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/Archive 1

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

Absolutely, absolutely hate to do this

Especially with that foreboding template on the page's top, but, just as a suggestion, Joe Pokaski and Aron Eli Coleite call Elle's power "good old electrokinesis" in response to a fan's question here. The Living Lightning is in reference to a Marvel Comics character who has, in addition to other powers, electrokinesis; this is evidenced by both words being capitalised. I hope I don't get into trouble for this, I only wanted to point it out for the good of the Project and its credibility. Therequiembellishere 00:50, 26 November 2007 (EST)

  • This has been discussed at length, so I'll give you the brief answer. :) There are several canonical references to the power as "lightning" which trump the "electrokinesis" reference in the interview. For more detail, check out the archived discussions for this page. (Admin 00:55, 26 November 2007 (EST))
    • Hate to say it but i think the creators of the show have a higher say than what Peter would call it... cause Peter just saw that he could throw electric bolts, if it happened to you or me without any prior knowlege we would call it lightning too. But creators actually know what they want it to be... sorry to bring this up again but i really think Electrokinesis takes the cake.--.Vault 16:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
      • When information from an interview conflicts with information from an episode, the episode always wins out, no matter what. It doesn't matter what we think about it or whether we like the outcome. Anything which appears in an interview can always be changed by the time it appears in an episode. See Help:Sources and Help:Naming_conventions#Power_Names. That said, the writers and producers have also used "lightning" in interviews and episode commentaries, so even if it came down to a head-to-head conflict between secondary sources, "electrokinesis" is no more "official" than "lightning"--setting aside for the moment that the writers merely repeated the word given to them, and that "lightning" has been used in interviews multiple times.--Hardvice (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (EST)
  • i damn right agree with electrokinesis. the same way 'plant growth' should be florakinesis, and 'induced radioactivity' Radiokinesis!
    • "Florakinesis" means "flower movement". "Induced radioactivity" appeared in an episode (it's listed in the Genesis files). The ability names listed on are made up by fans and, frankly, mostly awful.--Hardvice (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2007 (EST)
      • If the writers call it good old electrokinesis why is it still called lightning. Titan3510 17:42, 6 November 2008 (EST)
        • Cause what's used in the show trumps what the writers say according to our naming conventions.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)
          • And I'm not a big fan of using a name that is fed to the writers. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)
            • So what? They didn't have to say "good old electrokinesis". They could have said something else, preferring a different name. Plus, they made an actual reference to a comic character who had the same power. And what is his power called. Electrokinesis. So what's the big deal. I mean, I understand the naming convention for abilities but lightning doesn't accurately describe the ability. Electrokinesis does. Why does pyrokinesis get its name but electrokinesis can't get its name? Titan3510 00:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)
              • I don't know how the name for Flint's power factors into the argument for Elle's power, other than because the name you are vying for shares a suffix. However, the reason both pyrokinesis and lightning are so named is the same: both names were mentioned in episodes. Flint's assignment tracker profile appeared in The Butterfly Effect explicitly naming his power. Had it said "Fire starting", we would have gone with that. Elle's power has been called "lightning" several times on air and in graphic novels. I don't think it's ever been referred to as "electrokinesis" except in an interview where the writers were baited with the term. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)
  • Suited name would be "Electrokinesis": the ability to produce and manipulate electricity.

Pyrokinesis - Fire, Cyrokinesis - Ice, Aerokinesis - Air, Geokinesis - Earth, Hydro/Aquakinesis - Water. "I don't think it's ever been referred to as "electrokinesis" - It doesn't matter if the name hasn't been said on the show or not - Electrokinesis is the name best to describe Elle's ability. "Elle's power has been called "lightning" - It's called "lightning" because that's what people see it as. You wouldn't say "I shot him with a bolt of Electrokinesis" Electrokinesis is the name - Lightning is the product.


Perhaps Elle needs both arms active to maintain full control over her power. She was aiming to kill Sylar and hit him dead-center but he only staggers for a second, even through she stunned Peter with much less effort. -----  Seclusion  talk / contribs 19:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

I assume she didn't want to kill Sylar, just incapacitate him (and she miscalculated). She used a much higher amount of "lightning" on Peter, because his powers (regeneration, strength, maybe even lightning) made him able to survive much higher voltages.--Tim Thomason 18:46, 13 December 2007 (EST)

difference between Elle's lightning and Peter's

  • I noticed that Peter's lightning has more of a wavy appearance to it while Elle's actually looks like a strike of lightning. Did anyone else notice this? I think it is the same basic principle like West and NAthan's different flying. Jason Garrick 16:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)
    • I never noticed that. It's certainly possible. Are there any screencaps in particular that highlight the difference? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (EST)
      • I actually don't think this is the case, Elle uses her power in a similar fashion to Peter but perhaps due her increased control, it sometimes looks different. This one she uses it in lightning form. This one, this one, and this one, however don't use it in that fashion. This one doesn't have any real difference to Elle using it. I think its all power development tbh. --  Seclusion  talk / contribs 17:48, 13 December 2007 (EST)
        • There is a possibility that there is a difference, but it's nothing significant. Peter, Ted, and Sylar have all glowed different colors. They're just creative differences.--Ice Vision 19:19, 13 December 2007 (EST)
          • Yeah, I checked. Your right. Peter only has wavy lightning twice. Once at Ricky's pub and once when he shot Adam. After that it is just like Elle's. Jason Garrick 19:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)
            • I think it may be intentional - Isn't everyone with a (visible) power supposed to manifest it in different ways? Hence West having a different style of flight from Nathan, induced radioactivity appearing differently for Pete/Ted/Sylar/Amid, Angela (assuming she has persuasion) having to touch a person whilst Eden does not etc. - Goldenboy 16:12, 18 December 2007 (EST)
              • Angela what now? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (EST)
              • Angela? Angela Petrelli. - Goldenboy 12:48, 19 December 2007 (EST)
                • Angela has no confirmed power. --Ice Vision (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)
                • The "touch" aspect of it, at least, has been confirmed to be Cristine Rose's doing, and not in the script. As for "persuasion"--well, people actually did what Eden told them. People have a pretty spotty record of doing what Angela tells them. She's manipulative, but doesn't seem to be superhumanly so.--Hardvice (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2007 (EST)
  • There are different types of lightning in the real world, too: ball lightning, sheet lightning, ribbon lightning... There's no 'right or wrong' way to portray a lightning bolt, as long as it gets the job done. Regardless of how the lightning bolt forms, it's still a conducting of electrons along an ion path. Why do we have to assume that this power always forms the path in the same way? That doesn't even happen in nature. --Yamawhata? 17:10, 4 February 2008 (EST)
  • Considering the list of the ways Peter controls his lightning, is it fair to say that he lacks the fine control Elle has? Certainly, she has more control, but it seems he has the ability under pretty good wraps himself. Stevehim 12:50, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
    • "Peter lacks the fine control Elle has" is speculative. "Peter has not demonstrated the fine control Elle has" is not. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Well, I'm not sure it's true, considering he's shown almost every form of control. But since it currently reads 'lacks,' which is speculative, I'll change just that. Stevehim 18:02, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

name change

sorry but i disagree lightning is a good name for this power electric generation or electricity generation definately sounds better, besides for many people they might get confused by the power lightning , which may diffirent interpretations , i saw her power the name definately should be called electric generation or electricity generation--Zoga78 19:25, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

