This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.
Talk:Electric manipulation
Title photo
I must say, good choice for the title photo. I was torn between something like this and electric kiss.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- It's one of my favorite power photos--I love the expression on Elle's face. In fact, I'm seriously considering swapping it for Image:Powers dl nikis cell.jpg (in templates like this) to represent powers in general. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Lightning?
Come on, you have to be kidding me. Lightning?!?! Is that the best name you all can create? Exactly what was wrong with Electromagnestism?--The Empath 13:43, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- The writers said it didn't apply to Elle's power in a Behind the Eclipse.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- But still everyone here can come up with a better name than "Lightning".--The Empath 13:51, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- It's not a matter of "coming up" with anything. Lightning has been used repeatedly in canonical and near canonical sources to refer to the ability. Until Mohinder decides to give it another name, it's the term that has to be used. (Admin 14:36, 14 November 2007 (EST))
- Plus they never explicitly stated that electrokinesis or anything else was the proper name for it, they just prefered it when given the choice between it or electromagnetism. All other powers have been given proper names either in the show or by the show's staff. A good example is that originally Peter's power was just called power mimicry before getting the word empath added. --PeterDawson 14:54, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- I think Lightning is the best name for it, especially in light of Four Months Ago.... Clearly (to me, anyway), Elle releases lightning bolts from her fingers (and mouth).-- Lost Soul talk contribs 14:56, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- If its not a matter of "coming up" with a name then where the hell did you get the name Electromagnetism? I don't recall it being called that in the graphic novel or on screen.--The Empath 21:44, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- We came up with that name because no name was given for the power. When a name is given, we use it. When no name is given, we consult other sources. When no other sources give it, we generally name it ourselves. See Help:Naming conventions#Power Names for a full breakdown on the process. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- If its not a matter of "coming up" with a name then where the hell did you get the name Electromagnetism? I don't recall it being called that in the graphic novel or on screen.--The Empath 21:44, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- I think Lightning is the best name for it, especially in light of Four Months Ago.... Clearly (to me, anyway), Elle releases lightning bolts from her fingers (and mouth).-- Lost Soul talk contribs 14:56, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Plus they never explicitly stated that electrokinesis or anything else was the proper name for it, they just prefered it when given the choice between it or electromagnetism. All other powers have been given proper names either in the show or by the show's staff. A good example is that originally Peter's power was just called power mimicry before getting the word empath added. --PeterDawson 14:54, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- It's not a matter of "coming up" with anything. Lightning has been used repeatedly in canonical and near canonical sources to refer to the ability. Until Mohinder decides to give it another name, it's the term that has to be used. (Admin 14:36, 14 November 2007 (EST))
- But still everyone here can come up with a better name than "Lightning".--The Empath 13:51, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Look, what I want to point out is the only difference between the Agent using this power and Elle using it is that the Agent uses it to levitate some and Elle doesn't. Other than that, the powers are THE SAME. Your descriptions for the powers on the pages are simular there for making the powers simular. I'm trying to say is that you should make some distinction between them or IMO combine them back and call the power "Electricity Manipulation".--The Empath 22:04, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- I'm not educated in the powers of Elle, but the production of lightning has to do with the separation of extremely different charges of atoms or particles within the air. Meaning that Elle MUST have control over the polarization of those particles. Thus, an appropriate name could be Electric Manipulation. I agree with The Empath in such that if two different articles have the same discription or definition, that is terms for merging the two articles. Repetition is not good. Electromagnetism refers to controlling the polariztion of particles so that they attract to each other. This makes the names of the abilities the same...but Electromagnetism gives a very specific sense of her ability and does not capture it as a whole.--Free Willy 22:15, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- The ability to levitate or not is a pretty big difference. Other abilities are similar (Linderman's and Claire's) but not the same. The distinction we've made is separating the powers since they're not the same. Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite have said as much. