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.


From Heroes Wiki
Revision as of 14:31, 13 February 2010 by imported>Intuitive Empath
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ability Naming Conventions
The following sources are used for determining evolved human ability names, in order:
1. Canon Sources Episodes
2. Near-canon Sources Webisodes,
Graphic Novels,
Heroes Evolutions
3. Secondary Sources
Episode commentary,
Heroes: Survival
4. Common names for abilities Names from other works
5. Descriptions of abilities Descriptions
6. Possessor's name If no non-speculative
description is possible

Note: The highlighted row represents the level of the source used to determine shattering's name.
iStory writer Ryan Gibson Stewart stated that Pearl and Trevor have the same ability, and it is meant to be called "shattering".
Archives Archived Topics
Nov 2008-Jan 2009
Feb 2009-Nov 2009

Glass exploding (yet again)

The writers explicitly described the ability as making glass explode. Why haven't we named this article "Glass exploding"? Unless I'm mistaken, BTE counts as a level 3 source according to the naming conventions, making "Glass exploding" rank higher then "Trevor's ability" or any descriptive name we come up with. I've seen several arguments against this ranging from the logical "Trevor tried to use his ability against Sylar, but Sylar isn't made of glass" to the less impressive arguments "Glass exploding is a stupid power". However, we have many abilities that don't cover the entire range of the power (Freezing, telepathy, telescopic vision, etc.) but we haven't changed those names because we were given an explicit name for the power. Also, Trevor was unexpectedly thrown against a wall, he would have fought back with whatever he had out of pure instinct. Then there's the fact that Sylar was wearing glasses, but that's speculative so I won't use it as support.

True, we were given names for the aforementioned cases before the ability violated the name's apparent limits, but is that such a big difference? Some have said that the name was simply the writers being snide and making a point that the ability can't be named, but isn't it much more speculative to say that writers were joking then take an explicitly listed ability name? Taking a name directly out of a quote is simply documenting, but guessing someone's intention from an internet message is making an interpretation of that message, which is apparently something we don't do here.

Yes, I know the rename discussions for this power have been held over and over again, but I had a point to make, and it made more sense to start a new message then to add to an existing one that nobody would ever check again. But as the original argument stated, the writers explicitly said "So the power as we know, is "pointing your finger and making glasses explode."". I don't see how we can argue against that.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 21:39, 3 January 2010 (EST)

  • Well, I'm not so sure, but perhaps you're right. If we're going to assume that the writers actually meant that this ability shouldn't be named, then they should've said something like "Oh, Trevor's power is so random and lame that we haven't thought a name for it". But I don't know...--Referos 09:38, 7 January 2010 (EST)
    • Agreed. --Radicell 09:49, 7 January 2010 (EST)
      • Referos, I agree with you. The writers were essentially telling us that we shouldn't worry about the name. PJDEP, you use the word "explicit" alot, but incorrectly. When something is explicit, it's direct, it's unquestionable, it's solid. If they were to say "the abilities name is insertnamehere", then it was explicitly named. If "I think" or, in this case, "as we know", is used, or anything to that effect, it still holds a certain level of ambiguity. --Riddler 10:34, 7 January 2010 (EST)
        • I didn't exactly mean the name itself was explicit (although I think I may have said that unintentionally), I meant that the description explaining how the ability worked (the quote I have in italics) was explicit. Which it is. And once again, while they may have been acting sarcastic, unless anyone can prove that they were we can't assume that it wasn't a serious response. We also shouldn't assume that the writers don't want us to worry about the name. I'm not going to exhaust myself arguing for this name, as it honestly doesn't matter to me that much, I just wanted to refute some arguments that weren't entirely correct.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 16:03, 7 January 2010 (EST)
          • Thinking about it, if it's not our job to interpret sources, then we shouldn't be analysing the irony or humour usage by the writers. They said Trevor explodes glass, so that's what we should use. The fact that they might be joking should, at most, be added to the notes section.--Referos 16:58, 14 January 2010 (EST)
            • Exactly, that's the point I've been trying to make. We don't know for certain whether they were joking or not, and it isn't our place to assume so.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 17:01, 14 January 2010 (EST)
              • Gotta be honest, hard to argue it really. It would appear he could use it on more than glass, but we're not in a position to speculate. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:25, 14 January 2010 (EST)
                • Let's wait a few weeks. I have a feeling that we might see this power again... :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (EST)
                  • Haha, I'm guessing I should start reading the istories then. --OutbackZack 20:57, 14 January 2010 (EST)
                    • Most definitely, my good sir. For many reasons! There are only two chapters of Purpose right now, so it isn't too much to get caught up. Plus, it's a great read. Should take about 10 tops to read each one, I would think. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (EST)
                      • Yes!! haha, any other currently unnamed abilities that will be appearing? :P --01:03, 15 January 2010 (EST)
                        • One at a time, my friend. And you'll get no more secrets from me. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (EST)