  • no --Piemanmoo 05:48, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Peter calls it lightning in the show so that's the name that is used.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
    • But when Peter calls it lightning in the future, we call it Electromagnetism? -Lөvөl 03:03, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
      • Well, yes, but for reason similar to the "telescopic vision" debate. The agent can hover and produce lightning; Peter's only referring to the latter aspect. "Lightning" describes an aspect, but not all, of his power, the same way "telescopic vision" describes an aspect, but not all, of Donna's power, or "teleportation" describes an aspect, but not all, of Hiro's power, or "wipe" describes an aspect, but not all, of the Haitian's power. A canon name for a part of a power is not a canon name for the whole power.--Hardvice (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
  • The name of "lightning" has been explicitly used to refer to this ability numerous times, most notably in Petrified Lightning and Four Months Ago. When the writers make up a name for an ability we can't just call it something else. We can't say Peter Petrelli's name is John Jacobs if we don't like the name Peter Petrelli. The writers are the authority. (Admin 10:12, 19 April 2008 (EDT))
  • Of course, when we don't like the name we can call it what we want. --  Seclusion  talk / contribs 10:30, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
    • Untrue and the discussion there explains the current decision on a name quite well. (Admin 10:34, 19 April 2008 (EDT))
    • But in essence you've hypocrited yourself by saying that if the writers give us a name we have to use it. --  Seclusion  talk / contribs 10:45, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
      • I believe the determination would be that they did not actually give us a name for it yet, but rather used a single term in the story which provides a contradictory description of what her power would be. Now, if it shows up in another graphic novel or the writer explicitly says it's the name of the power in an interview, then it would definitely be changed. Until then the contradiction precludes its usage. With Lightning, we have multiple sources AND the name doesn't contradict the demonstrations of the ability we've seen thus far, so while very few of us think it's the best name for the ability, it's the term they've used consistently so there's not much room for interpreting the intentions of the writers when the term was used. (Admin 10:54, 19 April 2008 (EDT))
        • I agree with Zoga. The release of the Company's AT map describes Elle's ability as "the ability to genereate electricity" not lightning. Also, lightning implies a weather based electrical shock looking at the uses of the power I think the writers just find it a cool and easy way of describing the ability. I'd go with Electricity Generation that seems to be the most direct and canon term.
          • Actually, the term used in the episodes (more than once) is lightning. Episodes are canon sources, and trump near-canon sources like the Assignment Tracker map. Good suggestions, but we'll stick with lightning unless something else is said in a canon source. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

yes finally electric generation suits her ability and lightning maybe the nickname for this power , who knows for example --Zoga78 04:10, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Is these the ability of future Ando?

I don't think that lightning is the ability of Ando. First, the ability of ando is red, and it isn't like Elle's sparks. what do you think?

  • Flint has a different color of pyrokinesis, so it's not that far-fetched. As for the way it sparked, it could be just a different evolution of lightning. --NellaBishop 15:40, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
    • It's common knowledge that fire can change colors based on heat or chemicals. But as far as I know, there's nothing that can turn lightning red so I don't think we can be sure that Ando's ability is the same as Elle's. It seems too speculative to me. --Watchmaker 21:55, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
      • You're forgetting that sometimes Heroes does things to look cool, rather than make sense. (Remember the voice effects in season one?) I think that Future Ando definitely has a form of lightning.
        • It hasn't been confirmed that Ando's ability is the same as Elle's (or perhaps that future agent's or that teenage patient's). Until we learn more about the ability, let's not add it to this page. I don't think there's anything wrong with making a page for Ando's ability, though. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
          • Honestly, I'm good with calling it Lightning until we have evidence that it's something else. Apart from the color, it looks like lightning, and I don't think a simple color difference is enought to warrant a new power page. --Ted C 17:45, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
            • I think its just a different colored lighting too, but lightning none the less (is there an special page for Flints power vs. Merediths power)....if you look at the image close up you can see bolt shapes around his hands...maybe we should take a poll?--Anthony Gooch 21:44, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
              • There's no Flint vs. Meredith debate because both of their abilities have been officially called pyrokinesis--Aburu 22:31, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
              • plus if we are wrong, then we could simply change it, but i doubt that the writers are going back into the future just to explain Ando's power for viewers
Ando's power.jpg
  • Yes, this is the ability of Future Ando according to the MySpace app. "Heroes Versus". This app was created and maintain by NBC. I'm guessing the writers of the show is responsible for the context. When you select abilities when creating a poll, and pick lighting they will pull up small clips from the show to use in your poll. Out of the clips you can choose from, Future Ando using his ability on Hiro is listed under Lighting. I went through the rest of the abilities and all the names we came up with match up the ones NBC provided for their list with the exception of Doyle's (Physical Manipulation vs Puppet Master(y)) and Stephen's (Vortex Creation vs Gravitational Manipulation) , but the names still correctly describe their abilities. Thus this app. can be extremely resourceful.--OutbackZack 18:21, 8 December 2008 (EST)OutbackZack

I understand that Lightning is canon...

But "Lightning" is far too general. Lightning...what? Manipulation? Generation? Absorption? I think we should change the name to "Lightning Generation", since it accurately describes the power, follows the canon description, and is far more specific than just "Lightning". What do you guys think? ~~ Darmenos 21:25, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

  • I know what you mean, but the reasons for it just outweigh fan ideas. I mean, if we could change Puppet master I'm sure we would in a heartbeat. --Aburu 22:28, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, but that's explicitly named canon, so we're stuck with it. "Lightning" was a canon description, iirc. I just don't think it fully describes or defines the ability. ~~ Darmenos 10:23, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Electric manipulation

AT diagram Elle.jpg

According to the diagram found on Elle's assignment tracker profile, her ability's name is "electric manipulation". Even though they've referred to the power several times as "lightning" in canon and near-canon sources, I think the assignment tracker profile is more explicit. I'm all for the rename from "lightning" to "electric manipulation". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2008 (EST)

  • Me too. God we're gonna replace so many links... Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:30, 26 November 2008 (EST)
    • Links wouldn't need to be replaced since both names have been used. Lightning would still be a valid name for the ability, much like super strength and enhanced strength have both been used to describe the same power. Only explicit links (like on Portal:Abilities, List of abilities, or in Elle's infobox) would have to be updated. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2008 (EST)
    • Why would we take a lower canon source over a higher one? Isn't that a dangerous precedent to set? --Stevehim 13:34, 26 November 2008 (EST)
      • I only remembered the term lightning being used in Petrified Lightning, when was it used in Four Months Ago? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:36, 26 November 2008 (EST)
        • See the transcript--Peter says, "Maybe there's more to you than the whole sadistic lightning thing". Full disclosure: In Fight or Flight, Caitlin says, "How do you shoot lightning from your hands?" In Kindred, Peter tries to activate the power by saying "Lightning" repeatedly and Caitlin says, "It's a shame you can't order lightning up like a plate of chips." The question is, are these descriptions or the name of the power? Either way, do we use "lightning" (from a canon source, but not necessarily explicit, and not from people who understand the powers) or do we use "electric manipulation" (explicitly and authoritatively named by the Company, but not from a near canon source)? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2008 (EST)
        • It's been used on the show a few times. That's really the debate...Do we use a canon name that's been applied to the ability, or do we use a near-canon source that is more explicit? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2008 (EST)
          • I would be happy to see it renamed that way, AND even more happy to see this power's cousins (electrical absorption, and electromagnetism) all three merged into the new name Electrical Manipulation; for that is what they all do, just in different ways of manipulating electricity. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11/26/2008 13:42 (EST)
    • I would rather keep the show name than switch to a near-canon source. The show did refer to the ability as "lightning". I don't see the assignment tracker as being more explicit in this case.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • I agree with Miamivolts. On the one hand, the assignment trackers are valuable sources for things we won't see in the show. On the other, they're not exactly they may not be entirely kept up to date, so I'm not sure how much we can trust them (eg - I doubt Parkman's control index is still at 25%, and I don't think it updates when people are deceased). I can't get into Elle's A.T. to see what it says, but electrical manipulation implies far more (to me) than simply firing lightning (or electricity) out of one's hands. All we've seen Elle do is shoot things with bolts of electricity...we haven't seen her manuipulate electrical signals, turn machines that require electricity on or off, etc. And what are the criteria for specific naming as opposed to 'applying' (ie - why wouldn't her ability being referred to as lightning not qualify as an explicit naming)? I think we should stick to the naming conventions and say that canon trumps all, though I'm certainly ready to be swayed as to why this should not be so.  :) --Stevehim 13:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • Now that I think about it, regardless of what we decide, both names should be referenced somewhere on the page, as both are pertinent. I'll throw out the suggestion of using the canon name as the name of the ability, but adding electrical manipulation (or whatever else in other similar cases) in the initial description of the power as an 'also known as.' --Stevehim 14:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • Well, the argument of people who don't exactly know about the ability (Peter, Caitlin) and people who do (AT) does push me towards electric manipulation. About Elle not using her abilities in another way, think about it, all the times we heard someone talking about the trials Bob did on her, there was always a mention to "see how much" she could put out, this leads me to believe that due to those, Elle just worked on the offensive aspect of her ability, if she was as unstable as she told Peter in Four Months Ago, building up non offensive use of her ability doesn't sound like something she'd do. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:27, 26 November 2008 (EST)
    • I am thinking Electrokinesis, it is a eaiser way to say Electic Manipulation. Raiku 16:40, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • I think it should be changed to Electric Manipulation, because we changed super strength based on Knox's profile name. User:Samstorey 22:51, 26 November 2008
    • Knox's assignment tracker was shown in the show, and so is actually canon, whereas those that are posted on the Internet are only near-canon. --Stevehim 22:26, 26 November 2008 (EST)
      • It wasn't fair that we changed Super Strength, when that has been named multiple times on the show, so I vote for Electric Manipulation! Peter and Caitlin are not reliable sources for naming abilities or Peter's should be called Ability Absorption. --Powermimic 03:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)
  • Electric manipulation FTW! (NOT ELECTROKINESIS!) Psilaq Remake 19:45, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • Aww, I've kinda grown fond of lightning. It was nice to be different amongst all the other Heroes fans that used "electrokinesis" or something like that. But I wouldn't mind the rename. :P Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 19:50, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • I am desperate for a rename with this. The AT, even though it is a lower canon source, is still largely canon, i.e. the show's creators wanted us to see it and use their ability names. Why would they put 'Electric Manipulation' on an assignment tracker if they still wanted us using 'lightning?' It seems reduntant. -- FlamingTomDude 20:15, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • Here are some reason why we should change it:
Gravitational manipulation, named "create vortexes" on the show - but we changed it.
Puppet master, never named only described on the show - yet we can't add a 'y' to the end of it.
Enhanced Strength, super strength has been said many times - but we changed it.
Power absorption, he steals powers - but we called it what the assignment map wrote.