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Its Electrical Manipulation or Electrokinesis... Look at any comic book website. Really, if you Look at Johnny Ohm from Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects (the videogame) he has this exact power we are talking about and its just one ability. Put it in one category or change one of the definitions so at least they are not the same. --.Vault 22:43, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- The Lightning page has the "Ability to" as to generate electrical energy. One can create electrical energy without creating/causing lightning! The elctromagnetism page says this: Manipulate and/or generate electrostatic energy. These are the same. This either needs to be changed to make a distinction between the two or I vote to remerge the articles.--Free Willy 22:48, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- I second that. They are clearly the same abilities, I don't know why you all don't see that.--The Empath 22:49, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- See User:Heroe/electromagnetically-based abilities for a compare-and-contrast of this ability and electromagnetism. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 22:59, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- They are not the same ability. I tend to take the writers' words above my own ideas, the consensus of other fans, and certainly over comic books which exist in a different world than Heroes. To see what the writers have to say about it (specifically that say it's not the same power), see here. For a discussion on the split, see here. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Ignoring for a moment the fact that the writers stated that Elle's power doesn't include magnetism, if they were indeed the same power then the term that must be used for both has to be lightning. That term has been used canonically to describe Elle's (and Peter's) power. There is no other option for the name of that power in that instance. The reason for the split was because the term lightning didn't seem to best describe what the agent was exhibiting since he also levitated (plus the writers explicitly said her power didn't involve electromagnetism). If it were the same power Elle and Peter will be able to use the power of lightning to levitate, but to make that claim seemed more speculative (since it's not yet been observed) so the powers were split just to play it safe. When in doubt and when there is no canonical reference that states otherwise it is safer to split powers into two articles rather than claim that they're the same exact power. (Admin 23:04, 14 November 2007 (EST))
- The Lightning page has the "Ability to" as to generate electrical energy. One can create electrical energy without creating/causing lightning! The elctromagnetism page says this: Manipulate and/or generate electrostatic energy. These are the same. This either needs to be changed to make a distinction between the two or I vote to remerge the articles.--Free Willy 22:48, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Its Electrical Manipulation or Electrokinesis... Look at any comic book website. Really, if you Look at Johnny Ohm from Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects (the videogame) he has this exact power we are talking about and its just one ability. Put it in one category or change one of the definitions so at least they are not the same. --.Vault 22:43, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Dude here is what it says: Peter continues, On a small side note, are Elle's powers just electricity or is it electro-magnetism? A guy who appeared in the comics had electro-magnetism, so I'm just curious if it's the exact same power or just good old electrokinesis. Good old electrokinesis. She's no Magneto. More Living Lightning. Yes. We said Living Lightning. Acording to him, the power is "Good old electrokinesis". You've proven that its not Electromagnetism, I rest my case. Then lets call this article Electrokinesis. It's got a source and all so why not? :-) --The Empath 23:10, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- There's a pretty lengthy discussion, summary, and vote on the subject of calling the power "electrokinesis". Personally, I feel the writers were just repeating the term given to them rather than actually calling the power by that name. But Elle's and the agent's powers are still not necessarily the same powers. They might be different iterations of the same power, or they might be two different powers altogether. Elle does not levitate like the agent does, and that's a pretty big difference. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- The only problem I have is that the descriptions must be changed between the two pages, otherwise it seems redundant. Right now the descriptions are EXACTLY the same word for word. Someone who is more knowledgable about why you guys split them in the first place should change one of them. Random guy 23:15, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- This is also a concern of mine. The descriptions need to be changed in order to discren between the two.--Free Willy 23:17, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- I don't mind fixing the descriptions, but it seems silly to me to change the infobox description (which is perfectly fine) when the lead text is much more descriptive and specific. I wouldn't mind a tweak, though. However, the more we add levitation to electromagnetism, the more I want to remove the teenage patient and call his power something different altogether. