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)
• When was it ever called super strength? It's been consistently called just strength more. --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (EST)
  • Powerless--Micah said it. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Naming Conventions, they are great but...

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?

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.--.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 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. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 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?--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?".

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.--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. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 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).--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.--Hardvice (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2007 (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 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 character box, Evolved Human Abilities section, and any other necessary changes)
• 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?--Hardvice (talk) 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 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 "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. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Okay, I've added a first attempt. LMK what y'all think.--Hardvice (talk) 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. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 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...--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.--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. (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? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 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. --Bob (talk) 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. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 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.--Bob (talk) 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 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)
Canon Description Derivative
Common name
Description
Possessor --SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

• Ryan and Bob were debating scientific vs. comic book experts as regards to ability names, but I'm not sure it's really a new standard. They're just clarifying the existing viewpoint of scientific over comic book names when the status level is equal. I agree agree with that and the info. could probably be added to the help.
  However, I think the point Admin was making on Talk:Gravitational manipulation is a different issue, and that the following line of Help:Naming conventions#Ability names could be clarified/corrected: Names derived from a canon or near-canon description (invisibility from "Nobody sees me! I'm invisible!", flight from "I think I can fly!") should be treated as though the name is from a canon or near-canon source.
  We are not following this in the ability which was originally named "vortex creation", which is a name derived from an episode (canon) source that described Stephen Canfield's ability as to "create vortexes". Instead we are using the assignment tracker, a Heroes Evolutions (near-canon) source that explicitly named it as "gravitational manipulation". According to the existing guidelines, derived names are supposed to be treated as though they have equal level, but we are not doing that. Instead, we are using a reference that was explicitly made at near-canon level over a derived canon name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Well said, Miami. I don't think we need to redo the entire hierarchy or even to modify the guidelines very much. The guidelines are pretty clear and are well thought out. The above section simply takes the idea that in certain situations, a near-canon source would take precedence over a canon source. Canfield's ability is a perfect example: Meredith (reading from Company files) said in an episode (a canon source) that Canfield can create vortexes, so we used the name "vortex creation." Then the assignment tracker profile (a near-canon source) was released, and we used the name it gave instead of the name from the canon source. However, the reason for this is because the canon source never explicitly gave the name--we used a description based on words from a reliable scientific expert (the Company files) in a canon source. But the near-canon source is also a reliable scientific expert, only the name of the power is explicitly given, so we ended up using that name instead.

    As for modifying the help page, at the very most, we could add a bullet to the Guidelines for names derived from Heroes sources section. But even that is not necessary, in my opinion, so long as we look at each name individually and consider it on its own, which we do ad nauseum. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

    • Ok, good that we agree on the issue being discussed. However, I would like to note that I disagree that being explicitly given should mean that a higher-level source gets trumped by one of lower level. I think one reason that line of help guidelines I am referring to was written that way was because names/terminology based on words spoken in the episodes would be more familiar to viewers. Imho, that's one of the compromises made to make the wiki more accessible to those who only watch the show and that's more important than using an explicitly-cited name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I understand where you're coming from, but the problem comes from when we assign "levels" to how canonical a name is, and I'm guilty of this as well. In general, people use the words from a canon source, and form them as a description of an ability, then claim it's a canon source. It's true, it's from a canon source, but it's still a description, which would make it a level 5 on our little scale. However, the secondary sources from HE and GN's may explicitly state what an ability is called, which would be a much higher level. The issue lies with how we define these levels, which is discussed above. I feel that some abilities aren't named explicitly in a canon source (such as Stephen Canfield's ability), but are described in canon sources. This doesn't mean that it's a level 1 definition, it means that it's still a level 5, but from a canon source, which means it's a better description than something from a GN. However, if it is clearly defined in something higher (i.e. an explicit name or a name given by the user/Company/Mohinder, etc) then it has more precedent, and outranks it in importance. So, even though Stephen Canfield's ability is described in a canon source, it is not explicitly named, as it is on his assignment tracker. Similarly, Peter has called lightning by name in canon sources, even though there's the assignment tracker map tip that names it otherwise. If Peter described it as something else, then we would take into account the explicit name. However, Peter names the ability as such, so that is a canon source. Like I said, I'm guilty of stretching our rules for naming something based on canon sources (see precognitive dreaming), and that is still being highly discussed for what the name is. Ultimately, an ability should be named explicitly by the highest source. If a canon source doesn't do this, then the next highest source should be used. Hope that long explanation helps.--Bob (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Ditto. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
        • I understand where you're coming from, Bob, but there's a difference between (1) describing an ability yourself, (2) taking words from a source and converting their tense to form an ability name, and (3) taking words from a source and using them to come up with a descriptive ability name. The first and third are descriptions (level 5), but the second could be level 1 as I still maintain "vortex creation" was. The name "body insertion" is a good example of level 5 paraphrasing as Future Peter saying he put his current self inside the body of Jesse Murphy is an example of a descriptive name since the term "insertion" cannot be directly derived from "inside" ("insertion" comes from "insert").--MiamiVolts (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