If we're going to follow the assignment tracker for those, we should change it. --Powermimic 04:15, 27 November 2008 (EST)

  • It depends on whether you consider 'lightning' a description or a name.
  1. 'Creating vortexes' seems more of a description than a name (at least to me).
  2. No name was given on the show for Eric's ability, so we go with the next best source that does name it, namely the A.T.
  3. Enhanced strength was used on the show as well, namely on Knox's assignment tracker. As long as he and Niki are grouped as having the same ability, we can apply it to her too. In this case, we have a conflict of equal canon sources (the show), and so have to determine which is more valid. It's Micah vs the Company, so we go with the Company, since they likely know more about the ability.
  4. We were never told what Arthur's ability was called on the show, so we have no canon name for it. --Stevehim 10:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)
  • People aren't posting. Time to vote, then? Psilaq Remake 12:55, 29 November 2008 (EST)
  • To add a minor point on the accuracy/totality of the assignment trackers information...while the diagram does say 'electric manipulation,' it also specifically points to the subject's hands, and no other part of the body. This is not accurate to how we've seen Elle manifest her power (I haven't gone through all of the others for comparison, but did look at 6 or 7, and several designate multiple body point power sources). Further evidence that the assignment trackers contain incomplete information is the fact that they only list one other person in the 'Known Persons Exhibiting Similar Abilities' sections, even when they have information that more exist (eg - Peter and Sylar should appear on several different trackers). --Stevehim 06:46, 30 November 2008 (EST)
  • Wait, isnt electric manipulation controlling/manipluating all aspects of electricity? Like the light in your lamp, and she did that, remember when Elle first showed up at Claire's house in season 3, she controlled the lamps and electricity. The plane doesnt count though because she just sent electricity into it, but I put my vote for Electrical Manipluation. Electrokinesis just doesnt sound right. I think we should hold off with Electrokinesis until we see her/someone move electricty in more ways than just a stright line, because Meredith has moved it in a side motion when she sent it toward Danny Pine, but Elle has just sent it forward, she should be able to move it around corners or something like that,--Sylarversion2 22:02, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Suggested rename.

Only making a new section for this because it's important. It's a waste to change the page until the Assignment Tracker is released. The diagram has not always used the actual name (See Stephen Canfield's for an example. His ability is Gravitational Manipulation, whereas his diagram says Gravitational Field Manipulation, amongst others.)--Riddler 23:36, 26 November 2008 (EST)

The name debate will probably be lost and forgotten during the Thanksgiving frenzy, so I have no problem with this. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 23:42, 26 November 2008 (EST)

I also wanted to state that we should not be moving down levels of canon without very good reason. The requirements stated in the note at the top of the page have not been met by the A.T., and won't be when it comes out, unless it's presented in an episode. --Stevehim 11:11, 27 November 2008 (EST)

  • I would suggest people read a discussion myself and Ryan had about this. In it, both of us flesh out why the assignment trackers should be valued over canon sources. Mainly, the Company and Mohinder scientifically name abilities, whereas someone like Peter naming an ability may not be the most expert opinion. I'd prefer going with canon sources, but since the name is derived by Peter, whereas the AT name is from the Company, I'd go with the AT name. --Bob (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2008 (EST)
    • ... especially because Peter called it "lightning" when he first had it and didn't understand it. In fact, he only referred to it as "lightning" when he was specifically talking about his frustrations in understanding and using it. I think it's been a great name up to now, but when we're given something as specific as "electric manipulation" from an expert in the field (like the Company), we should respect that. In the end, I don't care too much and I won't have too much to say on the matter, but I think it's a bigger issue we need to address--that explicit names in near-canon sources should take precedence over descriptions given in canon sources. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)
      • Regarding a new name for 'lightning', I see this as a different situation than what Ryan just claimed. Lightning exists as an ongoing phenomenon in nature, and it has been used as an explicit term in the show for the ability's name on more than one occasion. Thus, I don't see it as an explicit vs. descriptive name case, and think this is a case of explicit vs. explicit name so I support continuing to use 'lightning' for this ability's name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)
      • Regarding Bob's comment, he left out that I also participated in that discussion and strongly opposed overruling sources of higher canonicity. Please continue reading into the next section where I clarified Ryan's and Bob's position and then gave my reasons against it. Thanks.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)
        • Agreed. With regards to lightning specifically, it was actually referenced in that discussion, and was agreed upon by all parties involved to that point that Peter was naming it, not describing it, which is why it trumped the assignment tracker map to begin with, so I'm not sure why a specific assignment tracker would change things (side note: are individual assignment trackers more canonical than the assignment tracker map?). With regards to the overall discussion of canonicity, my opinion is here.  :) --Stevehim 01:42, 28 November 2008 (EST)
          • Regarding the side note question: As it stands now, the AT and the AT map are both part of Heroes Evolutions, so are both considered near-canon.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I'm all for the rename. I think that the only people that are qualified to formally name abilities are The Company. Since "The Company" wrote the AT's, I think they should have priority over Peter's 'explanation'. --Elemental Manipulator 02:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)

  • I agree that the ATs should have priority over Peter's explanation...but other people can--and have--named abilities before. Chandra named a whole bunch, and Mohinder named Monica's ability. I think it's also important to say that if another power is named as explicitly in an episode (Mohinder says, "I remember Elle. She had the power of electricity generation."), then we should respect that over the assignment tracker name. Other than an unlikely case like that, I agree that we should use the AT name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2008 (EST)
    • Yeah, I agree. When I was writing that post I was thinking of when Mohinder was still with The Company. I should've made it clearer. Pinehearst would also have sway over normal people. --E.M. 19:00, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Rename Consensus

We should probably wait for a consensus until, you know, the assignment tracker page is actually released. Discussion is one thing, a consensus check is another. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2008 (EST)

  • Sorry, I've never been the one to start consensus checks before, so I really wasn't sure if this was the appropriate time or not. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 16:13, 29 November 2008 (EST)
    • I added a new voting section that should rectify the gun-jumping a little bit... Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 16:15, 29 November 2008 (EST)
    • No worries. I kinda did the same thing. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Lightning (keep the name as it is)
--Riddler 16:00, 29 November 2008 (EST) - Wait until Elle's tracker is released, or else we'll have to change everything again. See my above post.