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- I am sorry, I wasn't specific about the description. What I meant was that the "Limits" section both read "Users of this power can generate electrical arcs between themselves and other people or objects within a range of at least a few meters. The amount of current that such arcs can carry is not known. Users of the power are not harmed by electrical currents that they create themselves; it is not clear whether this power gives resistance to electrical current from other sources." on both pages. I think that one of these descriptions should be changed. Random guy 12:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- If thats true then move him to Electrokinesis. Done and done.--The Empath 23:34, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- We have a name from the writers for his power, too. Mark Sable called it "electrical absorption".--Hardvice (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- I don't mind fixing the descriptions, but it seems silly to me to change the infobox description (which is perfectly fine) when the lead text is much more descriptive and specific. I wouldn't mind a tweak, though. However, the more we add levitation to electromagnetism, the more I want to remove the teenage patient and call his power something different altogether. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- This is also a concern of mine. The descriptions need to be changed in order to discren between the two.--Free Willy 23:17, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Well, I created the article Electrokinesis but it was deleted...Would you like to vote on changing it to Electrokinesis?--The Empath 23:53, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Changing what to electrokinesis?--Hardvice (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- This article to Electrokinesis.--The Empath 23:56, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- No. That ship has sailed. "Lightning" is used in canon sources. "Electrokinesis" was repeated in an interview. Only another canon source name can replace it at this point. See Help:Naming conventions.--Hardvice (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- So then what was stated here doesn't have anything to do with the Heroes cannon?--The Empath 00:05, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Sure it does. It's a secondary source. Now, assuming for a moment that the writers agreed that that's the name, and that they weren't merely repeating what was said in the question, then the episodes and the graphic novels still win out over an interview. See Help:Sources. However, I personally don't believe that they stated that was the name; I think they merely repeated it the way it was phrased in the question for clarity.--Hardvice (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Ok then I must not be understanding somthing here. You all are about "sources, sources, sources" in order to make a right change. I gave one and yet somehow its not creditable enough? Thats bull and you know it.--The Empath 00:21, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Please read Help:Sources yet again. Not all sources are the same. Canon sources (episodes, graphic novels) trump secondary sources.--Hardvice (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Okay, Seriously. They are the same ability, people are just learning to use them at different rates. How are we supposed to know Elle can't levitate? Plus Elle can absorb Electricity as well cause when she told Peter her life story she told him she knocked out power to 8 counties. HOW ELSE DO YOU DO THAT WITHOUT ABSORBING ELECTRICITY? They are all the same ability. Electrokinesis, or the MANIPULATION (which is what they seem to be doing) of electricity. I say we just make an Electrokinesis page and list off the individual notes for each character so far... since thats all we can really do. Cause if we do this we should split up Pyrokinesis as well.... cause Meredith has only shown us she can create it, not throw it. But we shouldn't do that cause we know its the same ability. Like Electrokinesis.--.Vault 23:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Even if we combined the powers again, we'd still be stuck calling them all "lightning", the name used in a canon source, not "electrokinesis", a name which was possibly used in a secondary source, so it's a moot point. However, at this stage of the game it's highly speculative to say that any of the three abilities is the same. All three involve electricity, but each includes elements the others do not. It's safer to list them separately, which leaves open the possibility that they're different manifestations of the same power, rather then listing them together, which declares that to be the case.--Hardvice (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Also, combining them seems to go directly against what Joe and Aron told us, which is that Elle's power does not include any magnetism, and is not same as the agent's power. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- Also, if people are dead set on recombining them, here's another reason we're still stuck with "lightning": Peter calls the agent's power "lightning" in Walls, Part 2. Now, since we have a secondary source claim that they're two separate powers, I think it's fine to separate them, assume Peter just didn't understand all aspects of the power in Walls, and go from there. But if they are recombined, all sources point to lightning.--Hardvice (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- Also, combining them seems to go directly against what Joe and Aron told us, which is that Elle's power does not include any magnetism, and is not same as the agent's power. