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:Freezing/Archive 4

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:Freezing/Archive 4 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Freezing. Archive.jpg

Just a note

If this page would be called as Water and Ice Manipulation, wouldn't that not explain how she can turn into water, freeze things and create torrents of water? By what I uderstand with the name WaIM, if I were to first glance at it, I would think she could manipulate EXTERNAL(already exsisting) sources of water and ice, and not create, induce or turn into them. We have yet to see her actually controlling ice blocks or anything like that. Yes, I know the name's near-cannon as it was said in a GN but still...--Realistic

  • As far as canon goes, it's the best name. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:39, 27 January 2010 (EST)
    • She has been shown to manipulate water outside of her own body... --Skullman1392 17:29, 27 January 2010 (EST)
      • Not ice blocks, but we've seen her create and manipulate both her own body and external sources of water. It's a far better name then Freezing for what she can do, in any case. Swm 17:43, 27 January 2010 (EST)
        • I don't know what exactly you guys mean for controlling ice blocks. I know she made ice spikes in one of the Ice Queen GNs. --mc_hammark 17:47, 27 January 2010 (EST)
  • I'm saying that she actually "created" both water and ice from her body. With WaIM, it implies simply manipulating existing ones. In example, you cannot say you "manipulated" an icerberg when, in fact, you actually created one. "Manipulation" would be another action besides "creation". What Tracy does is to create water/ice and then manipulate it thus resulting in freezing objects and flooding cars. The name also won't account her "turning into water". Anyhow, I'm just pointing out my views about it. No need to take me seriously here. --Realistic
    • I agree, and beside the poll have many votes that favors the split even though it was unofficial. Why don't we made it official? --Dark Master 07:21, 28 January 2010 (EST)
      • Because the show gave us "Freezing" explicitly, and one GN said "water and ice manipulation abilities" (which, if you'll notice, is using the phrase "water and ice manipulation" to describe the word "abilities", not as an explicit name). --Ricard Desi (t,c) 08:58, 28 January 2010 (EST)
        • Well, "Touch and Go" was also said by Hiro and Ando many times on the series "a canon source" why didn't we use it then? Instead we used a name given by one of us on the wiki. "Water and Ice Manipulation" was given on the graphic novel even though it was only on the beginning phrase, a near-canon source. Much higher than Matt Jr.'s "Activation and Deactivation" that was only given by us. --Dark Master 07:51, 3 February 2010 (EST)
          • Freezing was clearly shown on a file, "Touch and go" is a colloquial phrase, which was used to describe the baby and not the ability, if I'm not mistaken.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:32, 3 February 2010 (EST)
            • And in show, freezing is outdated, the fact characters don't discuss her ability doesn't change that. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:36, 3 February 2010 (EST)
              • Didn't say that it did, I was only explaining why we currently use freezing but not "touch and go".--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:37, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                • I think we didn't use "touch and go" because it didn't include the deactivation aspect.--Referos 17:06, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                  • We do not change an ability name to "cover all aspects", that rule is in regard to descriptively-named abilities not given explicitly. Freezing was shown in Tracy's file, and as such, it would take another explicit source (at least as definitive as a file) to change it. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                    • You know, I can't wait until they release an Heroes Encyclopedia that details everything we didn't know about the company, ability names, that sort of thing. I will be epic. --mc_hammark 17:39, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                      • Ricard, when all Tracy could do was freeze, that would be a solid argument. Since then, her ability has developed, and a new name has been shown, in the GN entry. It's not as high in the canon scale, but since an ability change invalidates the old name, that what we should go for. Let's say that someone had heat generation, and was so called. If that person developed developed the ability to become fire along the way, we wouldn't be able to call it heat generation anymore. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:47, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                        • And another thing, imagine if tracy had died, if another character entered with this ability, we would not under any circumstances name it under this as it would be called speculative. --mc_hammark 17:50, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                        • "Since then, her ability has developed, and a new name has been shown, in the GN entry. It's not as high in the canon scale..." Which is why this name cannot change. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 09:29, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                          • The previous name has been invalidated by the ability change, it no longer applies to the current ability, which means the one in the GN is the top name for Tracy's ability. I remember someone making a very good case about the flaws of putting sources in a hierarchy. If Tracy could become water as well as freeze things when she was first introduced, would we call her ability "freezing"? Of course not. René was introduced as being able to erase memories and block powers. If he could only block powers and then developed memory erasing, we wouldn't keep his ability as "power blocking". Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 09:35, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                            • Would they have called her ability freezing? It's not our job to speculate. The show said "Freezing", so we say "Freezing". --Ricard Desi (t,c) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                              • GN calling it "water and ice manipulation" isn't speculation. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 09:47, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                • GNs also get extraordinarily basic things wrong, like periods of time, names of people and places, inconsistencies, misspelled names and words, etc. The cover page in particular is rarely a reliable source. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                  • And episodes also show some pretty bad continuity as well from time to time, the latest episode in particular sparked some discussion because of the wonkiness of dates. Just because GNs can get things wrong it doesn't mean they can't get things right. GNs complement info given on the show, ability names included. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 10:12, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                    • I would also just like to point out this same writer (Foz McDermott) is responsible for Boom (which featured a bizarre time inconsistency involving Level 5) and Yang & Yang (which featured the truly weird spider mimicry). Now, perhaps he's not responsible for writing the cover page synopsis (which has been the case in the past), in which case we now have someone totally removed from the equation making the claim. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 10:16, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                      • There was a "timeline inconsistency" in boom as we were confused as to what year it was meant to be. Now we know it was in 2009 (when they said A year ago) it kinda makes more sense. --mc_hammark 10:23, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                        • Not that, I'm referring to "Level 5 Compromised. Situation FUBAR." --Ricard Desi (t,c) 10:46, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                          • Wait, what inconsistency was there? --mc_hammark 11:08, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                            • Bennet was in Level 5 when the escape happened, and no other major events occurred until they had already returned to Primatech, gearing up to take down Pinehearst. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 11:14, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                              • There was Daphne opening up the cells, trying to recruit Sylar, and she recruited Flint. That would account for it. --mc_hammark 11:42, 4 February 2010 (EST)
                                      • "Spider mimicry" wasn't created by Foz McDermott, it was created by one of the writers of the Slow Burn webisodes. He wanted it to actually be in the webisodes, but there was no logically way to include it, so he asked for it to be in on of the GNs. --Skullman1392 20:27, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Can I just ask