  1. I'm not convinced that the name given in the show is a description and not an actual name, and the only reason (imo) we should ever move down a level of canon should be based on absolutely definitive information. I'll still be glad to listen to reasoning otherwise (or examples of when we've done that before), but for now I say we stick with what we have from the show itself. --Stevehim 18:54, 29 November 2008 (EST)
  2. Agree with Stevehim's reasons as I previously explained. I also think this consensus check is premature and ill-advised as others have stated/implied.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2008 (EST)
    • The assignment tracker is now out, and my opinion has not changed.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  3. The assignment trackers screw things up a lot, and normally there's nothing we can do since they're the highest level of canonicity. However, in this case, the phrases from the show trump it: Lightning Lightning Lightning. Elle doesn't manipulate electricity. She projects lightning from her hands. That's all she can do. She can't even do lightning kicks, or lightning head-butts (though she can do a lightning kiss). I think Lightning is the perfect phrase. If it were up to me, I'd name Pyrokinesis 'Flamethrowing' for the same reason. Radicell 05:22, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Electric manipulation (change the name now)

  1. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 16:03, 29 November 2008 (EST) Whether or not it's changed now or changed when the profile is actually released (I'm fine either way), it should be changed.
    When I say wait, I say that because we don't know if "Electric manipulation" will be the name. It will just be a waste of time and effort.--Riddler 16:04, 29 November 2008 (EST)
    Well, they've released that power diagram already. I don't really see any reason why they should change it if they already have that. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 16:05, 29 November 2008 (EST)
    Gravitational field manipulation (this is my main point), Corrosive fluid generation, Cyberpathy/Technokinesis (Also known as), Enhanced visual cortex (Enhanced vision), Acquisition, Regeneration (listed as By product), Adaptive Appearance Manifestation (another good one), Eidetic memory, Extra sensory perception. Some of these aren't the best examples, but you get the idea. Connie and Stephen specifically have different names in the diagram then they do explicitly named.--Riddler 16:19, 29 November 2008 (EST)
    Actually, they haven't released the diagram. That image was obtained as a result of hacking. Plus, there have been times (very few, but they still exist) when the name on the diagram does not match the name on the assignment tracker. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2008 (EST)
  • In my opinion if the Assignment Tracker states the definition of one's ability then i say it should be noticed, thus changing the name to the more appropriate which is Electric manipulation.--ACDC1989 13:43, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Electric manipulation (or otherwise) (change the name, regardless of what it is, when the tracker is actually released)

  1. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 16:13, 29 November 2008 (EST) - RGS and Riddler bring up good points; we should wait until the tracker is released. But I do think that whatever name is listed on the tracker should be the new name of lightning once the time comes.
  2. Psilaq Remake 16:16, 29 November 2008 (EST) I agree.
  3. Totally agree. Explicit names in near canon sources should take precedence over descriptive names in canon sources. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2008 (EST)
  4. --Riddler 16:20, 29 November 2008 (EST)
  5. Lightning generation seems like a good name because just saying i have the power of lightning doesnt entirely seem correct. Isnt the laser man in doyles graphic novel name laser generation? Why couldnt this be lightning generation345tom 17:07, 29 November 2008 (EST)
    I fail to see how that's relevant... that's not what we're discussing here. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 17:11, 29 November 2008 (EST)
  6. Assignment Tracker made our jobs easier, let's seize what it can give us. --Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:31, 29 November 2008 (EST)
  7. The AT trumps all, in my opinion. It should get a special 0th status on the naming conventions above everything else.--Piemanmoo 22:47, 29 November 2008 (EST)
  8. FlamingTomDude -- I'm up for waiting until the AT is released. At least then we can be 100% sure about it.
  9. I like this name, but we should wait for the tracker -- Futurepeter ( U - T - C ) 06:02, 1 December 2008 (EST)
  10. Yep...(and put the other two "cousin" electrical abilities (Electromagnetism and Electical Absorption) all under the umbrella of Electric manipulation. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 12/1/2008 11:35 (EST)
  11. Ye i think we should wait until the AT is released--Jenx222 11:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
  12. It's about time we have one of these on this page...I say we wait until the AT is released also.--The Empath 19:30, 1 December 2008 (EST)
  13. It's a ridiculous name that only causes more strife the longer it exists. Therequiembellishere 00:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  14. Change it to Electric Manipulation. User:Samstorey 2 December 2008.
  15. Change it. Nothing canon has explicitly said that Elle's power is lightning... It's almost a nickname for it. Seb.gwirionyn 14:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  16. I vote for the change. --Powermimic 21:28, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  17. Electric manipulation it is. --Titan3510 20:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It's been given as electric manipulation. Therequiembellishere 16:15, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Why was this changed?

A consensus had not been reached, and so this should not have been changed. --Stevehim 18:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

