Help talk:Naming conventions

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>

Naming conventions

• Nicely done, Hardvice. This will make a handy reference when trying to decide on appropriate names. (Admin 23:06, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
  • It can probably be expanded with things other than powers and characters, but again, Halo 3...--Hardvice (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

With the new idea in motion...

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)"

?--Riddler 23:53, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

• Probably--Hardvice (talk) 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. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Nicely updated. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 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. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/4/2007 17:18 (EST)

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. 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.--Hardvice (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (EST)
  • Alright, thanks for telling me. :) Jason Garrick 16:16, 5 December 2007 (EST)