Name Suggestion

I know it sound like an odd name :Caesium hydroxide Mimic. User:50000JH 11:42, 15 January 2010 (EST)

  • The chances that it's that specific type of chemical is extremely unlikely and speculative, and there are better names, so it's not the best. --mc_hammark 11:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)

There is an old video on You-tube where Caesium is put into water and the reaction is the same when Trevor shoots the glass, plus Caesium and water make caesium hydroxide it can also corrode through glass.User:50000JH 11:56, 15 January 2010 (EST)

  • That would be highly speculative, given how little we know about the ability.--Realistic

Purpose info

Given all the hints a certain admin has been dropping around the wiki, I think it's safe to say that Pearl has this ability. Now, I found three references in the iStory, Pearl makes lightbulbs explode, Mulligan feels something like a bullet whiz past his head, and Mulligan refers to a pipe affected by Pearl as "disintegrated". Based on this, it looks like "glass exploding" is out. "Blasting" still seems possible, so that's what I'd vote to go with. Thoughts?--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 22:19, 1 February 2010 (EST)

  • It definitely was meant to be this ability. I originally wrote almost all references to the ability using the word "shattering". An early version of the script even had Pearl trying to shatter something that wasn't glass, but it wouldn't work. The script has gone through a few revisions since I submitted it (which is normal), and some of the references were changed. Tonight was the first time I saw it say "disintegrated". But no matter, that's part of the process for submitting something and having it approved. The question now is what we name the ability. Personally, I would have gone with "shattering" (which was still used somewhere towards the beginning of the story, I believe), but I'm fine with something else, too. As long as we have something from the story to back it up, that's all that matters. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (EST)
    • Ryan, I totally respect your writing, but if Pearl's ability to shatter glass was intended to be Trevor's ability, in my opinion you're riding a dangerous line. The main reason this ability is left unnamed is because the uncertainty that he could use it on anything but glass; He did point his fingers at Sylar. By writing that Pearl's ability is the same as these, we ignore what Trevor tried to do. I just think it's very, very iffy to take that side in your writing. That is, if I interpreted what you said right. Editing in: I didn't catch the pipe disintegrating in the story... my point is moot. Open mouth, insert foot.--Riddler 00:50, 2 February 2010 (EST)
      • Right. I was just giving some extra background to the process, and a detail from an early version of the script, which I since changed for a number of reasons. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2010 (EST)
        • Ryan, do you think the next iStory you write can include some other unnamed abilities? It would be a great oppurtunity to clear up all the retarded debates on what to call what. Something as simple as "This is Amber. She can turn stuff into sand. Her power is called Induced silification. Don't like it? Tough shit." could really turn this wiki around.—Piemanmoo 01:19, 2 February 2010 (EST)
        • If I write any more, and the powers make sense in the story, sure. And if I'm looking to lose my job, I'll definitely say, "Tough shit." :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (EST)
        • I saw the reference to shattering... I think in one option it said that Pearl 'shattered' an old sink, and then John was able to grab an old metal pipe that was connected to it and hit her. We also saw Pearl aim her finger in an image like Trevor did, if that helps you, Riddler. Still, neither is concrete to say the abilities are one and the same. What would really help from a story perspective would be John Mulligan seeing Pearl use her ability, and then recognizing it from a Primatech case file he had read about Trevor, noting that they seemed to have the same ability. All that said, I don't think we need a story perspective since RGS is the writer and can just tell us his intentions.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (EST)
          • My intentions were that Pearl and Trevor had the same ability. I also intended to refer to it as shattering. I actually did have a reference to Trevor in there (something about John remembering a case Noah told him about that really tore at Noah), but it became too wordy, so I cut it out, hoping that the finger gun and descriptions of the ability were enough to connect Pearl to Trevor. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2010 (EST)
            • And we DO NOT have to ignore what Trevor tried to do to Sylar because Pearl tried to do the same thing. She aimed at John but he moved out of the way and the old sink behind him was shattered into many....many pieces. They both aimed for someone. I'm about to do Pearl's bio, what should I change the name to? Shattering good for now? --William Strauss 06:45, 2 February 2010 (EST)
              • I can't move the page to Shattering? Why not? It won't let me --William Strauss 07:13, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                • William, if anything you just proved what I meant. She aimed it at a person, but he dodged. If it were to have hit him, what would have happened? He certainly wouldn't have "Shattered". The sink shattered 'cause it's ceramic, like most sinks. Ceramic shatters. Though I'm looking through the story... PJDEP, where does it say she disintegrated the pipe? I can't find it.--Riddler 07:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                  • I think what everyone is forgetting is what could happen is she "shattered" you. Obviously the entire person would not shatter but whose to say your bones would not shatter. Aiming at a person and shattering parts of their skeleton. perfectelly logical. --"The Listener" 08:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                  • Riddler, while fighting his way through the Eli clones, the quote is "John reaches into his overcoat and pulls out the pipe from the sink Pearl disintegrated." I read through it to fast and thought the pipe was disintegrated.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:21, 2 February 2010 (EST)
  • Also William, Admin had protected this page so no one but administrators could move it. --Leckie -- Talk 16:23, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Trevor and Pearl's ability