  • The consensus was before the Assingment tracker was released. Plus, changing it is in the clear majority. I understand that some people still wanted to call it lightning, but we were given the name.--Piemanmoo 18:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)
    • The AT is not a canon source, so this still needs to be discussed. Majority does not constitute a consensus (though I'm not entirely sure what does). There was a clear majority to add 'y' to Puppet master, but that did not meet consensus criteria. --Stevehim 18:15, 2 December 2008 (EST)
    • The reason the "y" wasn't added is because it wasn't there in the assignment tracker. A million fans dont influence cannon, but one writer does. If you want to move it back to lightning, then be prepared to move the other one to puppet mastery. --Piemanmoo 18:21, 2 December 2008 (EST)
      • The AT's are not the final word, is all I meant. I'm not going to move it back at the moment, but I do think we should wait for people (specifically one of the administrators) to weigh in on whether a consensus was reached before changing everything. (As a side note, I did want to add the 'y' to Puppet master  ;)). --Stevehim 18:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)
        • I'm not an administrator, but this article was altered over a canon source and I am going to revert the changes. A majority is not a consensus as has already been said. Also, the AT is not the final word as Stevehim pointed out.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (EST)
        • I reverted the changes to the main article using template inclusion. An administrator needs to clean up the fix since Piemanmoo moved the article twice (an extra time to fix the capitalization).--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
          • I've cleaned it up and restored it to "Lightning" while it's being discussed. (Admin 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST))
            • Thanks, Admin.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2008 (EST)
              • 15 to 4, man Psilaq Remake 20:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
                • 16 to 3, but the four only went down because you counted my struck vote. In any case, as it's been stated, the only sources of "Lightning" were descriptive, and the AT is explicit. I agree with whoever said the AT should be given top status on the naming convention.--Riddler 21:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)
                  • I do not think the sources for "lightning" were at all descriptive. The quotes were explicit in referring to the ability as lightning.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)
                    • Correct, they were not what we call descriptive. That's typically when we compose the name based on what we see. They used the term "lightning" a few times in episodes and graphic novels in reference to his ability, however since they never said something as explicit as "This ability is called/named..." then we go with the more explicitly named ability in the assignment tracker. (Admin 11:50, 9 December 2008 (EST))
        • I know it may seem like I jumped the gun, but I really didn't, I was just the first to implement the change. Three days ago if somebody moved the page to electric manipulation I would have reverted it, because lightning was the most canon name thusfar. Now we know what the real name is, so we need to use it. I'm sorry if you liked the old name better but, as Claude would say, if you get thin soup then that's your supper. If it's any conselation, we can put "(also known as lightning)" on it. --Piemanmoo 23:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)
        • MiamiVolts how do you figure that they weren't descriptive? If you didn't know what something was all you could do is describe it. And I don't think Peter (if that's what you mean by quotes) is an expert on abilities. --Dman dustin 00:09, 3 December 2008 (EST)
          • Not only was he not an expert, but the whole context in which the word "lightning" is used is from the fact that this is a brand new power for a guy who doesn't understand it at all. It's been a good name for us up until now, but even if Peter called the power "lightning", the Company named it much more explicitly than Peter or Caitlin ever did. I think we should respect that and call it the same thing. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2008 (EST)
            • It's the exact thing I argued somewhere and used Telekinesis as an example. If someone didn't know what Telekinesis was they're not going to come out and say "I have Telekinesis" when they move a glass of water with their mind.--Dman dustin 00:21, 3 December 2008 (EST)
              • They'd say they can "move things with their mind", and that would be a description, not a name. Lightning is a name of something that exists in nature, not a description. Peter has seen lightning in the sky, and he's seen his ability. You don't have to be an expert to put those two together and apply a name. And aside from the name specified in the AT, none of the other information given conflicts with continuing to use the name lightning. So what it comes down to next is which source the guidelines allow us to trust more. Assignment tracker content is near-canon, episode content is canon. That's how to look at it. You can't consider the Company vs. inexperienced person for this case cause the canonicity overrides that.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)
                • I think you agree with most everybody on a few points, here, Miami. The two names can absolutely coexist and should. But no, I really disagree that we should be looking at canon names over near-canon names. And Company vs. inexperienced person is a tangential argument. What it comes down to for me, and what we should be looking at, I believe, is explicitness. Peter gave the power a name, and it was a good one. The Company also gave it a name, and it's not only a "better" name, but it's more explicit. If I had to put words to what Peter was doing, he was saying, "I'm not quite sure what to call this, so I'll call it 'lightning'. Yep, that works!" And it worked for us for a good long while. Still works, in fact. But the Assignment Tracker is saying something much more explicit: "The name of the ability is lightning". It doesn't have to appear on an episode for it to be any more or less correct. The canon vs. near canon debate is one that really should be reserved for when we have to argue which description is better. We have two names given, and both work nicely. I know you disagree, but I believe we should use the more explicit one. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (EST)
                  • What do you mean "more explicitly"? As far I'm concerned, a name is either given explicitly or it's not. Explicit means to be specific, clear and detailed, and both names have those qualities, imho. In fact, lightning has a much more detailed connotation than 'electric manipulation'. All I can guess from your argument is that you think it's a more scientific-sounding name so we should automatically use that? I'd like to be clear on your reasoning.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)
                    • By "more explicit" I mean the assignment tracker profile lists the ability's name on a form in a field labeled "unique ability". Peter and Caitlin were conversing casually--he mentioned the name but, as you said, it only connotes the ability, and doesn't really denote it as well as the AT does. Listen, there are a lot of people here who will argue that the more scientific sounding name is the one we should use. You'll never get that argument from me. I've always been a proponent of using the most explicitly given name. There are levels of explicitness. Calling Claire's father "HRG" is not explicit. Calling him "Mr. Bennet" is more so. Calling him "Noah Bennet" is much more explicit. Telling you that I'm an adult is not very explicit. Mentioning that I'm 31 years old is pretty explicit. Reading "Born: May 23 1977" on my birth certificate is about explicit as you can get. My reasoning is pretty simple, really--I think we should go with the name that is most clearly and definitively identified as "this is the name of the ability," regardless of whether it was said on TV or given online. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2008 (EST)
                      • Ryan, I think you very coherently explained my position on it as well. With the assignment tracker having been verified as a very reliable source AND one where the information is very explicit, I feel it should be be used virtually all the time... except, say, if the assignment tracker said one thing and you see a Company file on the show that definitely pertains to the individual which happens to contradict it. In that case, naturally, the show would trump the assignment tracker. I, too, feel that the explicitness of a name is an essential component that must be used in combination with canonicity. (Admin 01:37, 3 December 2008 (EST))
  • To be honest, I don't see how the point about how explicit the naming is is that different from the Melting-Liquefaction debate. There, we took a decidedly inexplicit name (the ability to melt is clearly (to me) more of a description than an actual name, especially compared to 'Lightning,' which is easily as much of a name as 'Melting' or 'Freezing') over an explicit one because it had a higher canon ranking in the naming conventions. So even if we assume that 'Lightning' is more of a description than a name, shouldn't the fact that it has a higher canon ranking take precedence? Don't get me wrong...I was convinced by the arguments that 'Melting' was the best suited name there; I just think that the argument being presented here are similar, and it seems to me that 'more reliable source' trumped how explicit the naming was in that case. --Stevehim 09:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)
    • It may help (hopefully) to point out that we're not talking about the explicitness of the name, but rather the explicitness of the delivery of that name. The goal in this situation is to "Determine the name for an ability." As a result the most explicit delivery of that information is either dialogue that says word-for-word, "The name for this ability is X" or a document that has a section called "Ability" that provides an explicit name for it. Those are explicit. "I can create X" is not an explicit name for the ability, though when no other more explicit (and canonical) term for it already exists we use it because it's the best we have at the time. (Admin 09:50, 3 December 2008 (EST))
      • Exactly, Admin. I think that's the change the naming conventions have been looking for for a long time ;) --Piemanmoo 11:16, 3 December 2008 (EST)
        • Even in that scenario, I don't see how that wouldn't apply to both cases. 'He has the ability to melt objects' and 'I can create lightning' seem to be of the same ilk, to me. --Stevehim 11:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)
          • At the risk of oversimplifying it, if our goal is X and we're given X and X+1, which is closer to our goal? X+1 is close...and may be close enough to yield a result that is similar... however we're given X and that's exact so we can rely on that. If our goal is the "name of an ability" and we're given "ability name" and "I can do..." then the concise and explicit "ability name" is more accurate in terms of meeting our goal. (Admin 11:35, 3 December 2008 (EST))
            • I understand, but it seems to me we went with X+1 on the melting ability, and so I don't know why we would not do so here as well. 'The ability to melt' is not an explicit name (we added the -ing), nor was it delivered explicitly (it's only in an interview where the power is being described and on an A.T. but not as a header in an 'ability section'), whereas 'Liquefaction' is (to me), inarguably a name. We put aside that distinction (description vs name) in that instance in favor of canonicity, and that seems to be what is being debated here as well. Additionally, we should be shooting for the most explicit name, the most explicitly delivered name, AND the highest level of canon for all abilities, imho. The comment at the top of this page states that Lightning is a name given on the show, and not likely to be changed unless another name is given on the show, which it has not been. Honestly, I really don't feel comfortable standing in the way of such a large majority, but I'd feel even less comfortable abandoning the others whose points I agree with. --Stevehim 11:53, 3 December 2008 (EST)
              • Melting was a different case. We didn't have an assignment tracker entry (which is verified information) for it, rather we had what I believe was information from BBC. People involved in the content at BBC have even remarked before that they used Heroes Wiki as a source for their information so it's not considered a reliable source. The comment about Lightning not being changed because it was given on the show was accurate at the time, but since then we've been informed that the assignment trackers are indeed reliable sources right from the writers. They're sort of a special case versus other Evolutions content that we can't verify the authenticity of. You say "we should be shooting for the most explicit name, the most explicitly delivered name, AND the highest level of canon for all abilities" which I absolutely agree with. I think this determination is multi-dimensional and as a result an explicitly named ability on an assignment tracker (again a special case) would take precedence over comments made in episodes with the exception of an equally explicit and contradictory comment like "Your ability is called...". In that case they're equal in explicitness and the episode would prevail, though I'd hope they would keep track of names well enough to prevent that from happening. (Admin 12:44, 3 December 2008 (EST))
              • Well, while not a reliable source, the BBC information (and Heroeswiki...though, to be honest, I think we should be considered as a reliable source, especially considering the partnership with NBC) should qualify as a 4th level of canon (common names from other sources). That was one level down from the source we used (secondary source), so it's a similar situation in that regard, albeit on a different level of overall reliability. My main point about the blurb at the top of this page was that Lightning is referred to as a name, not a description. And if the A.T.'s are considered different from other Evolutions data, shouldn't they be afforded a higher level of canonicity (though I was under the impression that the GN's were also written by the writers, and so am not sure why A.T.'s would be different from those...)? However, as I said, I don't want to stand in the way of what most of the site wants so, not meaning to put undue pressure on them, if the other dissenters can be convinced, I will go along as well.  :) --Stevehim 12:57, 3 December 2008 (EST)
  • Ryan, thanks for the clarification you gave me last night. First, I'd like to point out I never said that lightning only connotes the ability, and I disagree with that statement. I said that lightning has a more detailed connotation. As it is a name of something in nature, people normally understand exactly what you are referring to when you mention it. Tell them 'electric manipulation', and they have to wonder what that entails. That is what I meant, and I've waited to reply till now so I could do so with a clear head and so the other dissenters could re-express their opinions as well, not because I agreed with what you said. Also, as previously stated in our naming conventions discussion, we disagree with applying explicitness over canonicity as you so succinctly pointed out. I now see that it's not a more explicit name but a more explicit naming that you prefer (though your examples were both about more explicit names/information and not name calling). And so you think that 'Ability name: ____' in print is more explicit than identifying something by name with speech, if it isn't clarified that it is being named. We disagree on that, though, since I think that if you are given a specific and clear name, that's all that's important for it to be explicit, and then the canonicity should take precedence cause the perspective is equally as important.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (EST)
  • Admin, you've stated you think the assignment tracker is a very reliable source and very explicit, so it should be used virtually all the time. I think we agree that both canonicity and explicitness need to be considered, but as Ryan had said we disagree over my opinion that canonicity should trump explicitness. When the naming conventions were being discussed last year at this time, Referos made the point that the danger of prioritizing explicitness is "sometimes the characters are wrong, sometimes they lie and sometimes they are just having a casual conversation about their powers."
    So allow me to present an example of that: Say the Kill Squad uses the Primatech database to seek out people with power. They could tell people they have a different ability than they really have to kill them. Say, for instance, a person who can talk with animals but doesn't realize it is told he/she has an ability called "lung adaptation" and can breathe underwater. The squad then tosses the person into an ocean such that he/she drowns. Do we assume the person's power wasn't 'lung adaptation'? If we go by explicitness and didn't have a name for their ability, we'd have to add the person to 'lung adaptation' even though his ability didn't match.
    The same thing goes for the assignment tracker. Remember that we are seeing this tracker profile as it is being presented to Mr. Bennet, and he was Elle's partner for the mission with Sylar, which is either in the classified paragraph or not included, and it's not speculation that the classified paragraph is there. Couldn't someone have altered Mr. Bennet's viewing and/or others' viewing of the records so Elle get respected more? Wasn't it said by Angela that Bob had been protecting Elle? And with everyone having been gone from the Company except for Angela, we don't know that Pinehearst hasn't hacked the tracker too. To put it plainly, the assignment tracker is meant to be part of Heroes Evolutions ARG, and it is meant to be the looked at with the potential of lies and embellishment just like every character. It is even worse than a personalized naming, imho, since we don't know who wrote it either ICly or OOCly. We're lucky the name hasn't been hacked yet to read 'Kablewy Zap Zap' or some other gibberish or childish name. I don't have as much doubts about Peter's naming of the ability as I do the assignment tracker.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (EST)
    • The real world person in charge of the assignment tracker is John O'Hara. He gathers input from a number of people, and there are different writers. For instance, Mark Sable wrote Connie's, and Timm Keppler and Ollie Grigsby have had a major hand in writing some. John O'Hara oversees them all and writes most of them. They are all approved with the writing staff as a whole, though I don't know what that process is like. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)
  • Just to put my two cents in. Remember that Peter is a person who just found out that people had powers only a year ago so he is calling his powers whatever he can relate them to (in this case lightning). Now the Company has been tracking, documenting and studying these powers for three decades or so. Why would NBC put these assignment trackers out if all they were gonna be is lies anyway? I believe that it should be called what the AT calls it and mention what Peter called it because the Company has the upper had in knowing about these abilities. Also Miami why would changing Elle's power name from lightning to electric manipulation make anyone see her any different or have anymore respect for her. Also if you want to go the route of canon sources Sylar's power has never been said on the show so we called it IA but as of the episode the week before last Arthur said that Sylar needed to use his Empathy to absorb powers instead of killing almost the same amount of info we got to name Peter's power EM. If we go that way why not rename Sylar's power too?--Iceman 15:02, 3 December 2008 (EST)
    • Peter doesn't just use the term lightning in 2007, he used it in a graphic novel that was set several years in the explosion future. To answer your first question, Heroes Evolutions has always been expressed as means to supplement the show, to give us a more enriching experience; but there is no proof that it was ever meant to override it. Without the episodes, the Heroes Evolutions ARGverse could never have been created. As to the lying aspect, the whole point of the ARG is to play along in a game, and Heroes is full of lies and half-truths. I mean, Primatech has a whole vault full of secrets and Bennet never even knew whom he really worked for, and you expect him not to be feed whatever lies/half-truths/embellishments the Company so desires? As for Elle's ability, giving it a more generic name like 'electric manipulation' implies that she can do more than just shoot lightning bolts, but the tracker profile doesn't specify anything of the sort. And regarding Sylar's ability, the Empathy was not referred to by Arthur as the name for his ability, but as a method of using his ability. There is a difference. Sorry about the long reply, but you asked a bunch of questions. :)--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2008 (EST)
      • Peter used the term several years in the explosion...when he had just received the power. It was essentially the first time he had used it. Again, I think it's a great name, but it's still just not as explicitly given as it is on the Assignment Tracker form. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2008 (EST)
  • Miami, it's speculative to say the AT is full of lies, especially since there are omissions in the pages. The omissions help indicate that Bennet has access to the files but there are levels that even he can't see. "Sometimes the characters are wrong, sometimes they lie and sometimes they are just having a casual conversation about their powers." - This is saying that a character can be wrong, lying, or speaking casually. The assignment tracker is an archive and data tracker for each of the evolved humans, and though it has to be updated by somebody, it's not a specific person that we can say is wrong, call a liar, or say it's casually presented. Aside from that, NBC/The writers wouldn't feed us false information without the intent of showing us that it's false at some point, and these trackers aren't regularly updated. Further, I think it should be considered higher canonically than it is now, now that it's been shown on the show (granted, minor differences on the shows version could kill this argument.)