I just want to ask (especially to those who voted above to keep as freezing) who thinks that the ability has changed (but don't want to change the name of the page because it's canon, and who thinks that the ability still is the same one.

Same ability

  1. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:24, 10 February 2010 (EST) If precognition is accepted as an aspect of Parkman's telepathy (but no one else's), then water mimicry is an aspect of Tracy's freezing (but no one else's).

Different ability

  1. I personally think the ability has changed, but can understand why people want to keep it under a canon name. --mc_hammark 20:22, 10 February 2010 (EST)

How am I going to phrase this? I believe Tracy's ability has always been what it is, she just didn't know what she could do, or had some sort of mental block on it because of the trauma of killing someone when she manifested. I don't think that her ability ever changed, but that due to her experiences, Tracy learned to access more of her ability. Hope I made sense. I believe that puts me in "same ability". Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:26, 10 February 2010 (EST)

  • Couldn't have said it better. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:33, 10 February 2010 (EST)
    • Right, so you're going along the lines of, she never had freezing in the first place, but just displayed that aspect of her own ability first. --mc_hammark 20:40, 10 February 2010 (EST)
    • Agree with IE and Richard.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 20:47, 10 February 2010 (EST)
      • Mc hammark said what I think in simpler words. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:53, 10 February 2010 (EST)
        • I agree. Same ability since Volume 3, but was never the actual ability freezing, like what Sylar/James Walker had.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 21:00, 10 February 2010 (EST)
          • EXACTLY!! Jeremy got split from Linderman and Ishi, why not Tracy from James and Sylar? --Skullman1392 21:03, 10 February 2010 (EST)
            • Even if we split, Tracy is the one who'd remain with freezing, same as how Jeremy stayed with "healing touch".--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 21:05, 10 February 2010 (EST)
              • Then what would we call this ability? Have a Freezing touch and a Freezing page? haha --OutbackZack 21:29, 10 February 2010 (EST)
                • Hahaha not a bad idea -Skullman1392 21:31, 10 February 2010 (EST)
      • Whoa, hang on. I definitely wasn't saying she never had freezing. Entirely the opposite. I think it's a legitimate extension of freezing. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:59, 10 February 2010 (EST)
        • So are you saying that her ability was always freezing and that the water control evolved from it? Or are you saying that freezing and control water was her ability the entire time, but she just wasn't experienced enough to use it?--OutbackZack 00:05, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • I am suggesting that her ability was always freezing and that the water control evolved from it. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 01:39, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • Ah, but isn't deciding what is 'a legitimate extension of freezing' speculation on our part? If Tracy suddenly stopped time, would we just list that as an aspect of freezing, because that is the name her power was given? While 'freezing' and 'water' may feel similar because you can freeze water, it really doesn't make any sense that I can see, either from a scientific standpoint or from general uses of the word. The argument being made for freezing seems to be that we were given a canon name and that trumps describing all aspects of her ability. As such, if she were to stop time, read minds, or emit poison, the same argument should be applied. Is that what we would do? --Stevehim 00:08, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • Even if all those things were to happen, until we got an explicit "It's not actually freezing." we would stay with Freezing. On top of that, even less convincing than with Healing Touch, no one on the show has even suggested that her ability is different than freezing. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 01:39, 11 February 2010 (EST)
            • That's something I very much disagree with. First, one could argue that they did suggest her ability is different from freezing when they showed her turn into liquid, which has nothing to do with freezing. Are we now saying that verbal canon trumps visual canon? On what basis? If we're going to be that strict with canon, then many things could be revisited based on that. How do we know that Peter got flight from West? Nothing in canon states that. I'm not sure we even have anyone saying that Peter's current power is different from his old one, do we? I know he lost his power and then took the formula and now can only replicate one ability at a time, but that's still speculative to claim it's different from EM. Maybe he can only access part of EM. How do we know the formula gave him a new power instead of restoring his old one? The list goes on and on of things that we have to speculate somewhat on, because they are not directly addressed, verbally, in canon. --Stevehim 04:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)
              • Yes, we are saying that "verbal canon" trumps "visual canon". Because "verbal canon" is explicit, and "visual canon" is implicit. We assume Peter got flight from West because he asks Claire if he knows where he is, and other than Sylar, he's the only known EH with flight. Additionally, it's very possible that AR is just a weakened EM. But we don't know that for sure, so we can't say that. We don't speculate on things when the show TELLS us what's happening. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 10:15, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                  • "We assume Peter got flight from West because he asks Claire if he knows where he is, and other than Sylar, he's the only known EH with flight." -- How is that not speculation?
                  • Also, visual data is not implicit. We routinely base our findings on things we see, and don't hear (eg - acquiring of powers). If Peter suddenly took off into the air and Claire said, wow, he can fly, and Mohinder responded with "No he can't. That's just not possible based on his DNA. There must be some other explanation"...wouldn't we take what we saw over what we heard, and assume Mohinder (who is about as expert a canon source as there is) was mistaken? Implicit, in the sense you are using it, means implied, which means 'indirectly expressed,' which is not the same thing as interpreting visual data. "Sylar is more powerful than Doyle" is implicit in him overpowering Doyle several times. Sylar having the ability of mental manipulation if we see him block powers and erase memories is not implicit..it is visually explicit (meaning there is no proviso in the definition of 'explicit' that denotes it has to be verbal..it just has to be unambiguous). --Stevehim 13:01, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                    • It's not speculation because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. There is no feasible rationality to support an opposing claim. And I have to ask, what is it with people arguing their point with ridiculously exaggerated ideas? "What if Peter flies, and Mohinder says 'He can't fly, it's impossible.'" or "What if Tracy could suddenly stop time." or "What if someone with super speed made everyone else slow down?" etc etc. We don't deal in "what if"s. The show says something, we write it down. Simple as that. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 13:06, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                      • The show says things that don't go together. "What if"s is what we use for sake of argument, setting up scenarios similar to things that happened to see what the course of action would be, and them apply the logic to the original scenario. I never thought I see myself telling this to someone, but you are way too hung up on rules. There's no point in having them if they don't work properly, meaning they need to be changed or adapted. