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:Cloning/Archive 1

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:Cloning/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Cloning. Archive.jpg


"Clone" appears in the novel introduction. Adam uses "replicate" in the novel. Either "Cloning" or "Replication" is probably acceptable, and either one is based on a near-canon source. Any strong opinions?--Hardvice (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (EST)

  • My "opinions" are stated on Talk:Duplication.--Tim Thomason 03:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • To head off any unnecessary discussion, the only options are "cloning", "replication", or "duplication", as those names are used in a near-canon source. No other names can be considered, no matter how wicked-cool you think they are, unless they come from an episode.--Hardvice (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • cloning. the seems the most fitting name for the ability. well, lets be honest, cloning means: "the process of creating an identical copy of something. In biology, it collectively refers to processes used to create copies of DNA fragments (molecular cloning), cells (cell cloning), or organisms." "Self replication" ( seems to be the most precise term possible tho :D

Merged talk from Talk:Duplication


All of these are mentioned in some way in the GN (none directly, just "duplicates," "replicates," "clones"). I could go either way, but the page should be moved (if necessary) to the "correct" page, and the others should be redirects.--Tim Thomason 03:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Okay, someone created cloning (I made mine first!), but it's better than mine, so I guess merging won't be necessary.--Tim Thomason 03:51, 27 November 2007 (EST)

  • I just went with "cloning" because it was already redlinked from Evan. I actually prefer duplication or replication because they're less "loaded" than cloning, but it's really all about the same to me. If anything, we could go with "replication" because it appears in the text of the novel, while the other two only appear in the introduction, but I don't think that really matters.--Hardvice (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • For now, I'll go ahead and merge these two articles under "cloning" and we can go with whatever name people like later, just to keep the discussion centralized.--Hardvice (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • I started the term cloning (on the evan page), but I do prefere replication Dman Dustin
      • Since the graphic novel introductions have never been considered very reliable, are often filled with dubious information, and are definitely not written by the author of the graphic novel, I would feel much more comfortable using the term used by Oliver Grigsby himself. He used the word "replicate", so I'm under the impression that the best name for the power is "replication". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • Cloning just sounds... too... I don't know, scientific? Not the word I was looking for. >_> Let's just say I'm a way bigger fan of Duplication. --AnotherNella 06:17, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • I agree with Ryan, given the content of the graphic novel "replication" looks like the best name to me as well. (Admin 09:43, 27 November 2007 (EST))
  • Replication or Duplication, gets my vote. Duplication is the name of the power from the Marvel Comics (Multiple Man). Cloning just strikes of controversy. --Snow Leapord 07:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • To me, 'duplication' has more of a 'cloning oneself' connotation, to it than 'replication'. Out of this story's context, if I heard someone had the power of 'duplication', I would think 'Cloning'. If I heard someone had the power of 'replication', I would think they could touch a toaster sitting on the shelf, and replication 12 more toasters....(aka not cloning)....kinda like the 'replicators' on Star Trek. What about using 'cloning' as an adjective of 'duplication', and then calling the power 'Clonal Duplication'. Variations of both words are GN Canon, and by combining them together as the name of the power, there is no doubt or confusion as to what the power is. (In other words, no context is needed to understand what the power does). --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11/27/2007 09:22 (EST)
  • I like Replication. When I think 'Cloning' I think of DNA. We don't know if this connection to DNA exists, especially when given the era. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 11:18, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • The novel said that not only did he create duplicates of himself, but that the duplicates were clones. I'd say cloning is the best description of his ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • I would go with Self-Replication or Self-Duplication. Clonig makes me think he can clone other things, not himself. Modestoddesy 13:56, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • Neither, unfortunately, is used in the graphic novel. Please confine the discussion to Cloning, Replication, or Duplication.--Hardvice (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2007 (EST)