-On another note, I do think the AT should be given top priority in naming abilities, but we need to find a good way to go about it. If it's in the "Unique ability" section, that's about as explicit as it gets and we should use it. If it's in the description on the AT but not in the "Unique ability" section, then we should take the show's description over it. --Riddler 16:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

  • The omissions help prove my point that we are seeing the AT from Mr. Bennet's perspective, and the fact that we are supposed to hack for AT passwords tells me the higher-ups still treat it as part of the Heroes ARG and that it's not a bible for the show. Some information is hidden from Noah, and some information may have been given falsely to him. Also, I didn't say the AT is full of lies, I said it may contain some lies, half-truths and/or embellishment and us not know it. We don't know who ICly updates the AT so we lack that sense of 'perspective' related to the AT being an authority. Did Bob ever write or update Elle's original tracker profile? We don't know as we didn't see it being written in the show, novels, etc., so there really is no perspective to reference it. We do know that Mr. Bennet seems to take it seriously, but he's the only person whose access we have for it and I think that should be taken into consideration. Regarding being presented false information or led down the wrong path, it would not be the first time the Company has done so to one of its agents.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (EST)
    • It's enough for me that it's written by the Company. Until they're shown to be unreliable or purposely misleading, we should assume that they are truthful and not full of half truths. They have shown that if they need to hide something from Bennet, they omit a paragraph, they don't put in mistruths. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)
      • Though my above statement of acceding remains the same, I wanted to throw my two cents in on the latest issue. Saying that the A.T.'s contain half-truths/lies no more or less speculation than saying that Peter doesn't know what his power is (I know you didn't say that, but others have). If we're assuming that the Company's A.T. is completely truthful until told otherwise, I'm not sure why the same wouldn't apply to Peter knowing what his power was. While the Company should probably be taken as more reliable when naming powers, that should only apply when they are of equal canonical value. They aren't in this case. I don't feel that powers have an inherent name, and so the Company doesn't have an inherent right to name the abilities; they only have the 'tiebreaker' when there's a contradiction of equal canonicity, based on their expertise (and, as a side note, I still think Mohinder and Chandra should be equal with them in this regard). As for the specific naming of the power, I think the title of the GN Petrified Lightning should also be taken into account. It may not be listed as an explicit name of the power, but it does lend some evidence as to what it's called, specifically when Peter refers to the glass as 'petrified lightning.' --Stevehim 17:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)
        • We don't have to assume that Peter doesn't understand the power--that's a given because he says so. While repeating the word "Lightning" and "Sparks", Caitlin says, "I'm just trying to understand how it works. Peter agrees with her and says, "That makes two of us. So far, I got nothin'." -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2008 (EST)
          • What I got from that conversation is that Peter and Caitlin don't understand how he calls up any power period, which he does through empathic mimicry, not lightning.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)
      • Ryan, but saying that it's written by the Company is speculation. We don't know as to whether the Company used their own scientists for Elle's tracker or hired an outside contractor like in the iStory. It's even possible that someone else hacked it from Pinehearst and altered the information. We don't have any frame of reference for writing the AT, so assuming that the Company is solely responsible is speculative. Stevehim, I agree with most of your points, except about 'petrified lightning'. Since that isn't explicitly calling it 'lightning', it cannot be directly considered. His other references in the explosion future GN and the episodes do stand as equally explicit references, though.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)
        • It's not an important point, and not worth dwelling on but, just for the sake or argument (;)), it could be interpreted to be naming the ability. He says: "This is what happens when lightning hits the beach. It makes glass. They're called fulgurites. Petrified lightning." So it could be taken as naming the ability twice. Once in the first part, and then again, with the appended adjective 'petrified.' --Stevehim 19:21, 3 December 2008 (EST)
        • He was referring to an ability that we're calling electromagnetism, which may or may not be the same as Elle's ability. And, he had only absorbed that ability a few moments before. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2008 (EST)
          • I think he was referring to his own version of the ability, and having been around abilities a few years, he has most certainly gained a bit of experience and understanding of them. That why I'm pointing out that reference, cause I think it contradicts what you are saying that Peter's inexperience makes him a less reliable source. As an aside that's speculation, I think it's very possible he had known Elle in that future as well, but had lost his powers like our current Peter had. I don't see how any butterfly effects from the timeline changes thus far would have changed that.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)
  • Miami I want to respond to your reply with what I said. Peter did not just call it "Lightning" he did a Peter Parker and he called it other names (referring to when Peter Parker was trying to shoot his web, only he didn't call the webs by different names he tried to use different methods). He said "Sparks" as well and if it was only called lightning simply because that's what he said and it actually worked, keep in mind what happened in the graphic novel "Petrified Lightning" it didn't work even when he said "lightning" he had to say "Caitlin" to get it to work but should we rename it "Caitlin?" No and I'll tell you why. He didn't call his ability "lightning" to give it a name, no, he called it "lightning" as a trigger so he could use the ability. He said "Caitlin" and "sparks" flew out, a trigger. Again Peter didn't name it, you can't consider finding a trigger for an ability a name for the ability he's trying to use. Lightning was a good name to use at that time but with a new name a more "canon" name in my opinion, simply when you look back and realize Peter wasn't naming the ability, he was just trying to find a "trigger" to use the ability. --Dman dustin 19:31, 3 December 2008 (EST)
    • That point is rather moot as Peter references 'lightning' even before he has lost his memory and is trying to harness it in Petrified Lightning. That just happens to be one of the most explicit references to it, but in Four Months Later, Peter tells Elle "I was just thinking ... Maybe there's more to you than the whole sadistic lightning thing". It's clear to me by the number of uses both in episodes and in a couple GNs that 'lightning' is both Peter's name for the ability and the most prevalent name for the ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (EST)
    • My two cents? Lightning the not the name of the ability itself, but rather the effect of the ability. Meredith's power isn't "fire", it's pyrokinesis. Pyrokinesis creates fire, while Electrical manipulation creates lightning. --Piemanmoo 19:48, 3 December 2008 (EST)
    • I think Miamivolts was referring to to the GN: Walls, Part 2, not Petrified Lightning (though it seems that while I was typing this Miami was also responding  :)). In it, Peter says:
      "Lightning. That ought to come in handy."