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- Even if we combined the powers again, we'd still be stuck calling them all "lightning", the name used in a canon source, not "electrokinesis", a name which was possibly used in a secondary source, so it's a moot point. However, at this stage of the game it's highly speculative to say that any of the three abilities is the same. All three involve electricity, but each includes elements the others do not. It's safer to list them separately, which leaves open the possibility that they're different manifestations of the same power, rather then listing them together, which declares that to be the case.--Hardvice (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Okay, Seriously. They are the same ability, people are just learning to use them at different rates. How are we supposed to know Elle can't levitate? Plus Elle can absorb Electricity as well cause when she told Peter her life story she told him she knocked out power to 8 counties. HOW ELSE DO YOU DO THAT WITHOUT ABSORBING ELECTRICITY? They are all the same ability. Electrokinesis, or the MANIPULATION (which is what they seem to be doing) of electricity. I say we just make an Electrokinesis page and list off the individual notes for each character so far... since thats all we can really do. Cause if we do this we should split up Pyrokinesis as well.... cause Meredith has only shown us she can create it, not throw it. But we shouldn't do that cause we know its the same ability. Like Electrokinesis.--.Vault 23:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Please read Help:Sources yet again. Not all sources are the same. Canon sources (episodes, graphic novels) trump secondary sources.--Hardvice (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Ok then I must not be understanding somthing here. You all are about "sources, sources, sources" in order to make a right change. I gave one and yet somehow its not creditable enough? Thats bull and you know it.--The Empath 00:21, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Sure it does. It's a secondary source. Now, assuming for a moment that the writers agreed that that's the name, and that they weren't merely repeating what was said in the question, then the episodes and the graphic novels still win out over an interview. See Help:Sources. However, I personally don't believe that they stated that was the name; I think they merely repeated it the way it was phrased in the question for clarity.--Hardvice (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- So then what was stated here doesn't have anything to do with the Heroes cannon?--The Empath 00:05, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- No. That ship has sailed. "Lightning" is used in canon sources. "Electrokinesis" was repeated in an interview. Only another canon source name can replace it at this point. See Help:Naming conventions.--Hardvice (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- This article to Electrokinesis.--The Empath 23:56, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Changing what to electrokinesis?--Hardvice (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2007 (EST)
A true analogy
Ok lightning is to electromagnetism as Fire is to pyrokinesis. We might as well called Meredith's power "fire". Lighting is just... It doesn't explain the power at all. Does Elle eat lightning? Does she fart lightning? If anything we should say that she "manipulates" it. Lightning is very plain. And it is used in canonical sources but I still think we should add manipulation. I'm going to have to agree with THe Empath. Jason Garrick 23:44, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- Thank you Jason.--The Empath 23:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- "Lightning" is the name used consistently in the show, in the graphic novels, and in the episode commentaries. We're stuck with it.--Hardvice (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- No offense. but define constantly? In the show they never say that D.L. phases through walls. They say he walks through walls. Then I'll have to vote on walkthroughwallskinesis. Not to be rude or anything but I'm just trying to interpret back to you the logic that your saying. Also, they Haitian's powers are described as a "negation". The name lightning. I'm imagining the pretty yellow line in the sky... Jason Garrick 23:55, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- They have indeed called D.L.'s power "phasing". Elle has referred to her power as "lightning". Peter tried yelling "lightning" to get it to work. They call it "lightning" several times in a graphic novel called, oddly enough, "Petrified Lightning". Tim Kring called it "lightning" in the episode commentary. So did Greg Beeman. So did Milo Ventimiglia.--Hardvice (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- They have indeed called D.L.'s power "phasing". Elle has referred to her power as "lightning". Peter tried yelling "lightning" to get it to work. They call it "lightning" several times in a graphic novel called, oddly enough, "Petrified Lightning". Tim Kring called it "lightning" in the episode commentary. So did Greg Beeman. So did Milo Ventimiglia.--Hardvice (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2007 (EST)
"D.L. can phase inside the buildings. Candice's illusion can distract the guards."
- - Future Hiro (to Ando) (Five Years Gone)
"Why did you take that bullet? You could've let it phase right through you."