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:24, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                          • With regards to West and Peter...on what basis are you deciding that Peter and Claire's conversation is 'overwhelming evidence' of where Peter got flight, but that Tracy suddenly turning into liquid is not 'overwhelming evidence' that freezing doesn't cover her ability (or that she doesn't have a second ability)? Further, there is a feasible rationality to support an opposing claim to Peter getting flight from West, and that is Peter getting flight from an 'unknown source,' and noting his conversation with Claire in the Notes section, which is something we always do as well. --Stevehim 13:36, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                            • Regarding West and Peter: Peter asks Claire if she can contact West. West and Sylar are the only two known EHs in the show who have flight. Peter obviously didn't rep flight from Sylar. Thus, we can safely assume (well within reason) that Peter replicated flight from West. To claim that Peter randomly met someone else with flight and replicated it from them, rather than West, whom he asked Claire about, is horrifically speculative.
                            • Regarding Tracy: No one in the show has two abilities, as stated by the writers. "Freezing" was explicitly given in a file as her ability name. The only opposing name given was the term "water and ice manipulation abilities", and it was stated in the intro to a GN (so it's not even an in-GN reference). Based on this, it is not acceptable to overturn an explicit, canon name in favor of a less-than-explicit, near-canon, not-in-universe name. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 13:47, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                              • Regarding West and Peter...You admit you're making an assumption, but saying it is the obvious assumption to make, and yet you constantly say that we should not be making any assumptions, just documenting what we see. Maybe Peter got it from someone else with flight; maybe he did get it from Sylar...how do you know he didn't?
                              • Regarding Tracy: I can name 4 people off the top of my head who have been shown to have more than one power...Peter, Sylar, Linda Tavara, and Arthur...and that's not counting future versions. Again I ask, when was the last time the writers commented that each character has only one ability? If it was their comment back in season 1 or 2, I don't think you can use that to support things that have come since. As for her ability, it is as explicit as it gets, more accurate to what we've seen her do in all types of sources, more recent information than freezing, and at the very least direct evidence that she has the ability of water manipulation (it is explicitly stated, apparently). I brought this up earlier, I'll do so again...Let's say that we get an interview with the writers and ask them about ability names, and they correct things we have seen on the show (eg - they say We know what it said in the file, but Tracy's power has evolved and is now officially called 'Water manipulation). According to our naming conventions (and the point that canon trumps all that you are forwarding), we would not listen to a direct comment from the writers, because 'Interviews' is a Secondary source and trumped by canon. That makes no sense to me.
                                Heck, even in the naming conventions there are provisos for not simply accepting names explicitly given in canon: "When a possible name for an ability appears in a canon, near-canon, or secondary source, it is important to consider whether the name describes the ability itself or merely one or more of its effects or applications: As a general rule, for a possible name to be considered the name of an ability, it should include at least all aspects of the ability which have been displayed; otherwise, it is considered to be the name of an aspect or effect of the ability." --Stevehim 14:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                                • Incorrect. Peter, Sylar, Linda, and Arthur have one ability apiece. It just so happens that their ability allows them to copy other abilities. And even if they said it in Season One, Peter had already mimicked several powers. The phrase "water and ice manipulation abilities" was in the intro of a GN. Nowhere in the context of the actual show/comics/webisodes/etc has any character even suggested that her power is a new one. Additionally, there are known exceptions to the naming conventions. Explicit naming in an interview would trump everything. Assignment Trackers fall immediately after that. Files immediately after that. Then it's episodes as normal, etc etc. "Interviews" as a Tier 3 is so we don't take an off-hand comment like "I guess he points at glasses and makes them explode" and say the ability is therefore "glass-exploding". Clear, explicit names trump everything, regardless of source. And in regard to "all aspects": The rule is intended for use in Descriptive Names. The admins have made this clear on numerous occasions. This is not an issue of descriptive names, thus the name does not need to encompass every aspect. See telepathy for a perfect example. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                                  • I'll address these in reverse order this time.
                                    • Telepathy can be said to encompass every aspect of Matt's ability, as defined by Bob in the show, or really anywhere else. See IE's post in the next section for clarification on that.
                                    • UPDATE: The exceptions are on the naming conventions page...hell they're even in a conversation I started...lol...just goes to show how fuzzy my memory is...now we just need a link to where it was stated that describing all aspects of an ability doesn't apply to explicitly named abilities...).......When have the admins made it clear that it applies to descriptive abilities only? It must've been on a talk page somewhere, because the current naming conventions page makes it clear it applies to all levels of reference. If they have adjusted the policy via discussion, it needs to be updated (with a link to where they specified this) on the naming conventions page. If you can provide a link to where they said this, I will be glad to fix it. The same with exceptions to the naming conventions...if it's not on the naming conventions page, how is anyone supposed to know what the rules are? Until I can go and see the conversations where admins explicitly stated exceptions to the rules, I have to follow what is plainly printed on the appropriate page. Since this has always been a hotbed of controversy, I am very surprised nothing has been updated, or even linked to, and it should be, if we're supposed to take it to heart. Otherwise, many of the editors on the site, including all new ones, would be confused as to why the rules weren't being followed. (Note: Not sure if it's on the naming conventions talk page...I was involved in many of the old discussions, but don't recall if anything was ever officially decided on that front...I don't think it was).
                                    • Again, I would say that 'she has water and ice manipulation abilities' is as specific as saying 'person X has ability Y.' It's essentially the same sentence, grammatically.