The three choices don't most accurately convey the GN naming given

The Graphic novel doesn't explicitly say Cloning, nor Replication, nor Duplication. It rather, uses variations of those words in two phrase. ("Duplicates of himself, clones"; AND "replicate himself"). Therefore, the most accurate descriptive name for this power, should be a variation that most closely matches that presented from the graphic novel. 'Using a single word, any of the three suggested, creates ambiguity of the power, which the Graphic Novel itself doesn't, because the graphic novel itself qualifies the term variations with 'himself' . Modestoddesy is correct, the single-word discussion choices aren't the most accurate choices conveyed by the Graphic Novel itself.
The choices should be, based on the graphic Novel which says verbatim: ("Duplicates of himself, cloning") AND ("replicate himself")

  • "Self-Duplication"
  • "Self-Replication"
  • "Self-Replication (Cloning)" .....the most accurate choice, given from the GN itself: from the exact quote "Duplicates of himself, clones" --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11/27/2007 14:29 (EST)
  • That's a fair point. There's no way we'd use a power name with a parenthetical, though--it's just too awkward to use in sentences and the like, necessitating a bunch of piping or redirects. But you're right, "self-replication" or "self-duplication" is probably acceptable. I'm just trying to keep these name discussions from degenerating into the usual "oh how about (name X which has no source) because it sounds cool" like all the others, when we clearly do have a near-canon option (three, actually).--Hardvice (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • I'd go with Replication over duplication (even though I personally prefer this) or cloning (kinda weird in a DNA-based show for a power name), mostly since the intro wasn't written by the GN writer (just, presumably, an NBC exec). Barring that, I'd agree with Self-Replication for the same reason.--Tim Thomason 17:55, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • I don't mind, and rather prefer self-cloning over the two alternatives. I should point out, though, that for other powers, we don't specify whether the power is only applicable to oneself (i.e. self-flight vs. flight).--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • Duplication is definitely the best choice. Not only does it say it in the intro, it's a common power title like Flight or Invisibility... and I already made it >_>.--Riddler 18:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • The thing is that by itself, Duplication or Replication aren't very precise. What is he replicating? Other stuff? Can he hold a fishbowl and repicate it into two identical fishbowls? Self-Replication is the most appropriate description of the power in my opinion. Duplication means splitting into two, while Repication means splitting into multiple parts. And the Self prefix is needed, for the above reason. Even though Self-Replication was never explicitly said in the GN, no other ones were given either, so we must make do with something close to the original. So while Cloning sounds cool, it's not as accurate as Self-Replication.--Piemanmoo 18:20, 27 November 2007 (EST)
            • Duplicating doesn't mean split in two? It means to make an identical copy? Duplication is the common works title for the power. If you want to add a "Self" to the beginning, go ahead, but it doesn't make much sense in that it's as precise as it needs to be. Just like the ability of Flight or Invisibility, it's a common name and noone will mistake it.--Riddler 18:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • Are the introductions written by NBC or by the graphic novel writers? If it's not written by the writer then it actually falls between #2 and #3 on the naming convention list above and then cloning is off the table since the other terms are of higher precedence. (Admin 18:26, 27 November 2007 (EST))