2nd reason

A second reason, and just as important, is that the levels themselves define a line of trust. A good example is if someone wrote a hardback novel in which the Company explicitly called Nathan's ability aerokinesis, we probably would not rename his ability such cause such novels are often much less canon than the show. We would most likely note it, but not use it as the name itself. The trust issue is also present with the assignment tracker. We don't know who writes all of the entries, but we do know from interviews that at least some of them were written by writers who are not main staff of the show. Thus, imho, aside from entries that are displayed on the show, the tracker remains near-canon and info. from it should be treated as such and not override names from descriptions voiced in the show of equal scientific authority.--MiamiVolts (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

• I don't think there's a question about using a hardback novel over an episode, or even Heroes Evolutions content. I think it really boils down to trusting near-canon sources more. I think the hierarchy helps us if there's a conflict with two explicitly named abilities in a canon and a near-canon source. For instance, in an episode, Mohinder says to Monica "I've identified your power as adoptive muscle memory." Three days later, her assignment tracker profile comes out and the power is listed as "photographic reflexes." Well, in that case, I think we would use Mohinder's description because it's from a canon source. On the other hand, in an episode, Sylar described one of his powers as being able to freeze things, so we call it freezing. However, Sylar never explicitly named the ability--if an assignment tracker for Tracy comes out and calls the power "cold manipulation", we would use that, despite the fact that it's not from a canon source. It's less about canon vs. near-canon, and more about explicit vs. descriptions. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Actually, that's not the same situation cause Sylar is not as authoritative a source as the Company when it comes to knowledge about abilities. Thus, there is an additional reason there. If it was the Company doing the describing in the first case instead of Sylar, we might have decided differently.--MiamiVolts (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I'm not so sure Meredith was reading an actual description from the Company files when she was describing Canfield's ability, or if she was was simply telling what he could do. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Deciding on the individual example is a separate issue from deciding on the guideline, Ryan. However, the files are right in front of Meredith and Sandra and we see them reading them. I don't think it needs to be clearer than that. It is still the Company's information being relayed, and also I was corrected that it was Sandra that did the talking.--MiamiVolts (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
        • But I could read Canfield's assignment tracker profile and say the exact same thing after reading it: "He creates vortexes and makes people disappear forever." It doesn't say that in the file, but that's the conclusion I could come up with.... Yes, an explicit canon name should win over an explicit near-canon name, but a description based on canon words should not win over a explicit name given in a near-canon source. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
          • 1) It's not the assignment tracker entry that Sandra read, it was Noah's copy of their Company files which presumably is more authoritative than the brief summary listed in the assignment tracker; 2) It is not just a description based on canon words, but canon words of changed tense. As I explained in the previous thread, there is a difference (this is not the same situation as "body insertion" which is a descriptive name).--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
            • Who is to say that one set of files is more authoritative than another? I'm sure there is more there, but all we've seen are fingerprints. Sandra said, "He creates vortexes. Makes people disappear forever." That is a description of what he does, not a name for what he does. "Gravitational manipulation," despite its flaws, is a title for what he does. One is explicit, the other is not. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
              • First off, Company file info. supposedly contains the most up-to-date information on a character, and new info. could mean a new name. The assignment tracker is someone else coming back later and creating a summary of that information and putting it in the computer. What Sandra said is a description of what he does, but it's info. from the Company and her words can be changed in tense to become a title for what he does. It is that principle to which I think that line of the help refers to, and I continue to think that a title being explicit doesn't give it priority over information that can be trusted more.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
                • Her words can be changed to become a title, but her words are still not a title. "Gravitational manipulation" is, and nobody is changing any words around or messing with tenses. Thus, "vortex creation" is a title that comes from fans but derived from a description in a canon source; "gravitational manipulation" is a title that comes from a near canon source. If a title is given explicitly, why wouldn't we trust it? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
                  • Cause the title comes from a near-canon and not a canon source--that's why I don't trust it as much.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
                    • So you would rather take a description from an episode and change it into a title than trust a title given in an assignment tracker profile simply because it's from Heroes Evolutions and not from an episode? Wow.... Thank goodness they showed several assignment tracker profiles in The Butterfly Effect! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
                      • Yes, a description someone said; thank goodness indeed! :) BTW, there is a secondary reason, which I mentioned in the prior thread--that doing so is a kind of compromise that helps to keep the wiki accessible to those that just watch the show.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
                        • I disagree on both points. I don't think we should compromise. I also don't think we should favor descriptions (spoken or written) of abilities over explicitly given names for those abilities. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
                          • Let's agree to disagree then. I've posted on Talk:Gravitational manipulation for others to come read this thread, and I asked Ted to weigh in on the change Bob and you proposed so that we can get some other opinions, and then check consensus if necessary.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2008 (EDT)