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:Future terrorist's ability

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ability Naming Conventions
The following sources are used for determining evolved human ability names, in order:
1. Canon Sources Episodes
2. Near-canon Sources Webisodes,
Graphic Novels,
iStories,
Heroes Evolutions
3. Secondary Sources Episode commentary,
Interviews,
Heroes: Survival
4. Common names for abilities Names from other works
5. Descriptions of abilities Descriptions
6. Possessor's name
If no non-speculative
description is possible

Note: The highlighted row represents the level of the source used to determine the name for Future terrorist's ability.

Why delete?

It's a new power. Why not leave it in the catalog? We have info on when, who, and where it was manifested. Imo, it should be kept and catalogued. No harm in keeping it. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/8/2008 10:51 (EST)

  • I agree it shouldn't get deleted, but then shouldn't we just call it "energy emission" and add Future Ando as a user? Or since we're waiting for more info. on Future Ando's ability, this should probably be called "The Terrorist's ability", imho.--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
    • All I think it needs is a new picture.--Skywalkerrbf 11:21, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
      • It's the same shade of green that Ted's radiation powers were colored in graphic novels before, so he could have been firing a beam of radiation at the ceiling. All in all, since the ability itself is not refered to anywhere, we shouldnt give it a page, but make a note of it in the unconfirmed section. --Piemanmoo 17:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
        • The problem is that it is not unconfirmed: we saw he using it. But I agree that it would be a little awkward to have this page: "The terrorist's ability is an unknown ability to fire an unknown beam of green energy with unknown effects."--Referos 20:15, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Don't forget: "The unknown terrorist's ability is an unknown ability to fire an unknown beam of green energy with unknown effects. Unfortunately he died before we could learn anything more about it." It's a cool little Easter Egg, but I don't think it needs a page of its own. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
  • I think it should be deleted. We don't know who the guy is (some dead terrorist?), and we know virtually nothing about the power. There is harm in keeping it--it's speculation. If we want to catalog the power, we can do so on the list of abilities. We don't need an entire page for this. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I'm in the "delete" camp. I don't think a power for which we have no significant data rates a page. As likely as not, it's just a different visual effect for a power that's already documented. --Ted C 12:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep and call it Lightsaber generation! xD Psilaq Remake 21:05, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
    • The policy has been that demonstrated abilities get their own pages, so this shouldn't be deleted. We've had other graphic novel characters where their ability is only shown in one graphic novel, not named, and we still gave it its own page. Ryan is right, though, that we shouldn't speculate, and so I agree in renaming this to "The terrorist's ability".--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Where is that policy? I've never seen a policy that demonstrated abilities get their own pages. Perhaps there's a guideline that unseen abilities usually don't get their abilities, but I know of no policy saying that if an ability is demonstrated it should get its own page. I think this ability would be better suited to an entry in the list of abilities, not as a page of its own. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Personally, I think if this goes, Ando's should go. We don't know much about it and are likely not to see it again.--Riddler 01:14, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
        • It may be helpful to look at the list of abilities. Do we have any abilities listed there that don't have their own articles because of little information? If so then there's precedent for removing this one. If not then if we have other abilities listed there with equally little information about them (and no canonical name for them) then there's precedent for keeping this one around. (Admin 12:49, 9 October 2008 (EDT))

Remember that Guyanan fella? In order to document his ability on the evolved humans page, I uploaded this image and linked to it in the ability column of that page as "Unidentified." Might a similar procedure be appropriate here? --SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

      • Miami, you said "policy"... did you mean "precedent?" If so it may help to point out specific precedents. (Admin 01:54, 9 October 2008 (EDT))
        • I thought it was an actual policy we've been employing (though precedent probably works better since now I know I was mistaken)--that if we actually "see" someone use a new ability, we can document it in its own article. As to the Guyanan local, we didn't see his ability used, we only saw the crater made after the fact so I agree the Guyanan's ability doesn't get an article... This is different: we saw this terrorist use his ability. Also, I do think it's unlikely we'll get a clearer picture of what he does, but that's besides the point. The fact that we haven't agreed about the name doesn't mean the ability shouldn't have an article. It was a short demonstration, but we've had other similar short demo's: i.e. Future Ando's ability, nerve gas emission, acid secretion, and plant growth, are some of the abilities with very short demos. I looked at the List of abilities, and the ones without articles all were not demonstrated abilities. Imho, this ability is clearly demonstrated so we should follow that precedent.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
          • That's interesting. Did you also happen to find an example of another ability where we know equally little about it yet it still has its own article? That would be very helpful. (Admin 13:54, 9 October 2008 (EDT))
            • That's a loaded question, Admin, cause I do think we know a few things about this ability based on the demonstration that needs to be added to the article: 1) It didn't blow a hole in the ceiling, but instead spread out when it hit it; 2) there's three rings in the flow on the ceiling, and 3) it looks like the ceiling is dripping... whether those things are solely the artist's interpretation or error is besides the point. They need to be noted cause they are there. Now as for your question, we knew very little about body insertion and had originally removed the article cause it hadn't been demonstrated, so we didn't know for sure it was an actual ability. Now it has been demonstrated once by Future Peter, we have an article for it, but we still don't know for sure how it was accomplished (though I have my own theory).--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
              • I just added those observations to the article.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2008 (EDT)