                                      • Actually, grammatically speaking, it is a collective noun being used as an adjective to describe "abilities". It's effectively saying "She can freeze things, and she can turn herself into manipulable liquid. These are her water and ice manipulation abilities." It's describing the aspects, not defining the power itself. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                                    • As for replicative abilities, I counter that your interpretation is incorrect. We list (and always have) the characters with these abilities as having more than one ability. That's why we call their primary ability 'original ability,' and don't designate the ones they gain as aspects of it. There has been no evidence whatsoever that I've ever heard of that if Sylar were to lose his IA he'd lose his other abilities as well. That's pure speculation, afaik. Additinally, they are listed on the ability pages themselves as having that ability. The bottom line is that there is any amount of evidence throughout the site that we consider these characters to have more than one ability, and none that states they have one. IE even provided a direct canon quote right here stating that a character has more than one ability.
                                      • Actually, we list them as having one ability. Under that, we include "Absorbed abilities" or "Current replicated ability". None of the "replicators" are listed as having more than one core ability. And actually, Sylar DID lose all his abilities (minus TK, a very special case) when he got the Shanti virus in Season 2. When he was healed, all he had was IA and TK. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                                        • No, we list them as having many abilities, with one original ability. The adjectives 'absorbed' and 'replicated' denote how the abilities were attained, not that they aren't really abilities possessed by the characters. As for Sylar, I am aware of his loss of abilities due to the Shanti virus...but I am not sure what that has to do with the idea that if he loses his core ability (IA) everything else goes with it. There is no evidence at all that I've ever heard of that indicates the virus took his IA and everything else went along with it. In fact, you just pointed out that TK is a separate ability...it doesn't matter if it's a 'special case.' To boot, we have an explicit canon source (Noah's comment) that Sylar has more than one ability. I don't really see how you can claim that is not to be trusted when the crux of your freezing argument is based on having an explicit canon source. On top of that: "Power absorption is the ability to steal the abilities of other evolved humans through physical contact, rendering them powerless." The stealer of abilities now has those abilities as well. --Stevehim 18:05, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                                • Ah, I just remembered where it came from now. It was when Parkman gained precognition. There were NUMEROUS questions about whether he now had two abilities or not, and the resounding answer was "Everyone has one ability." It was during Volume Four. Looking for the BTE now. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:09, 11 February 2010 (EST)
You forgot Samson.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 14:08, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                        • I'm sorry, but "What if Tracy could suddenly stop time?" is about the most ridiculous argument I've seen on here yet. There is nothing gained by positing an idea like that. The rules do what they're intended to do. They keep this wiki accurate to the show, not combative to it. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 13:29, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                            • This is the discussion page, not the article pages and, as IE pointed out, 'what if's' are used to make the point, not to claim we need to document the theoretical idea posited. In this case the point is that if we see a character manifest something that is generally not covered by the previous ability name, we should not expect the writers to have to use up their air time finding a way to explicitly rename it for us, especially when the new power already exists on the site. The other point I think some of us are trying to make is that the current rules are not sufficient to keep wiki accurate to the show. (incidentally, I believe there was something similar to the Mohinder claiming impossibility thing, even beyond when he did so, repeatedly, in season 1). --Stevehim 13:36, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • Also, I think there is a problem with the idea that canon sources trump near-canon sources that come after. Basically, you are saying that if the writer's want to change or clarify anything that's been in the show, they have to do it in the show, and not in any of the other mediums they provide. That ties their hands unnecessarily in providing us with information. Additionally, we have broken that rule before, namely with the AT's, so simply stating that 'canon source = end of story' should not be a valid argument on its own (I realize there may be other supporting arguments in this particular case, but I'm only referring to the times where anyone has stated it was canon, end of story). --Stevehim 00:13, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • The GNs have a LONG history of being outright wrong about certain things. Keep in mind that the television show is the primary medium. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 01:39, 11 February 2010 (EST)
            • Also, GN intros are not GN's.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 01:44, 11 February 2010 (EST)
              • But we still used them to name abilities. We just can't be choose and pick which are right and which are wrong. --OutbackZack 02:53, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                • Agreed. Whether or not the GNs have been wrong in the past is something of a moot point. They are considered a near-canon source, written by the writers of the show, and have supplied us with much that we take to be as valuable as that of the show (eg - Is Peter any more valid of a character than Linda Tavara?). However, my point was not to treat them as equal to the show...my point was that by saying a canon source always trumps anything else, even after things change, you are effectively saying that the writers cannot supply us with new information anywhere other than in the show (or that they can supply it...we're just not going to listen).
                  Look at it this way...let's assume the writers do an interview and explicitly state that Tracy's power is called water and ice manipulation. They further state that they know they called it freezing in the show, but that it has changed. According to our naming conventions and the arguments being presented here, this doesn't matter, and we should keep the ability freezing until it's actually stated in the show, because writer interviews are not canon sources, and would be trumped (just like the GNs) by the only canon source (ie - broadcast episodes). That doesn't seem remotely right to me.
                • Finally, the show itself is far from infallible, and has retconned and directly contradicted itself time and again. --Stevehim 04:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                  • The GN intro referred to her power as her "water and ice manipulation abilities". Problems with this: 1. "water and ice manipulation" is being used to describe the word "abilities" (grammatically speaking). This implies that "water and ice manipulation" is not a stated name, but is being used to describe her ability. 2. "abilities" is plural. Every writer who has ever been asked has stated that everyone has exactly one ability. This kind of an obvious error severely drops the credibility of this GN intro as a naming source. 3. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Tracy's freezing naturally evolved to the point of being able to liquify herself. She does not control liquid that is not a part of herself. Like I said at the top of this section, if Parkman is the only telepath who can paint the future, then I posit that Tracy may be the only freezer who can liquify herself. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 10:21, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                    • If someone said Hiro had "space and time manipulation abilities", that would still refer to one ability. Tracy has manipulated water that is not her, she used geysers against Eli. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:01, 11 February 2010 (EST)