Until we decide upon a name, this ability should be moved to "Trevor and Pearl's ability" because saying that Pearl has "Trevor's ability" makes little sense.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:36, 2 February 2010 (EST)

  • Maybe Ryan could send Ryan an email asking how the ability should be called?--Referos 16:00, 2 February 2010 (EST)
    • Ryan is Ryan... no need for him to e-mail himself. I'll just go ahead and change the name now. Admin had protected it for administrator move only.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2010 (EST)
      • I think it was a joke --mc_hammark 16:12, 2 February 2010 (EST)
        • I feel like we've had this problem before... Why can't I remember where it came up? While it seems a little lengthy and does make sense, I think leaving it as "Trevor's ability" is fine too, since his is the fully-canon name. Either way, really.--Riddler 20:18, 2 February 2010 (EST)

The move to Shattering.

If this is to be called Shattering, I propose a split of the two abilities. Though Ryan's intent was there, the novel does not confirm them to be the same ability. If they are the same ability, once again we cannot call it "shattering": Pearl shot a ceramic sink. Ceramic, like glass, shatters. Furthermore, her intentions were to aim it at a human, just like Trevor did (except he was halted). A human would not shatter. If they were to shoot wood, it would splinter, etc, etc. Ryan, I respect your writing and your intentions, but trying to canonize Trevor's ability as only able to "Shatter" is dangerous. It's be safer to try to canonize it as able to do more, than to say it couldn't. I'd say the same thing to any writer if I had the contact information. The foot came back out of my mouth when PJDEP corrected the statement about disintegration; the pipe wasn't disintegrated, they were referring to the sink that was destroyed itself. So again, if this is to be called Shattering, I believe we need to split the two articles. If they are in fact the same ability, we cannot call it Shattering.--Riddler 20:24, 2 February 2010 (EST)