- - Niki (to D.L.) (How to Stop an Exploding Man)
--Ice Vision 00:06, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- What's wrong with simple names? After all, we have flight and persuasion. We're not going to change those anytime soon. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 00:08, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- I agree with you. I like simple names, like lightning. Complicated names are too... complicated.--Ice Vision 00:09, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- The only reason there is nothing wrong with flight or persuasion is because those are the correct terms for the powers used in other sources (comics).--The Empath 00:12, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- No. The reason those are the correct names is that, in the case of flight, it's a name used in a canon source, and in the case of persuasion, it's a name used in interviews. Other comics come quite far down the list.--Hardvice (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Let me also include that in the case of persuasion there was never a more authoritative (as explained in Help:Sources) name provided which is why the interview term was sufficient in this instance. (Admin 00:18, 15 November 2007 (EST))
- No. The reason those are the correct names is that, in the case of flight, it's a name used in a canon source, and in the case of persuasion, it's a name used in interviews. Other comics come quite far down the list.--Hardvice (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- The only reason there is nothing wrong with flight or persuasion is because those are the correct terms for the powers used in other sources (comics).--The Empath 00:12, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- I agree with you. I like simple names, like lightning. Complicated names are too... complicated.--Ice Vision 00:09, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Complicated? Adding one word Lightning manipulation is hardly complicated. Electronic Data Transception is complicated. Okay, I must sleep, this feels like the Monkey Scopes Trial. hahaha. But I just think a word like control or manipulation could better help people understand the power. Jason Garrick 00:18, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- I just hope Mohinder examines Elle soon and gives us a better name for her ability like he did for Monica. :) (Admin 00:20, 15 November 2007 (EST))
- Yes that would be extremely helpful. Jason Garrick 00:21, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Assuming for a moment that we were going to take a canon source name and mess with it, which we aren't, "lightning control" or "lightning manipulation" both sound incorrect. They sound like she's doing something to lightning which already exists. She isn't--she's producing or generating lightning. If I have the superpower to make cats appear, that's not covered by "cat manipulation" or "cat control". As anyone who has ever spent time around cats can attest, there's a big difference between getting a cat and controlling a cat.--Hardvice (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Then why not like my friend Will suggested, change the article to somthing that does make since like Electric Manipulation. I as well must sleep.--The Empath 00:25, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- I just hope Mohinder examines Elle soon and gives us a better name for her ability like he did for Monica. :) (Admin 00:20, 15 November 2007 (EST))
Naming conventions analysis
Since nobody seems to want to read the naming conventions and understand why this change was made, let's walk through it:
- FIRST, names from episodes. RESULT: Lightning <-- In truth, we stop here
- SECOND, and ONLY IF no names from episodes, names from Heroes graphic novels. RESULT: Lightning
- THIRD, and ONLY IF no names from graphic novels, secondary sources. RESULTS: Electrokinesis from BTE (maybe), Lightning from episode commentaries
- FOURTH, and ONLY IF no names from secondary sources, descriptive names. THIS INCLUDES ANY NAME YOU WANT TO MAKE UP THAT HASN'T BEEN AIRED OR PRINTED SOMEWHERE
- FIFTH, and ONLY IF no descriptive name is possible, "So-and-so's power".