                      1. Re: 1. I would then take that as a near-canon statement that she has two powers, one called ice manipulation (rather than freezing) and another called water manipulation. In fact, the quote you provided: "The GN intro referred to her power as her "water and ice manipulation abilities"." is about as explicit as it gets. It's the same thing as Noah saying 'He has the ability of flight.' Once the word 'ability' is used, it pretty much takes away the idea that it is a description rather than a name.
                      2. Re: 2. Several problems with this. First, GN's trump writer interviews according to canon rules, so when they contradict each other, the GNs are to be trusted. Second, we have seen several characters with multiple abilities, so obviously there are exceptions. Third, what is the time frame on the writers' comments? Was Tracy even around when they've made those claims? Things obviously change in the Heroes Universe, all the time, so we can't base things on old interviews (meaning that, technically, anyone or anything introduced after an interview, would not be subject to what was said,m unless it was explicitly stated that the comments would apply to future events).
                      3. Re: 3. What I am saying is that freezing does not account for liquefication anymore than freezing would account for reading minds. I agree with IE that we need to consider accuracy as well as canonicity, otherwise you run into problems (eg - Referos' poit of how we know a character isn't a shapeshifted Sylar, how we know Peter's phasing was mimicking DH's ability instead of an offshoot of something he already had (or for that matter, why we interpret EM as 'giving new abilities' instead of just incorporating them as aspects of Em once the holder has been around other EHs, etc). --Stevehim 13:28, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                      • No one has two abilities (without a replicative core ability). Period. The writers have made this very clear, on MANY occasions. Re: 1. If someone looks at Parkman and says he has "mindreading abilities", do we then change his ability name to Mindreading? It's a description, not a definition. Re: 2. The GNs are to be trusted unless they contradict Episodes, in which case (like this one), the episode trumps the GN. Re: 3. We've never seen anyone with freezing freeze themselves solid before. It is entirely possible that liquefaction is a natural evolution of the ability, only accessible after the body experiences this effect. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 13:53, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                        • Now you've added a rider, but it's still not even totally accurate, as Linda Tavara did not have a replicative ability (nor did Arthur, technically). Please source the latest instance of the writers making that claim, if possible. 1. It would certainly be a point to argue changing Matt's ability name, yes, to be measured against the canonicity of 'telepathy.' 2. I have made my point about the levels of naming conventions, the problems therein, and the rider that's stated in the naming conventions for canon sources not always trumping lower sources when not encompassing all aspects of an ability. 3. Sure it's possible...there's just no evidence of it. Lots of stuff is possible, but I know you hate 'what if's,' so I'll just say that power evolution being related to freezing oneself is a 'what if.' --Stevehim 14:21, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                          • I don't know if there is a more recent example, but when Sylar was first captured after homecoming, Noah told him that everyone has only one ability, but Sylar had several. It's all about finding a name for a core ability, from which secondary effects can be derived. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:24, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                            • That's the one I was thinking of (and I think there was a BTE around then too), and if that's the latest one, it is completely outdated and should only apply to what we (or what the Company) had seen/knew up to that point. --Stevehim 14:30, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                              • The BTE that stated this was actually during Volume Four when Matt's precognition came into question. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:12, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                              • That's not what he said though, he said that all the individuals the company had encountered only had one ability. It's very plausible that the company never met someone with multiple abilities. --mc_hammark 14:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)
  • Considering that this discussion now has very little to do with the power itself, and is only concerned with its designation, can I suggest that this debate move to the naming conventions article? Someone has already started one.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:02, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • Ok, I'm putting this here because the multiple indents is making me slightly dizzy. While I agree that Tracy's ability has never been freezing, I do believe that "water and ice manipulation" is a viable name. The fact that it says "abilities" is a moot point, this is the same as saying Hiro has "space and time manipulation" abilities. I agree with Desi on the count that even replicators/mimic/empaths all need to have an ability which allows them to acquire other abilities. On their own, I also agree that people have only one ability. And Desi, you just said yourself that WaiM describes the effects. Usually, I wouldn't say that this should be used to name an ability, but in this case, the description of effects is wide enough to account for all known effects of the ability. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:54, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Aspects