      It is also worth noting that in the introduction of Sum Quod Sum, Part 2, it says:
      "In desperate need of answers, Elle used her lightning ability to electrify the air and stop Claude."

      That seems like a pretty specific naming of an ability to me, and is of equal canonicity to the assignment trackers (currently, though there has been discussion of moving the A.T.'s up above the rest of the near-canon mateirals). --Stevehim 19:49, 3 December 2008 (EST)
      • Well, the blurbs are written by the producers; the assignment tracker profiles we have no idea who writes it, though we assume it's normally a writer. Piemanmoo, Lightning is a weather process that creates 'lightning bolts' and, if those bolts are directed at sand, you get a glass called 'petrified lightning'. Pyrokinesis literally means moving flames; so, it's not just the ability of 'fire', but the ability to make fire move. That's the difference.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)
        • John O'Hara oversees the assignment trackers. He writes most of them and edits them all. Other writers submit information for John. It all gets reviewed by the writing staff as a whole. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (EST)
          • Right. You mentioned the same thing on Talk:Puppet master. We still don't know who wrote either tracker profile.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2008 (EST)
            • Does it matter? For all intents and purposes, it's written by the writers. But I don't think it will matter much to you, you seem very set in your opinion. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (EST)
              • Yes, it matters to me as a first step. Making the tracker a super-canon type entity as Admin said would make our life a lot easier in terms of naming, but I don't want to do that for the wrong reasons. What I'd need to change my mind and accept that is confirmation that the AT is in a sense a show bible for each ability in question. That means not just getting each writer's name, but interviewing that writer for confirmation that the AT profile is completely truthful and not subject to any embellishment by whomever is supposed to be writing them ICly. That does mean compromising my principle that the episodes should always come first. But I'm not opposed to doing so if we got those things confirmed cause in essence, it would mean we'd know part of the master plan as it pertained to the ability. I can't speak for Stevehim and Radicell, but based on their arguments I think they would change their mind as well.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)
                • Well, I've been trying to get ahold of John O'Hara for a very long time now. I've never had any luck. :( -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (EST)
              • On a totally unrelated note, I swear I always thought that phrase to be "All intensive purposes", and it never made any sense to me. Now it does. Thank you, RGS. =P--Riddler 23:58, 3 December 2008 (EST)
                • RyanGibsonStewart: Debunking incorrect clichés one post at a time. :) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (EST)
                  • Hardvice hated when people like me messed up that phrase, heh. If you're reading this, Hardvice, happy holidays. We haven't forgotten you. :)--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)
  • If the Assignment Tracker states that Elle's ability is Electric manipulation then change it. The Assignment Tracker has more validity than anyother canon information.--ACDC1989 13:45, 4 December 2008 (EST)
    • Okay, since I really think we should adopt wikipedia's SNOW policy, I'm moving it to what over 80% of the people agree on. If another 14+ people suddenly decide lightning is a better name, then by all means change it back. --Piemanmoo 16:44, 4 December 2008 (EST)
      • Piemanmoo, you don't get to decide HeroesWiki policy. Admin does and he has said we go by complete consensus. Please stop changing the name without consensus or an administrator may take disciplinary action.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2008 (EST)
        • Does consensus have to be unanimous? Because that's most likely not going to be happening anytime soon. There are only 3 people standing in the way of the rest of the wiki, and at this point it would be logical to keep it at the majority decision. If you can get more people to support your viewpoint, I will glady see too it that all changes are reverted. But almost everyone has decided that the assignment tracker is just as canon as the show itself. I know we're trying to win you 3 guys over, and while I enjoy the discussions here, can't we please just go with the majority in the meantime? Pretty please? Just this once, can we cut through the red tape? --Piemanmoo 18:20, 4 December 2008 (EST)
          • I already reverted the changes, Piemanmoo. It's not your decision to make. The person who decides whether we go by consensus or super-majority is Admin as he's hosting us. If he changes his mind, or wants to see if there is consensus for disregarding consensus for all ability names, he will say so. You can also ask him directly too, but you can't single-handedly make that decision yourself and neither can I.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)
            • Ok. --Piemanmoo 19:09, 4 December 2008 (EST)
            • I say rename it to what the assignment tracker says. I've explained elsewhere already that I feel it deserves priority due to its level of canonicity and explicitness. (Admin 11:34, 9 December 2008 (EST))

Interesting when Stevehim says above:

I think Miamivolts was referring to to the GN: Walls, Part 2, not Petrified Lightning (though it seems that while I was typing this Miami was also responding  :)). In it, Peter says:

"Lightning. That ought to come in handy."

That the actual 'lightning' in that case wasn't even decided to be named as 'lightning'; but rather 'Electromagnetism'. Other than that Walls Agent exhibiting an effect of levitation, his 'lightning' useage frames are no different in presentation that what Elle does with her lightning/Electrical Manipulation. I'm still surprised that their powers are separate into two powers pages. Switching the power name to Electrical Manipulation would allow merging those two together, and noting that the Agent has additionally learned how to manipulate his electrical ability to leviate. But I suppose that's still a side-issue and not the main one here. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 12/5/2008 17:48 (EST)

Consensus: Show versus AT

I can't be the only one with the opinion that "The show always trumps AT, regardless of the circumstances, forever" is an ignorant way of looking at the canonicity of naming. That said, there is clearly a lot of issue with the name here.

