean more towards "power theft" than "power stealing", just because of the format of the other names so far. If something better comes to me, I'll post. --[[User:Ted C|Ted C]] 17:47, 8 January 2007 (EST) |
||
:: Yeah, I like that, that's fine. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart|talk]]) 17:53, 8 January 2007 (EST) |
:: Yeah, I like that, that's fine. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart|talk]]) 17:53, 8 January 2007 (EST) |
||
==Disambig== |
|||
At present, "power absorption" is a redirect to "power theft". Given the way the term "absorption" is being used in conjunction with Peter's power, I think "Power absorption" needs to become a disambiguation page with links to both "Power theft" and "Empathic mimicry". --[[User:Ted C|Ted C]] 15:10, 7 February 2007 (EST) |
|||
Revision as of 20:10, 7 February 2007
Is "Power absorbtion" a power or a plot point? It seems more like the latter to me: it's a consequence of a power (intuitive aptitude) rather than a power itself. Have we eliminated the "plot points" category? --Ted C 17:17, 21 December 2006 (EST)
- Good eye! Yes, we've eliminated "Plot Points" because it was becoming a wasteland of non-plot points. We opted for more specific categories to describe the articles. Though power absorption is definitely not a power (well, unless some crazy writer decides it is...), we decided to include it in the powers category; we subsequently changed the category description to include "powers ... and their effects". I know, there's no perfect spot for it. That's why we also created the category "Sylar's crimes" to further delineate the article's categorization. Hope that helps! :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2006 (EST)
Name Change
As I'm writing about "power absorption", I'm afraid it might get too confused with power mimicry. Does anybody else feel that a name change is necessary? Any ideas? IIRC, Sylar says "consume"?? I was thinking of "power stealing". Thoughts? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2006 (EST)
- Wow, don't everybody jump on the discussion at once! ... I'm going to change the name unless anybody has an opinion otherwise. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2007 (EST)
- And what? You expected a swarm of responses when you posted on Christmas Eve? --Ted C 17:48, 8 January 2007 (EST)
- Heh - it was in the morning, does that count for anything? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2007 (EST)
- And what? You expected a swarm of responses when you posted on Christmas Eve? --Ted C 17:48, 8 January 2007 (EST)
- I'd lean more towards "power theft" than "power stealing", just because of the format of the other names so far. If something better comes to me, I'll post. --Ted C 17:47, 8 January 2007 (EST)
- Yeah, I like that, that's fine. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2007 (EST)
Disambig
At present, "power absorption" is a redirect to "power theft". Given the way the term "absorption" is being used in conjunction with Peter's power, I think "Power absorption" needs to become a disambiguation page with links to both "Power theft" and "Empathic mimicry". --Ted C 15:10, 7 February 2007 (EST)