Why delete? (Part 2)

  • This should be kept. We have seen this power and the person is not dead get in the present time line so they could pop up any day :) --Skywalkerrbf 03:05, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
    • When he does, let's make the page. Until then, let's not. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Sorry for making such a controversial article, I just thought it would be good to catalog since it's obviously an ability. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I understand some members' arguments about this being speculation, since the ability could just have easily been "Colored Energy Emission" or "Focused Luminescence". Radicell 06:40, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
    • No need to apoligize. :) There's nothing bad about discussion... on the contrary it's very useful! :) (Admin 12:45, 9 October 2008 (EDT))
      • Right. I played with the idea of writing an article at first, too. There's nothing wrong with a good discussion, and it helps shape our policies and keep us consistent. It's meta reflection. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Well, if we're keeping this article, we have to come up with a name for the guy if "Terrorist" isn't an appropriate name... Considering he's held in a terrorist cell, it's safe to call him that in my opinion. In either case, Green Energy Emission is speculative and turns against how we've named past abilities. Mohinder's, Ando's, and Alejandro's. What's the kicker is that we KNOW their names and we didn't name their abilities. Who's to say it's energy and not a highly concentrated liquid, hence the dripping? We need a name for him, or else we should be naming Mohinder's, Ando's, and Alejandro's.--Riddler 15:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Ignore that. This was written after misreading the move. >_>; --Riddler 15:14, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I think we should keep it. We really know as little about Future Ando's ability, or even Alejandro's. Stevehim 07:33, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
        • We can talk deleting those pages, too. However, I'll say that we know a lot more about Alejandro's ability than we do about this green beam. But again, that's a discussion for another page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Word From The Colourist

Beth Sotelo said that she was told it was a 'green melting beam' so that is at least something to go off.--Skywalkerrbf 15:47, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Where did Beth say that (do you have a link)? Though it's not canon, it's something else we can note.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Directly to me, email.--Skywalkerrbf 16:05, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Ah, not sure if we can note that unless it was part of an interview.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
        • We can, Ryan has done it before. Also the artist says 'It was supposed to be some kind of "Melting power" coming from his hand.--Skywalkerrbf 02:45, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Do you have an example of that in mind?--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
            • Staz Johnson's String Theory and lots of the other novels he has drawn.--Skywalkerrbf 14:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
              • I meant if you had another example of where a note references an e-mail. As to the artist, were you referring to Micah Gunnell and was that also by e-mail?--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
                • Erm that note did and yes I was referring to Micah Gunnell. Did you even follow the link? It blatantly says In an email, Staz Johnson said, "The reference I was provided with (by NBC) was so poor (extremely dark, practically illegible screen caps) I had no idea that Hiro was supposed to have a ponytail." --Skywalkerrbf 16:55, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
                  • No reason to be rude, it's easy to miss a line of text on a page. And yes, I've had plenty of examples where I've quoted emails from cast and crew members, but there's no published interview. It's a trust thing, really. And I trust that if skywalkerrbf says he got emails from Micah and Beth that he did--I'll vouch for the fact that they're both very personable people who generally reply promptly to emails. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
                    • Thanks for the clarification, rbf and Ryan. Rbf, I wasn't sure what you had meant, and am sorry if you took it the wrong way.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
                      • User:Shadowulf1 15:50, 14 October 2008 (EDT) I think this should go under laser emission; just because the power is a different color of energy, doesn't make it a separate power altogether. This energy melts things, and so does Michael's laser emission.
                        • There's no proof at all that it's energy. In fact I'll admit it looks more like lime-green slimy liquid. --Radicell 05:21, October 16, 2008
                          • User:Shadowulf1 09:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT) that's speculative, and it doesn't look like liquid, its a melting beam as stated by one of the people who helped contribute to the graphic novel itself. I still think that this should be apart of the ability laser emission (a laser doesn't have to be a small beam of light energy) or light emission, but this "future terrorist's ability" stuff... um, try again.
                            • Exactly, it's speculative, so we shouldn't combine it into laser emission. Radicell 09:49, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Consensus

Let's get this over with quickly.