    • It's a part of the actual comic, like the illustrated ad for Nissan, I'd assume it was the writers.--Riddler 18:28, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • To be fair, "Duplicates" was part of the intro, and only the term "replicates himself" was used in the GN text. It was Mr. Gibson Stewart who stated above that the writer (Oliver Grigsby) wasn't responsible for the intro, which I'm not sure is true or not. It would be a shame if it were true (they gave away Evan's power too soon!).--Tim Thomason 18:31, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • The introductions are written by NBC, not by the graphic novel writers. NBC has a history of making mistakes and not being factual (remember when D.L. was a shapeshifter?)...I recall Mark Sable saying something about being upset with one of the introductions for one of the Blackouts--not so much upset, but just that it wasn't what he wanted. I don't know if that's the case with every graphic novel, but I'll point out that the intros often do not "match" the style of the novel itself. Personally, any of the three names are fine with me, but if we're going with canon (or near-canon) sources, I'd say we'd have to stick with "replication". I could also stretch that to allow for "self-replication" if people feel strongly about it, but I think "replication" by itself is just fine. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • Just read this. We need to update the rename, then. "Duplicate" and "clone" are at best secondary sources.--Hardvice (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • Actually, if the intro pages aren't "official", then the only options are "replication" or "self-replication". 'Duplicate" also only appears on the intro page. In this case, we can of course simply err on the side of caution by choosing "Replication" or "Self-replication", in which case we don't have to worry about who writes the intros.--Hardvice (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Like I said, I'm not sure who writes the intro in every case, but I can tell you it wasn't Mark Sable for Blackout, and my guess is it's the same for the other GNs. This intro really bugged me because it told me the big reveal before I even read the novel. In fact, I first read the intro on Heroes Wiki, and I was upset because I thought somebody must have spoiled the novel or put the summary in the intro section. My guess is it wasn't written by Ollie. Even if it was, you're right Hardvice, it's best to err on the side of caution. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • Well, I guess from now on I'll be skipping page 1.--Tim Thomason 18:42, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • It's upsetting that we're using little tidbits of speech for powers lately when there are common names for the powers that people will actually search for. It'd be odd searching for Duplication and being redirected. I think this should be a case where the common title should apply =/--Riddler 18:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • That's the problem. Common names are subjective and when you've got subjective names then people can never agree on a single name. That's why we've been developing these heuristics we can use to more effectively name a power in the absense of them explicitly naming the power. On a wiki focusing on Heroes it makes sense to use the names they provide (following the naming convention precedence of course) as the name of the actual article. If searching is an issue then redirects are always possible. We're just concerned with the name of the article itself. (Admin 18:54, 27 November 2007 (EST))
            • Its all the same thing, if you were to ask me Duplication is the best thing because Duplication is taking one thing and making an exact copy of it right then and there. Where I think of Cloning as taking a nucleus of one cell and implanting it into an embryo and having someone grow up a normal life having the exact genetic structure. But in common language they are one and the same so it doesn't really make a difference.
          • Why is it odd to search for something and be redirected? That seems completely natural to me, and is a great way to take care of the issue. There's nothing wrong with calling the power "cloning" in an article ("After cloning himself, Evan fought more.") What we're really talking about here is the name of this page and what we call it on articles like our list of abilities and in Evan's infobox. Redirects are designed specifically so that they will all point to the correct location. I love that a person can come to this site, and a search for photographic reflexes, muscle mimicry, and adoptive muscle memory all point to the same page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Rename, Pt. II