  • The term "shattering" applies to the descriptions used in the show, and by writers (RGS included). The name on its own does not need to document every single aspect of the ability, and Ryan made it clear that there was a bullet-like effect by the ability. Besides, who's to say that if it hit a person, they wouldn't shatter? --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (EST)
    • Then show an example of a human shattering within the writing. It's an assumption that can't be made. There's a difference in "not needing to describe every aspect" and describing it incorrectly. If it was a bullet-like effect, that still would shatter glass and ceramic, but what if it's used on wood? It'd splinter. If it's used on metal? It'd dent, crack, or be punctured. If Trevor and Pearl didn't aim their fingers at a human, we'd have more leeway calling it shattering, but the fact that they did implies that it has other effects, and that we cannot ignore. Now, Ryan wrote Pearl's ability. His intent may have been for her to be connected to Trevor, but this doesn't mean they are. He even noted himself that it was cut from the writing (and though it's a little different, we never include connections/information from deleted scenes in our canonicity.) If we call her ability Shattering, then we need to keep it split from Trevor. If we keep them combined, we can't call it shattering.--Riddler 20:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)
      • We cannot show an example, because it has never been effectively used against someone. Who is to say that if it hit someone, their body would not literally shatter? You're arguing that because a person does not normally shatter, this is not what the power would do. However, we are debating an issue about a show featuring ordinary people with extraordinary abilities. Until we see someone shoot another person with this ability, we cannot use it as evidence one way or another. Thus, the evidence we have is the following: The user points their hand like a gun. They "fire". A bullet-like object flies off. When it hits an object, it breaks (or, as it has been put several times, "shatters"). This is the sum total of the evidence we have, thus "shattering" is an acceptable name, confirmed by Ryan as a writer. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:47, 2 February 2010 (EST)
        • I meant the writers should show it in the writing. We can't assume it either way, Ricard, but the worse assumption is that it CAN shatter people, since, regardless of this being a show about the extraordinary, it's not normal. If the glass and ceramic broke in a different way, maybe melted or exploded, then you'd have a valid point, but they broke as they normally would if they were shot. And your evidence here is kind of pushing for the point that they should remain split for one reason: When Trevor "shot", nothing actually came out of his fingers. Ryan confirmed his intentions, but also noted that the process made it change a little. The connection to Trevor was dropped, the mention of "disintegration" wasn't in his writing, and the point of her trying to shoot a person and it not working was dropped. I'll repeat this: We can call Pearl's ability "Shattering" due to the specific writer's confirmation, but we can't link it to Trevor's if we do. He didn't write Trevor's ability himself, and the connections were dropped from his writing.--Riddler 20:55, 2 February 2010 (EST)
          • You appear to be the one making assumptions here. Who's to say nothing "came out" of Trevor's fingers? It's not visible, this much is explained by Mulligan's depiction of the events, having felt something whiz past, but not see it. The connection to Trevor was not necessarily "dropped", it was simply not included. This does not imply there is no connection. There is nothing to suggest that the abilities are different in any way. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (EST)
            • If there is no source for a connection, we can't make it. If it wasn't included, it's not canon. Simple as that, it's the same as deleted scenes. And I'm all for the abilities being referred to as the same, but not if they're to be called Shattering. Ryan's intent may not be the same as whoever wrote Trevor's ability. It's essentially a retcon, though not entirely, since neither is completely confirmed to be able to do more or less. Everyone is making an assumption, I'm just making the safer one. In the long run, my opinion is this still needs to be "Possessor's ability". We don't have enough evidence to call it Shattering no matter what was you look at it.--Riddler 21:13, 2 February 2010 (EST)
              • We're running in circles on this, so I'll just bring it to this: Ryan intended for them to be the same, and he intended to have it be "shattering". If writers on BTE speaking intentions and connections is acceptable naming policy, then so is this. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                • The intention existed but wasn't included in the writing, so it's not canon. It still doesn't cover the ability. We can drop the debate there if you'd like, but I really can't budge on this.--Riddler 21:19, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                  • Ryan's own commentary would qualify as an interview (Tier 3 as far as canonicity goes), unless I'm mistaken. Which means it is canon. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:26, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                    • I don't believe it counts as canon information regardless of an interview unless it was demonstrated somewhere. Otherwise there is probably alot of stuff we need to go back and archive/change. --Riddler 21:32, 2 February 2010 (EST)
  • Ryan explained the direct written connection was dropped only because it was too verbose. However, the connection in art, pointing the finger in the same manner, was kept, so I think we can use that as a confirmation, if we need to.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (EST)
    • I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. --Riddler 21:04, 2 February 2010 (EST)
          • Can i just point out that your arguement seems to be that the body would not shatter? That is all very well but at no point has a character made mention of that being their aim. Would it not be better to assume as an offensive ability against a human , they would use it to shatter the targets Bone structure... which i believe fits in perfectly fine with the ability, so much so, i actually had to make an account to say so. Simply because your arguement seemed so fixated on the idea of a shattering body. Basically in my view, they would shatter the bone. Thus calling it shattering is fitting and the users would have a use for it against a human and the writers a simple way to write it being used on one. You could argue it would not pass by the flesh of the target but that to me would be another endless arguement no-one would want to read..--RoninNight 02:26, 3 February 2010 (GMT)
            • Well, that's also fine and dandy, but now look at it this way: What happens if he aims it at wood or metal? Saying it's the bones that will shatter supports the idea that whatever is being shot is breaking the way it's supposed to. Glass/Bones/Ceramic = Shatter. Wood = Splinter, etc. And I'm not trying to cause an endless argument, but debating my stance on the issue and I've yet to see a counterpoint that can change my mind.--Riddler 21:33, 2 February 2010 (EST)
              • The writer of that iStory specifically said Pearl has the same ability as Trevor, and that he meant for it to be called "Shattering". Just because that writer happens to be on the wiki does not make his statement any less useable. When a writer explains the same sort of thing in an interview, we take into account what they have said and use it. There is no need for an interview here. He wants it to be the same as Trevor's, so it is. Every example of the ability we have seen up to this point has caused an object to shatter, so it is called shattering. Talking about what would or may happen is entirely speculative. Our job is to document what we see in the Heroes universe, not make assumptions or educated guesses. We have only seen it shatter things, so it is called shattering. --Skullman1392 21:50, 2 February 2010 (EST)
              • No, the writer of the iStory said that he INTENDED for it to be the same ability, and that he meant for it to be called Shattering, but those are simply intentions that were not included in the writing, for whatever the reason. I never said his place in the wiki made it less useable; just makes it easier to question it. If I had contact with writers, I'd tell them the same thing if a concern came up. For every example we've seen, the object broke as it should have. "Breaking" would be more accurate than Shattering since we don't know if it can do more or less. This isn't to say that I'm for the name breaking, but I hope you see my point. Since both Pearl and Trevor intended to use their abilities on something that normally wouldn't shatter (and to assume they're going for bones is another assumption we really can't make), we can't say that all they can do is shatter. We can say that all we have seen them do is shatter, but we cannot say all that they CAN do is shatter, because we don't know. I'm not making the assumption that they can do more, I'm making the point that we don't know if they can do more but their actions imply it. We can't ignore that. Now, if a mention in the writing specifically mentioned Trevor, I guess I wouldn't be able to argue it, but it didn't, intended or not. I do think they're the same ability. I don't think we know enough to call it Shattering. --Riddler 21:57, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                • Their actions don't imply anything. Neither Pearl nor Trevor, as far as I know, had ever used their ability on a person before. Both found themselves in a situation where their lives were threatened, and both did the only thing they know how to do--point their fingers and shoot. I don't know about Trevor, but I can say that Pearl had no idea what would have happened if she made contact with Mulligan. We don't know what would have happened, and neither did the characters. So until or unless something changes down the road (which would be very cool to see), we use the information that we have--they point and shoot, and things shatter. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                  • What we know is that they point and shoot, and the object being shot breaks as it physically should. Ryan, it's too ambiguous of a situation be able to say that they shoot and it shatters. Breaking would be more accurate.--Riddler 22:05, 2 February 2010 (EST)
                  • Look Riddler, it's not doing to get moved. Ryan is the writer and confirmed that the abilities are the same. He also said that the ability name is shattering. That means shattering is as canon as any other name we use commentary or interviews to name abilities. The use of disintegration was put in I think to establish the fact Tom Miller's ability and this one is the same, which was also said in BTE (although we took it jokingly). --mc_hammark 06:40, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                    • Both Pearl and Trevor used the exact same gesture when demonstrating this ability. Their abilities also produced the same effects: everything they pointed at shattered. This works as evidence that they have the same power.--Referos 11:36, 3 February 2010 (EST)