I would like to counter much of this rename argument with a question. Matt Parkman's ability is telepathy. However, after his spirit walk, precognition became an aspect of his ability, despite there being no precedent for a telepath to suddenly become precognitive. We have all come to accept this as a unique aspect of Parkman's telepathy.

Tracy Strauss's ability is freezing. However, after her cold snap (in which her body was frozen solid), water mimicry became an aspect of her ability, despite there being no precedent for a freezer to suddenly be able to mimic water.

My question is: How is it so difficult to accept the idea that, as a result of her freezing herself solid (something Sylar and James Walker never did as far as we can tell), Tracy was capable of evolving her ability to have a new unique aspect? --Ricard Desi (t,c) 13:58, 11 February 2010 (EST)

  • Precognition is more readily defined as an aspect of telepathy than turning into water is of freezing, imo. Telepathy, canonically, encompasses 'anything the mind controls,' according to one of the most well-informed sources. Other than the idea that you can freeze water, there is no connection between turning your body liquid and solid. I would be more comfortable with freezing being an aspect of water mimicry, which makes much more sense to me. I state it in the mess above, but I'll do so again here since it may have gotten lost in the vast discussion...our naming conventions seem to state that an ability named in canon should not necessarily be used when it doesn't describe all aspects of the ability. I've yet to see anyone argue how freezing actually explains the ability to mimic water. I'm also not sure why we'd assume that freezing oneself solid has anything to do with power evolution anymore than using telekinesis on oneself as opposed to other things would. I apologize if it seems I am being difficult in all of this, but this is the forum for debate, and I can assure you it is all intended to be friendly on this end. :) --Stevehim 14:13, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • "All aspects" is a descriptive name (Tier 5) rule. The admins have clarified this point on dozens of occasions now. However, this is not a descriptive name. Also, "anything the mind controls" has nothing to do with "seeing and drawing the future". But we've accepted it as an aspect, despite the borderline complete unrelatedness of it. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:35, 11 February 2010 (EST)
      • "Also, "anything the mind controls" has nothing to do with "seeing and drawing the future". But we've accepted it as an aspect, despite the borderline complete unrelatedness of it." See IE's post below...it does have a lot to do with 'anything the mind controls.' Technically, based on Bob's words, Matt could control other EH's powers when they're around him, though we won't record that until it happens. I bring it up only to further illustrate the scope of Bob's statement. --Stevehim 17:57, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • Matt's seeing the future has been clearly explained in BTEs. He can use telepathy to enter the same state on consciousness that precogs do when they paint. It's a sound explanation on how one aspect is derived from the core ability, something that doesn't happen with Tracy's ability. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:19, 11 February 2010 (EST)
      • However, the BTEs also state that it was the event of going on the spirit walk that "unlocked" that aspect. A single event. Therefore, we accept that a single event can cause an ability to evolve in strange ways. Thus, I ask how it is so hard to accept that a single event like Tracy freezing herself solid and being shot/shattered can "unlock" a control of water inherent in the ability. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:35, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • Because unless a writer confirms that water manipulation evolved from Freezing, it's speculation. What we see isn't always everything, def in the world of Heroes. There's always that equal chance that she had one "big" ability all along and just didn't know how to use that. Which is also speculation too. In truth, we're just caught up in something that is speculation left or right. The only way this debate will ever end is if a writer confirms one way or another, or some aspect of the show/GNs itself. In which case, if something within a GN (the story itself) does state her ability as more than Freezing, we'll still have a big debate due to this belief that canon will always trump everything. Even IF that everything comes after a change in the story element (which is flaw imo). We honestly have ourselves in a mess right now and should just take the moment to step back and ask "Are we doing this right?"--OutbackZack 17:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Poll/consensus on ability name