I know there was already a call for consensus on this page, but, since we've had a few days to debate this stuff, I feel we may want to try looking at consensus again. --Ricard Desi 16:55, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Thus, let us (try to) decide once and for all what this ability is:

  • Do we need TWO consensus's for the same exact thing? o_O--Riddler 17:08, 7 December 2008 (EST)
    • We've already given our opinions and there was no consensus. I think you are free to rehash opinions, but it isn't going to change mine. Also, there is no new information to consider so there should not be a new consensus check. As per consensus policy, it is called "forum shopping" and considered an abuse. Thus, I'm changing the subsequent opinions to a new thread.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)
      • The point for asking for consensus again (and giving the two options) was because the original one was made before the AT page was updated. This was to see where the numbers stand after the fact (and a few days of debate). --Ricard Desi 19:30, 7 December 2008 (EST)
        • Stevehim and I have both posted since the AT came out, and Radicell posted specifically that he thought the episode phrases trump the AT.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (EST)
  • Something came up on the A.T. talk page, regarding the canonicity/reliability of the A.T.'s. We list Niki and Knox as having the same ability. Knox's assignment tracker does not list Niki as a person having a similar ability, despite having that section on the page. The Company has known about Niki's ability for some time now, and has studied it fairly in depth. Assuming Knox's A.T. was created before they knew about Niki, this means that the Company does not update their A.T.'s with all of the information they have, and so the reliability/completeness of the trackers is, to me, very much in question. --Stevehim 21:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)


  • While Peter did call it "lightning", several times, it was a description, by a non-expert, of an ability. In the same way, we don't call Hiro's power "time travel", even though that phrase is used significantly more often than "space-time manipulation". In addition, Elle's AT profile, presumably written by Company agents or otherwise-trustworthy sources related to the Company, calls it, explicitly, "Electric manipulation". This seems to be extremely clear to me. --Ricard Desi 16:55, 7 December 2008 (EST)
  • Pretty much what has been said about Company and people who little about abilities. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:05, 7 December 2008 (EST)
    • Scroll up to see several reasons from a few people who oppose this. Thanks.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)
      • I am still confused as to how exactly 3 people's opinions are being held higher than the opinions of 17 others? --Piemanmoo 18:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)
        • That's the principle of consensus which Admin chose for us to use on this wiki. We don't get to apply it selectively.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2008 (EST)
          • The name used now was chosen in a consensus prior to the AT, to change to the AT name, there are two ways: either a new consensus is achieved or the policies on ability name is changed to allow majority or some other standard. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:02, 7 December 2008 (EST)
            • Hence why I was trying to get a second call for consensus. Can we get Admin to weigh in on this? --Ricard Desi 19:32, 7 December 2008 (EST)
            • Admin chose consensus for us as he thought consensus was the best route. We should probably get his opinion on holding such a consensus check, since without confirmation that he is at least not opposed now, it's rather pointless.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)
    • I say change it based on the fact that the assignment trackers are more explicit than names picked by us based on dialogue and that it's been confirmed that the assignment trackers are written by and reviewed by writers. I suspect this will be reflected in policy soon anyway. (Admin 11:29, 9 December 2008 (EST))

Manipulating electricity

Hey, I was wondering if we should include Elle having the ability to manipulate existing sources of electricity as she did in Eris Quod Sum and The Butterfly Effect.Titan3510 23:54, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Check out this userpage...

... which merges Lightning and Electromagnetism into one page:
Electric Manipulation --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 12/8/2008 17:40 (EST)

  • What about electrical absorption? Great page by the way. --FlamingTomDude 18:17, 8 December 2008 (EST)
    • Piemanmoo has also created User:Piemanmoo/Electric manipulation as well. I feel just as strongly about keeping them separated as some have suggested they should be merged. We don't know that lightning can cause electromanetism. Please reply about this discussion on Talk:Electromagnetism. Thanks.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2008 (EST)
    • Good page. We probably don't need to put both Peter and Future peter on the infobox, though, just to save room. That, and the "m" in maniuplation should be lowercase. Other than that, I think it's terrific and should be implemented.--Piemanmoo 01:48, 9 December 2008 (EST)
      • Please take a minute and read my findings here: Talk:Electromagnetism. I transcribed both of those GNs this week, and am even more convinced that the DHS Agent's primary power is Electrical manipulation and should be merged; just like Elles. Nothing in either GN mention anything to do with Electromagnetism, but we have speculated that name from his secondary ability of levitation. No need to re-type all of what I found it two places, so check out the rest at the other talk page. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 12/9/2008 16:21 (EST)
        • I agree, now that we're calling Elle's ability "electric manipulation", that the future agent's ability can also be called the same thing. I think I'll head on over to talk:electromagnetism and share my thoughts there. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (EST)
        • User:Shadowulf1 20:51, 13 December 2008 (EST) I think this is smart; electric manipulation takes up much less room than lightning, electrical absorption, and electromagnetism, and its much more convenient...
          • Electrical absorption wasn't called lightning. That's a different ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)


Has the recent image change from Elle using her ability on Sylar in It's Coming to her saving him in Villains been approved by the community and relevant parties? I don't see a consensus anywhere. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 09:44, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Where is...

...Edward? Isn't he supposed to be listed as having the ability as a byproduct? Or was him removed due to the somewhat vague answer it was given about his ability? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 10:04, 15 December 2008 (EST)

  • It was brought up on another page, regarding how to deal with byproducts/other abilities with the same effects (specifically, see Ryan's post toward the bottom of that section). --Stevehim 10:14, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Electrical Discharge

Couldn't this ability be called electrical discharge? Because think about it. She's not really manipulating the electricity, she's creating it. Electrical generation would work, but it doesn't explain what happens to it once it's generated. And electrokinesis wouldn't make sense because, once agian, she's not moving electricity that's already there- she's creating it. This is just a suggestion, but it makes sense. Right? --Spexile 21:58, 15 December 2008

  • The name of the ability is from a near-canon source, and thus should remain. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 17:13, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Proposed renaming of Moab agents

I posted this on a different page, but I think it got lost in the shuffle, so I'll post it here as well (since this page is looked at more often), to get opinions before proceeding. Is it ok to call them 'Electric manipulation agent' and 'Enhanced speed agent,' on various pages (like this one)? I've done it here because the speedster was listed as 'Enhanced speed agent' on the Prison ambush agent's page, in the future characters portal at the bottom, but I'll wait to continue doing this until it is confirmed that this is acceptable. My two cents would be we should do this. It differentiates between the agents (which only the links currently do), and it seems similar to 'Prison ambush agent.' Any thoughts/objections? --Stevehim 22:36, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I like that wording; it easily identifies them, and it also differentiates their abilities. I would also suggest to include their third compadre in the rename. The only problem with renaming them in the fashion you suggest is it causes them to not sort together, and they really do group as a trio. My only other suggestion would be to name them in this manner, so they would group together in any lists we might have:
  • DHS Enhanced speed agent
  • DHS Electric manipulation agent
  • DHS Ambush agent
--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 12/18/2008 10:33 (EST)

Incorrect use of "Electrocute"

Just for the record, we should stay away from the word "electrocute" unless the individual was actually killed by the shock. To electrocute is to kill, if they're not dead, they weren't electrocuted. Psilaq Remake 19:43, 1 January 2009 (EST)

  • Good catch, I edited them to "electrify". --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:01, 1 January 2009 (EST)
    • Sounds Good. Psilaq Remake 20:05, 1 January 2009 (EST)
      • Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know there was a difference. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2009 (EST)
        • I always knew that stupid project would go to use someday... Psilaq Remake 22:33, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Image request

How does anyone feel about this picture of Sylar or this picture of Elle. I feel these are really clear and visible shots of Electric manipulation.--Catalyst 22:02 February 2009

  • Sorry, I think the current image is better, the bolt is more focused than it is in those two. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:27, 16 February 2009 (EST)
    • Ok. Then how about this one here?-- Catalyst · Talk · HL 01:11, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
      • If you're asking my opinion, I personally like the action and energy in the one that's there currently. It also reminds me of one of my all-time favorite dramatic scenes from Heroes. About the only one I like more is this image. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
        • I personally really like the third image you suggested Catalyst (although that may just be because of Kristen Bell) however the current image displays the use of electric manipulation near perfectly.--Steely McBeam - (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
      • I the one we're using is the best --IronyUTC CH 05:27, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

What about this one?-- Catalyst · Talk · HL 21:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)