Now, we stop here at the very first step. If we'd continued to the second step, it would still be "lightning". If we had continued to the third step, it would probably still be lightning because "lightning" is used more than the only other name in secondary sources, "electrokinesis". We can't even consider making up a name because we already have names to choose from. Hope that helps and doesn't come across as rude; I really do want everybody to understand how and why the change was made. As always, please see Help:Naming conventions and Help:Sources for more on how we choose names and which sources trump which other sources.--Hardvice (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Ok then that creates an even bigger problem with this site. List some sources for the power names Empathic mimicry, Induced radioactivity, Water mimicry, Mental manipulation, and Intuitive aptitude. Don't you dare, tell me that your basing the names based on quote like Claude calling Peter an empath (when clearly Empathy has NOTHING to do with mimicry of powers).--The Empath 00:40, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Induced radioactivity comes from the Genesis Files, a canon source (step #1). We're stuck with it. Water mimicry is descriptive (step #4), but based on the text in the novel--he says he can mimic the density of water, and also that he can turn his body into liquid. Empathic mimicry is also descriptive, though based (as you guessed) in part on Claude's statement. Mental manipulation is descriptive; although the individual aspects of his power have been mentioned, no name has ever been given which covers both negating powers and erasing memories. Intuitive aptitude is descriptive; the power has never even been officially acknowledged. In every case you mention, the highest-ranking option has been used. There are no canon, near-canon, or secondary source names for mental manipulation, intuitive aptitude, empathic mimicry, or water mimicry. There is a canon source name for induced radioactivity. There's nothing wrong with descriptive names without sources--they just shouldn't be used when a better source exists. I hope that illustrates the naming conventions in operation.--Hardvice (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- I think it would be good, as a point of procedure, to use the naming conventions table much like a new episode checklist at the start of naming a power. That will resolve alot of the back and forth. Combined with the realization that this is a documentary not a creation. So even though our "Spontaneous Discharge of Electromagnetic Force" is more specific than "Lightning" that's too bad because that's what the creators called it, so that's what we document.--Mish(Talk) 13:38, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- That's a great idea. Hardvice, do you have any objections to putting the simplified chart you made (the one at User:Admin/Power name origination) into a template? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- I was thinking more like
- I was thinking more like
- That's a great idea. Hardvice, do you have any objections to putting the simplified chart you made (the one at User:Admin/Power name origination) into a template? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- I think it would be good, as a point of procedure, to use the naming conventions table much like a new episode checklist at the start of naming a power. That will resolve alot of the back and forth. Combined with the realization that this is a documentary not a creation. So even though our "Spontaneous Discharge of Electromagnetic Force" is more specific than "Lightning" that's too bad because that's what the creators called it, so that's what we document.--Mish(Talk) 13:38, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- Induced radioactivity comes from the Genesis Files, a canon source (step #1). We're stuck with it. Water mimicry is descriptive (step #4), but based on the text in the novel--he says he can mimic the density of water, and also that he can turn his body into liquid. Empathic mimicry is also descriptive, though based (as you guessed) in part on Claude's statement. Mental manipulation is descriptive; although the individual aspects of his power have been mentioned, no name has ever been given which covers both negating powers and erasing memories. Intuitive aptitude is descriptive; the power has never even been officially acknowledged. In every case you mention, the highest-ranking option has been used. There are no canon, near-canon, or secondary source names for mental manipulation, intuitive aptitude, empathic mimicry, or water mimicry. There is a canon source name for induced radioactivity. There's nothing wrong with descriptive names without sources--they just shouldn't be used when a better source exists. I hope that illustrates the naming conventions in operation.--Hardvice (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2007 (EST)
| Source | Cite |
| 1st In Show | Yes/No (Where) |
| 2nd In Novel | Yes/No (Where) |
| 3rd In Interview | Yes/No (Where) |
| 4th In some other material | Yes/No (Where) |
| 5th We just make this up | Yes/No (Where) |
Sort of like an algorythm or flow-chart. If NO then goto #2, if YES then WHERE. That kinda thing. --Mish(Talk) 13:54, 16 November 2007 (EST)
Peter's Citations and other inconsistencies now created
This two-page electric-split is very confusing. Take Peter for example. Present Peter is listed with this page. However, Future Peter is listed on the other electric page. However, after re-reading Walls 1 & 2, I can't find any characteristics that Future-Peter exhibited with electricty in Walls that differs from the exhibitions Present-Peter has made with electricity. Peter, whether future or present, simply casts electricity/lightning/charged particles, whatever...from his body at other people.
Yet, Peter is split across two different power pages, as if Peter has manifested different electric characteristics and different electric abilities. But Future-Peter and Present-Peter have manifested the same electric characteristics. Peter shouldn't be split across two different power pages, if he himself, hasn't exhibited two different characteristics of two different powers. Have two different pages if you must here....but both Peter's should be on one or the other, and not split across both. It seems to me that the desire to split the power is strong; but the clarity of distinction between the characteristics of the powers and who displays them is weak.