I thought about putting this on the naming conventions page, but since it also applies here, I thought I'd do it where more people will see it. Basically, even though I know this has already been discussed, I just wanted to see what people felt about the GN that referred to Tracy's ability. Please note, this is not a consensus or poll on changing the name of her power, nor should the issue of how this relates to the canonical name of the ability (freezing) be debated here (though discussion of why it would be considered a description vs a name should be). This is simply a poll to see how people interpreted the passage...whether it was an explicit naming of an ability, or a description of one. Here is the passage and source in question:

From the introduction of Prodigals, Part 1:

After a conversation with Samuel in Washington, D.C.; Tracy heads out on a mission for the leader of the carnival. Finally finding acceptance and freedom with her water and ice manipulation abilities, her quest seems much more her style than she first thought. But who, and why she is searching remains a mystery...

This was an explicit naming of the ability:

  1. --Stevehim 17:53, 11 February 2010 (EST)
  2. --Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:57, 11 February 2010 (EST)
  3. --Catalyst · Talk · HL 18:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)

This was a description of the ability:

  1. --PJDEP - Need further explanation? 17:54, 11 February 2010 (EST) - Although I'm starting to question whether this should remain freezing or not, I still believe that this is a description, that may not have even been written by anyone affiliated with the show.
  2. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:07, 11 February 2010 (EST) I have corrected where this comes from. It does not come from the GN proper, but its introduction.
    • The only flaw with that aurgement is that we had used a GN intro to name an ability.--OutbackZack 18:12, 11 February 2010 (EST)
      • Not when the ability already had a name. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:13, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • Which became outdated the moment she developed something that the name of her ability can't account for. Unless they give us a description on par with the one they gave for how telepathy can account for precognition, this is outdated and therefore unfit to name the ability. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:15, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • A canonically-given name need not account for all aspects of the power. It is speculative to suggest that Nathan got it wrong. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:18, 11 February 2010 (EST)
            • When Nathan got it, there was no reason to believe she could do anything other than freeze things, so no reason to give it a more encompassing name. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:22, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • I know there have been discrepancies with the intros, but aren't they the same exact level by our naming conventions (and, in fact, actually part of the GNs)? --Stevehim 18:20, 11 February 2010 (EST)
      • Actually, in many circumstances the intros are written by people other than the comic's author, sometimes simply someone at NBC, otherwise unaffiliated with the show. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • True, but what I mean to ask is whether we list GN intros as a different source level than the GNs themselves...and if they are sometimes written by the writers, I don't see how we can, unless we have access to that information. --Stevehim 18:33, 11 February 2010 (EST)
  • I'd like to note that the very fact that this poll is at all necessary is proof that "water and ice manipulation abilities" is not sufficiently definitive to overturn "Freezing". Additionally, we also cannot say definitively that there is no way this could be an extension of freezing. All of this is speculation. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:09, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • Not at all, it's a way to quantify who thinks like that. And as I pointed out a couple sections above, even if it's descriptive, it's viable for ability naming because the description accounts for all known effects of the ability. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:13, 11 February 2010 (EST)
      • "All aspects" does not come into play with canon or near-canon names. Only Tier 5 descriptive names. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • Stevehim has been to the naming policy many times already, according to him, that is not the case. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:17, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • It's certainly not the case on the actual article page...whether or not this was clarified during some discussion on some other talkpage is beyond my scope of knowledge, but Ricard has said that it has been clarified many times (I just don't know where). --Stevehim 18:22, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • It's more seeing how to interpret things than speculation. I don't agree with the conclusion that the fact that I created a poll somehow equates to the phrase not being enough to overturn freezing (even though that's not the point of the poll). I'm a quackpot, and things I do or say should not carry nearly that much gravity. ;) --Stevehim 18:20, 11 February 2010 (EST)
      • I understand that, don't worry. My point is that if we can't even agree whether it was explicit or not means it's not definitive enough to move forward from there. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:23, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • Can't agree with that, because the same thing could be applied to consensus checks/polls for determining name changes...it is not currently a valid argument to say that 'since we have to have a poll to decide if a name change is appropriate, that's evidence that it is not.' --Stevehim 18:33, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • From the Heroes source naming guideline: "for a possible name to be considered the name of an ability, it should include at least all aspects of the ability which have been displayed; otherwise, it is considered to be the name of an aspect or effect of the ability". Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:26, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • Yes, that is how the rule is presented in the guidelines. I've asked RGS to take a look at the debate and weight in (I honestly cannot find where he initially brought it up.) --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • Actually, he may not need to. The very first rule on that page, for ability names: "Names given in canon sources: If a name is given for a ability in a canon source, that name should be used, regardless of whether it is the best description or not." The rules also state that these rules are to be observed in order. Meaning, we have a canon name, so we stick with the canon name, until we get a new canon name. GNs are near-canon. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (EST)
              • No, he should probably weigh in. ;) The Guidelines section denotes how to apply the general rules stated above (ie - the one you quoted), so should be taken, from my POV, as instructions on how to apply the rules stated in the first section. As for the 'canon needs canon to overturn it,' that's sort of what we have been debating...in this case, what happens when we have new information that doesn't fit with what we've been told canonically. You have already pointed out 2 de facto exceptions to the stated rules...A.T's and Interviews...'outdated canon info' certainly seems to be a good candidate for a third exception to me. --Stevehim 18:39, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                • But you see, that's the problem. ATs and interviews are explicit. Claiming outdated info is speculative. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:41, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                  • In any case, the very naming policy has contradicting terms, this debate can never be resolved until these cracks in the naming policy are dealt with. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:47, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                  • Not always. In fact, Ryan addressed this on the talk page of naming conventions. When things change in the Heroes Universe (eg - the future has been altered) we can adjust things accordingly, just as long as we keep the information that we had at the time on the old pages (eg - we don't go back and change the Season 1 pages when Sylar kills Charlie (which was shown and stated in canon), but we do use the new information as we move forward (even though in my example case, it was also shown and stated). To take a more recent example...Angela outright stated that Peter could not stop Emma from killing thousands of people...explicitly, canonically, etc. But he did (indirectly), proving her statement false. Iirc, she even maintained her position after he told her that Sylar was the one who was going to save her. Of course, these aren't the greatest examples, as they all involve the same sourcing level (canon), but it (hopefully) illustrates that data can be outdated and need changing. Whether or not the new manifestation of Tracy's ability qualifies is a separate point. (As a side note, the writers are notorious for sarcasm in interviews, even when explicitly stating things). --Stevehim 18:49, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Naming Convention Guidelines

