Talk:Freezing

Definition

• I suggest the best definition of "cryokinesis" or "ice generation" is actually "the ability to remove heat from matter, reducing its temperature and possibly causing it to freeze". --Ted C 12:29, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Name of Power

The name of this power (though much is still unknown about it) has come into question. It was called "Cryokinesis", from Greek "cryo-" (cold/freezing) and "kinesis" (movement). This is a fairly logial word creation, though it is just that: a creation. The name of the power was recently changed to "Ice generation". Are there any opinions about the name of the power? Any new suggestions? Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. I thought "Cryokinesis" sounded cool, but "Ice generation" is probably more exact (though I think it also might describe my freezer's superability). Anybody want to weigh in? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2006 (EST)

I think it definitely needs a new name at this point since ice is just a side-effect of freezing water... and the power is more likely to be related to freezing in general than being limited to freezing water. At the same time I dont think "cryokinesis" is an actual word. Wikipedia uses "cold manipulation" which I personally think is sufficient for the time being until we hear more about it (and whether it is indeed a separate power and not a side-effect). (Admin 16:37, 26 December 2006 (EST))

Cold manipulation sounds good ... for now. It gets my vote. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Ice generation would actually be less accurate than cryokinesis, which does not necessarily include the ability to make ice appear. I consider "cryokinesis" to be as real a word as "pyrokinesis", which is not all that unusual; it's usually familiar to the comic book crowd, if not the general public. Cryokinesis is specifically the ability to remotely reduce temperatures, possibly causing objects to freeze. "Ice generation" sounds more like the ability to create ice from nothing. --Ted C 10:08, 28 December 2006 (EST)

I agree that ice generation is less accurate. Unfortunately there's a bit of disagreement on the use of cryokinesis since it doesn't appear to be a real word even if it's commonly used in the comic book crowd. As a result I think the best option at this point is to go with "cold manipulation". While it doesn't have the appeal of a word like cryokinesis it has the benefit of being sufficiently general. Hopefully at some point the show will give a name to this ability and we'll be able to put this to rest. :) (Admin 10:34, 28 December 2006 (EST))

We also have to remember that it's not just the comic book crowd that will be checking out the site. And, really, we need to be as accurate and legitimate as possible (well, as possible as you can be when you're talking about people that can fly, read minds, and manipulate space and time). Cold manipulation is both general and descriptive, and it is a legitimate term. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2006 (EST)

<rant>The complaint is that "cryokinesis", "chronokinesis", and "pyrokinesis" are neologisms. Personally, I think worrying overmuch about whether the OED has officially sanctioned a word for public use by allowing it to grace its illustrious pages is a form of small-minded intellectual snobbery that requires that you believe a language consists of what's written in a book and not what comes from the lips of its speakers. The same people seem to think that "standard usage" is the same as "grammar"; it's merely rules worship for the sake of rules worship without any consideration for the fact that a language is a living, breathing, growing entity, and that its speakers are its authors, not its servants. I say this, mind you, as a notorious grammar Nazi whose initial interest in Wikis was that I could at last obsessively correct errors in the text I read. There's no question that these are "real words", since speakers and writers use them and listeners and readers understand them every day. The whole question is whether they are recognized words, which seems a fairly pedantic concern to me at least when describing phenomena that don't actually exist outside of comic books and television. It's like complaining that Elvish isn't composed of "real words". Bear in mind that, unlike Wikipedia, we make no claims of being an encyclopaedia, and our subject matter is innately the product of fantasy.</rant>--Hardvice (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2006 (EST)

How about Freeze or Freezing -Level 18:02, 28 December 2006 (EST)

• Just for the sake of argument, I'm going to throw out there one more time the option that we just get rid of Cryokinice generation entirely until we have a better idea who uses it, how it works, and oh yeah, whether it actually exists or not. We're spending a lot of effort worrying about a power we've never seen used.--Hardvice (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2006 (EST)
  • I think we have reasonable evidence that such a power exists, since I know of no better explanation for how James Walker and a police officer ended up frozen solid without being in a freezer or a tank of liquid nitrogen. Given the circumstances of James Walker's death, I think it's also reasonable to conclude that Sylar has this power. I will cheerfully agree, however, that we're getting excessively wrapped up in semantics. I like "cryokinesis" because it's concise and it fits the comic-book feel of the show, but I'm not going to engage in an editing war over it. --Ted C 15:22, 28 December 2006 (EST)
    • Honestly, this power (and everything else Sylar has been shown doing) *could* be explained with his telekinesis - in this case, slowing molecules down until they're frozen. I agree that it's very likely Sylar has a seperate cold-related power, but it's not proven yet. Also, the word "cryokinesis" is terrible - it means, literally, "cold movement", which isn't a very accurate phrase. I would suggest "cryogenesis" instead, which means "cold creation". Pyrokinesis is somewhat different, since fire is something that can realistically be moved. unless 19:50, 8 January 2007 (EST)
      • I've addressed that on the Theories page. --Ted C 09:20, 9 January 2007 (EST)