This is so fantastic! Heroes Wiki is almost soandso's ability free! Disintegration, Shattering, Healing Touch, Activation and Deactivation, names that describe the abilities fine and are not confusing(well Healing Touch is a bit, but maybe we can think of a better name, Life force control perhaps, or just healing.) We just need to crack a few more. Sadly, Future Terrorist is dead and gone, but i think we haven't seen the end of this, Melting Beam Emission works fine for me. Gordon Tovey, if i'm not mistaken, should be returning or at least be mentioned again, and to be honest, i think, since we use Freezing for Tracy's ability to manipulate, turn into, and shoot water, we can use Sand manipulation, or mimicry, or perhaps mutation, because despite being a bit incorrect, it certainly works. Silification was always a favourite of mine though. I still think David, Mohinder, and Elephant Man all had the same form of ability, an uncatalysed synthetic ability that went wrong. It's clear it's not just a normal one. For Joseph, Emotion or Empathic Manipulation is really canon, Samuel says something like 'don't alter my emotions' and for Ricky, well, it's ongoing, so hopefully we'll get more soon. For now the best i can think is Dissolving. And for Alejandro, Poison Emisson Supression sounds pretty correct, or something like that. For me, soandso's ability abilities are more annoying than red links, because they just don't work as a name. We can do this! MIDAS 13:58, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Do you tink more of the ability will be shown next week?

Or is the story over? I really would prefer it if the ability will be shown used on a human, so that the debate on what will happen if the ability is used on a human, would it shatter just the bones or the whole person as it is? Someone here is a writer there, right? So if anyone can confirm if the ability will furthermore be used, please answer me.--Realistic 16:12, February 6 2010

  • Hi, Realistic. I wrote chapter 5 of Purpose. No, I don't think this ability will be seen in the next iStory chapter. I haven't read chapter 6 yet, but it was being written at the same time as chapter 5. When I read the outline for chapter 6, Pearl wasn't included in the story. So unfortunately, we'll have to wait until some other time to hopefully see this power again. It's a favorite of mine! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2010 (EST)