Let's just start this over. Since we now know (or at least have reason to believe) that the introduction is written by NBC, the only options are Replication or Self-replication. Discuss. Please confine yourself to these two or some other variant of "replicate himself", because that's our only near-canon source. Personally, I can see the appeal of either. I tend to think the "self-" is a bit superfluous because, as pointed out above, we don't have "self-flight", and the article itself is the best place to make the limitations of the power known. That said, I could go either way.--Hardvice (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)

  • Replication (simple enough?)--Tim Thomason 19:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • Sorry for the tone. These discussions begin to grate after a while. One can only say the same thing and point people to the same (evidently unread) help pages so many times before one snaps, I guess.--Hardvice (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • The tone is warranted and not as harsh as you might think. I prefer "replication", but I'm not opposed to adding "self"--I just don't think it's necessary. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • Since those are the only two options, I prefer "replication" for reasons stated previously.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • It should definitely be self-replication (imo) and definitely not cloning since Adam says he replicates himself. Random guy 19:39, 27 November 2007 (EST)
            • Without the self prefix, it's easy to see someone confusing it for being able to replicate other stuff such as bowling balls, cars, and DVD players. If you were to describe the power most people would say "He makes copies of himself" not just "He makes copies", so the Self-Replication might be important. --Piemanmoo 19:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
              • I concur. Random guy 19:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
                • Same here. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (EST)
                  • Ditto to the defense of self-replication.--E rowe 00:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  • My primary concern, is because so many Star Trek fans watch Heroes (Hiro being a big Star Trek fan), the entire concept of 'Replication' keeps bringing food replicators to mind, without the 'self' qualification. My secondary concern, is that eventually a person will show up who can replicate objects, but not himself...thus again creating ambiguity and naming confusion. Self-Replication, however, alleviates both concerns, without needing any external explanation. 'Self-Flight' really doesn't compare, because flight by its nature in sci-fi/fantasy genre, is an attribute of an individual. 'Self' is assumed and understood when someone is said to have the power of flight. Outside of the Heroes genre and this discussion, if someone said that a new hero that noone is familiar with named 'Captain Kickbutt' has the power of replication; that would require us to ask 'self-replication' or 'replication of objects'? By listing the power as Self Replication, no confusion nor explanation is needed. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11/27/2007 20:02 (EST)
  • Here comes the huge argument. I can predict the future. You guys can't decide on a name, and this renaming thing will continue -- for a very long time.--Ice Vision 20:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • I'm not sure who you mean by "you guys", unless you're referring to the entire community minus yourself. But if it takes a long time, I suppose that's the way of the wiki; fortunately, when we're done, we can be satisfied that everybody has had their voice heard and that we've come as close to consensus as possible. I don't expect, in this case, that the process will take very long, though. It's really a matter of choosing between "replication" and "self-replication". Most of us seem to have an opinion, but not really care too much one way or the other. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • I guess I am actually including myself when I said "you guys". I've been a part of these name discussions, too. And, they don't turn out too pretty. Perhaps I was exaggerating when I said that this would take a long time. I must say, it seems like a consensus is going to be decided rather quickly. Choosing between "replication" and "self-replication" should be simple.--Ice Vision 21:20, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • Let's hope so. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • I think a big part of the problem in the past is that the rules weren't laid out very clearly, nor were they adhered to all that well. The reason I'm making a point of repeating them and trying to structure the discussion is to save us all time and effort. Rather than wasting time arguing about dozens of names which don't fit the convention, we can focus on discussing those that do. I really hope it's not coming across as pushy or domineering; I'm just trying to help us streamline what has in the past proved a painful and protracted process.--Hardvice (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Clone is a bit different that Replication

  • Sorry for going scientific again but I think you'll agree. If someone or something creates a "clone" they create a replication. but from when they are first created. For instance when you clone a sheep it'll grow up to be exactly like the original but it has to start from birth. Replication is pretty much what Evan does. Thought this bit might help. Jason Garrick 22:13, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • So I'm for Replication. Jason Garrick 22:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Anything that proves the name needs to be changed is okay with me. =D --AnotherNella 23:20, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • I second that :-) --The Empath 23:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • The word "clone" has been around for awhile. I don't think it's limited to the way it's been used in recent scientific advancements. However, I do think it has a problem. The power as we've seen it so far seems to be that one single self, one conscious being, continues to exist in all of Evan's duplicates. The word clone doesn't work as well for that, as I see it. A clone would be an identical person, but not the very same self. Replication might be better.--E rowe 23:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • I love that we're continuing to have a discussion about a name that's out of the running. *Sigh*. --Hardvice (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • Well, at least it's a discussion that's rooting against the name that is already out of the running. ;)--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • But really, I wish we could just get people to simply talk about the difference between "replication" and "self-replication". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)
          • I'm for replication Therequiembellishere 23:55, 27 November 2007 (EST)
            • I also prefer "replication" over "self-replication". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)
              • If it's just replication, then it's implied he can replicate things other than himself. Self-replication for me. --AnotherNella 00:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
                • Of course, we don't know that he can't replicate other objects, and we do know that his replicants come complete with clothes and weapons, so maybe "self-replication" is too restrictive. He can replicate at least some items, after all--those he's wearing or carrying when he creates a clone, evidently.--Hardvice (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)