Under "Ability names":

The following criteria should be considered in order when deciding the name for a new ability:

  • Names derived from Heroes sources:
    • Names given in canon sources: If a name is given for a ability in a canon source, that name should be used, regardless of whether it is the best description or not.

The very first rule makes it clear. We have exactly one canon name ("freezing"). "Water and ice manipulation" is a near-canon name. It is irrelevant if it is the best description of not, "freezing" is the only canon name we have, thus we must use it. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:37, 11 February 2010 (EST)

  • As I said above, there are two exceptions to this rule already, as you pointed out earlier...Interviews that give explicit names and AT's. Neither of which is addressed in the actual rules themselves. --Stevehim 18:42, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • I'm not actually altogether certain that interviews or ATs have ever overturned anything canonically stated in the show. Do you know of any? --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (EST)
      • Gravitational manipulation trumped someone saying that Stephen Canfield "created vortexes". Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • I do remember that one being a particularly heated debate. I think what it came down to was that "created vortexes" is vague enough to lead to several possible names, whereas "gravitational manipulation" was explicit (and considered canon as a Company file). ... Wait, now I remember how this worked. I believe once ATs were shown on the show itself (at the beginning of Volume Three), they were considered to be weighed equal to the show in canonicity. I may be wrong. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • I'm fairly certain that only Flint's and Knox's assignment trackers were shown. We saw Sandra holding Stephen Canfield's, but we didn't get a good look at it, unless I'm mistaken.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 18:49, 11 February 2010 (EST)
            • The file was never shown like Flint's or Sylar's. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:50, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                    • I'm confused as to what plot details have to do with ability names.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 18:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)
                        • It went a bit offtrack there, but what I was trying to indicate was the need to incorporate new information despite it being contradicted by previous canon, and I see now that I put this in the wrong section...moving it up now.. --Stevehim 18:55, 11 February 2010 (EST)
  • I think this debate (and 100 others) clearly indicates we need to expand the naming conventions. --Stevehim 18:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • I don't. I know it's an unpopular part of the naming conventions, but I feel very strongly that we need to use the name that is given to us, even if it's not the best name. I believe the minute we start to deviate from using what is explicitly given to us, we weaken the integrity of our archiving on the wiki. I'm not sure why the writers told us that Tracy's ability was "freezing" when only 7 episodes later it would evolve and become something quite different...but the fact remains that it's what was given to us. I've heard and read just about every argument against that, and I truly wish it were different--and I would love for a writer to come out and say something like, "Yeah, we made a mistake" or "Oh, yeah, her power has changed and so has the name" or to see an Assignment Tracker that lists her ability with a different name...but until we have something like that, we use what's been given to us. And yes, I've emailed a few different writers about the issue, and I always seem to get the same kind of answer--either they don't reply, or they tell me they'll get back to me, or they tell me they need to check with somebody else. My personal feeling is that the writers know made a boo boo, and they don't quite know how to fix it. But until they do, I think we need to document what we have. After all, I'm only conjecturing that the writers have made a mistake. It could very well be that nothing has been corrected because it was never wrong in the first place. It's completely plausible to me that Tracy's ability to manipulate water is an offshoot of her "main" freezing power--much the way that Matt could paint the future or create illusions, both as offshoots of his main telepathic ability. So in short, the name "freezing" stays until we hear differently. Unpopular, I know... :( -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Archive

Can someone archive this page from start to the Weakness section (including it)? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:55, 11 February 2010 (EST)