From my observations, there are three fundamental electric power characteristics that have been displayed. 1) Emitting Electrical Flows 2) Absorbing Electricity 3) Levitation via Electrical Control
Future-Peter and Present-Peter have only displayed #1. The Hospital Patient has only displayed #2. Elle has only displayed #1, but has claimed to do #2 (in regards to the town). The Moab Agent has only displayed #1 and is the only one to display #3.
So it's an intermingled mess; and not a clearly 1 and 2 split.
- Peter only Emits electrical flows, but doesn't absorb or levitate via electricity.
- Elle emits electrical flows and claims to absorb electricity, but doesn't levitate.
- Hospital Patient only absorbs electricity, but doesn't emit electrical flows nor levitate.
- Moab Agent emits and levitates, but doesn't absorb electricity.
The characteristics of the electrical powers displayed just doesn't fit cleanly into '2' categories. There are really 3 categories.
Leaving them combined as one category, seems to avoid the confusion of characteristics that don't fit by simply allowing one page to show all the variations....but its biggest downfall is an acceptible name....and noone seems to agree on one over-all umbrella name describing the power of 'electrical/lightning power'.
Spliting them into two categories better suits the naming convention concerns, but it creates two categories that don't accurately fit with the 3-phased characteristics that have been shown.
My biggest fear, is that with so much dissent and impassioned concern over this name-split....what precedence is going to befall us in the future when previously static powers start introduce new characteristics or variations...and we end up with 15 or 20 multi-split power pages that fundamentally are only describing 3 or 4 root powers?
Have we really gone beyond the point of return, that we can't have one page for 'Electrical/Lightning' that umbrellas all the 4 people that have manifested various aspects and characteristics of that power, so that it is not confusion, and easy to keep up with? If we have a new character next week who can stick his finger in a light-socket, and then make a lightning wall around his body, would that then merit another split-off page? If another character shows up after that, and can pull lightning out of clouds, and use it to aluminate bulbs or weld; then does that variation merit yet another spin-off page?
I just can't see why, (other than lack of a concensus name), that one page dedicated to people with 'electrical/lightning' abilities can't be the best approach for now. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11/16/2007 15:12 (EST)
- The patient in Blackout actually does emit electrical charges. That's how he knocks out the Company Man.--Mish(Talk) 15:42, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- Also, I doubt the Heroes TV Show and Graphic Novels will ever have 250 characters with electrically based powers. I think it's fairly safe to take 3 seemingly seperate powers and list them as such until such a point as they are shown to be the same or similar enough to be listed together.--Mish(Talk) 16:25, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- The reason for the split on Peter is simple. Regardless of what abilities he displayed, Future Peter got his power from the agent, and thus has duped the agent's power, whatever it is--he acknowledges that it's a new power for him, so presumably Future Peter never met Elle. Present-day Peter got his power from Elle. That's all there is to it, really.
As for combining the people who actually possess the power (setting aside people who have duplicated it), it's speculative to say they have the same power because, in the case of two of them, we have canon or secondary source names that fit well with the fact that they are capable of very different things. Splitting powers based on how we observe them isn't saying that they are definitely separate powers, it's merely saying that they have different observed effects. However, combining them on one page under one name is saying that they are definitely the same power. That's speculation. We can't just assume that everyone with an electrical power which manifests differently has the same power any more than we could assume that Micah and Hana, who can both talk to machines, have the same power.--Hardvice (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2007 (EST) - Also, it's overstating Elle's claim to say that she claims she can absorb electricity. She claimed she caused a power outage; she didn't say how, or even that it was with her powers. It could have resulted from an overload (yes, that requires some suspension of disbelief) or she could have just knocked over an electrical pole on a tractor.--Hardvice (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- And I couldn't agree with you more that there are three categories (really three powers). That's why we're trying to split electromagnetism again, so we will have three articles.--Hardvice (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (EST)
- Well said. I agree that separating the people doesn't mean they definitely have different powers. It's kind like how Austin and Linderman were separate articles for quite some time--they're not separate people, we just hadn't received enough information at the time to say they were the same person. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2007 (EST)