  • 'Nuff said.--E rowe 00:08, 28 November 2007 (EST)
    • You're kidding right? --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)
      • Obviously. It clearly should be "Self-autokinesis".--Hardvice (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
        • Actually, after I wrote it I thought "dittokinesis" might be better. But I didn't want to go back and change it just to string the joke along. There's also a part of me that would rather not admit it's a joke just to see if anybody might still take the bait.--E rowe 11:10, 28 November 2007 (EST)

consensus check


  1. MiamiVolts (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  2. Hardvice (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  3. RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  4. AnotherNella 01:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
  5. Therequiembellishere 23:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)


  1. SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  2. --E rowe 11:12, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  3. --Piemanmoo 16:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  4. --Random guy 03:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

It might be too early in the game to put this up however, this may need to be here later on. anyway, my vote is for Self-Replication to make sure it is specific enough to make it clear at a glance what the power does while reflecting the canon description at the same time. (btw, these and they are also replicators in addition to this;) )--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (EST)

  • whoops, late in the game I guess. @u@--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
    • It's not too late for a consensus check. The page was moved simply because "cloning" was lower on the hierarchy than "replication" or variants of it. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I Know I'll Get Shot For This...

If it's just "replication," doesn't that hint at the fact he can replicate things or people other than himself? *Puts up flame shield* --AnotherNella 00:38, 28 November 2007 (EST)

  • I agree whole heartedly for the above reasons --SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  • Why would you get shot for that? That's really the whole point of the name discussion. We're talking about "replication" vs. "self-replication". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (EST)
    • Because the name got changed and finalized and I felt like I reopened a closed case. =P --AnotherNella 00:48, 28 November 2007 (EST)
      • Don't worry, some of these cases are never closed... ;) that being said, if we decide to add "self" to this we should have a consistant policy as to when "self-" should or shouldn't be used. I think it's unnecessarily restrictive, and the "self-" part makes the word uncanon. Another alternative may be to reword it as "Replicant creation", although I'm not sure if "replicant" was a word using in the novel.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2007 (EST)
        • As Hardvice just correctly point out above, Evan did replicate the clothes he was wearing and his sword/weapons, so perhaps he could replicate other people if they were touching him too...replication by itself is sounding better to me all the time.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (EST)
          • I agree. Self-replication may be more precise, but in this case that precision may be leading to speculation. "Replication" leaves open the possibility that he can replicate other things/people without affirmatively declaring that he can. This may be a case where we need to be a little vague, and explain the observed limits (he's only replicated himself, his clothing, and his weapons) in the article.--Hardvice (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)
            • Good point. Plus, the difference between healing and rapid cell regeneration is a perfect example of when we haven't used the "self" prefix and things still work out. We really do have characters who can heal themselves and those who can heal others. If a character comes along who can replicate objects and not himself, then we'll cross that bridge at that point--I would hope the writers would point us in the direction of a name that's different enough from "replication". But I hadn't really thought of "self-replication" as being too restrictive. It certainly does have a bit of speculation inherent in its name, doesn't it? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Different clothes and weapons

In fact ... on closer inspection, the clone he's currently spawning in the lead image may be wearing different clothes than his (are those shirt sleeves or jacket sleeves? He's definitely not wearing his hat.) (Some of the others have different clothes and weapons, too, but they could have changed/grabbed other weapons, so that's not really an issue). Curious. It seems he may not be limited to objects he's touching or wearing after all.--Hardvice (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

  • Yeah, those clones could have changed what they are wearing or wielding, but I added a note about that possibility and also that whether he could replicate living things was unknown. It would be cool to find out that Evan could replicate a younger version of himself and thus cheat death...--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Could Evan be weakening himself everytime a copy is made

  1. Although Evan may look healthy that is simply a copy not the original. Could the original be dying?
Speculation Therequiembellishere 19:08, 12 December 2007 (EST)