  • Why are we doing this again? Keep was in the lead last time :S.--Skywalkerrbf 02:45, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Twice the keep to the delete now.--Skywalkerrbf 13:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
      • So I guess we keep it now? Radicell 02:58, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
        • This is an old consensus. I only mention that because a few people have weighed in more recently. The page will not be deleted. In fact, now that it's been around awhile, I don't mind it, and I would change my vote. But no need since it won't be deleted. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Delete

  1. --Piemanmoo 17:53, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
  2. --Horrorman 23:29, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
  3. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) Delete the page, but keep the information on the list of abilities
  4. --Chrisyu357 08:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
  5. --IDannPK 12:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  6. --Shadowulf1 8:43, 21 December 2008 (EDT)

Keep

  1. --MiamiVolts (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
  2. --Radicell 19:43, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
  3. --Skywalkerrbf 02:45, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
  4. --Stevehim 07:33, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
  5. --Pinkkeith 09:41, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
  6. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/10/2008 12:50 (EST)
  7. --Riddler 12:57, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
  8. --Citizen 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
  9. --SPARTAN-077 14:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
  10. --Matchu 16:51, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
  11. --Jason Garrick 16:44, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
  12. --Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 07:13, 22 December 2008 (EST)
  13. --Ricard Desi 11:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Another form of Melting?

  • It seems like Melting only without physical contact, just a green light What dyou think? --NiveKJ13 13:51, 22 November 2008 (EST)
    • Cool theory. Could be, but we just can't tell with the information we have now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2008 (EST)
      • User:Shadowulf1 20:47, 21 December 2008 (EST) People are being a bit too specific; I think that they simply used a different color for the same power; it seems like energy beam emission or laser emission...
        • How about the melting part when it hits the ceiling?--NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 21:16, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Laser emission

• Laser emission (Michael, Future terrorist): The ability to generate a concentrated beam of energy from one's fingers.

Well there's different effects to Enhanced strength and Pyrokinesis, such as color of fire and the way strength's induced. -- Mike the Man-child!

Shouldn't we change?

What the ability does, seeing as it has been confirmed in an email that it is a melting power. Oh and sorry if this discussion has already been had.--Steelymcbeam 02:27, 25 February 2009 (EST)

    • We probably should, something that has the name, Melting in it... --Sac983 02:34, 25 February 2009 (EST)
      • And we have used email confirmation before, Misha's ability becoming Telekinesis is the most recent example I can remember.--Steelymcbeam 02:35, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Melting beam emission?

If it has been described by a credible source as a "green melting beam", why not have the name be Melting beam emission? I think it describes the ability. What do you guys think? I'm going to nominate it for a name change, but this isn't a consensus check, I just want to know what everyone else thinks about the suggestion. ---- - Bender · Talk-

Name Change

In all honesty, I think there is enough information to make the change, but that's just me. I'd like to here some of the other user's thoughts, so let me know. I'm going to include my suggestion in the name change, but I won't move it until we all agree (if we all agree). I've thought the name of this article over and I think it can be given a name other than a specific person's ability. --Bender 22:53, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Personally, I don't think the page should even exist. I don't think we know enough about the ability in the first place. It's a beam of energy--we think--that probably melts or blasts stuff--we think. It was used once in the background by an unknown terrorist. There are some good guesses out there, but nothing is confirmed, and certainly very little is known at all about this power. Definitely not enough to name it something like "melting beam emission". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I agree but the community doesn't seem to agree, maybe it's time for a new consensus?--Steely McBeam - (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
      • If the colorist and artist describe it as a "green melting beam" and it was supposed to be "some kind of melting power", I think Melting beam emission is an appropriate name. If it has been confirmed it is a melting beam, I don't see what's holding it back. I think it has enough information to be given a non-possessor specific name. --Bender 10:24, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Not something particularly good, but an improvement over so and so's ability nonetheless. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:22, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
          • I'm with Ryan, I'd rather see the page moved to the unconfirmed section in the list of abilities. But if that can't happen, Melting beam emission works better than an unnamed power.--Piemanmoo 14:24, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
            • It has been 5 days since last comment, is this page going to be renamed, deleted or moved? --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 16:19, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

              • Rename to Melting Beam Emission and move on. It'll likely never be referenced or mentioned again. We have way too many XXX's Ability names for abilities that have enough available information to have an acceptible name. I'd like to have a concensus check on using the pattern of XXX's ability only in the cases where there is no information. We really messed up when we started and stayed on this road. It would have been better to have named them first, then changed them if it became warranted later. Look at poor Alejandro....He's been dead for over a year, his sister's power was finally named, and he still doesn't have a power name. Right now we have 8 powers named XXX's ability. We should correct this pattern, and settle on names, and not be content to just sit on them using this placeholder default, when sufficient naming information exists. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/21/2009 16:34 (EST)
          • I completely agree, as this is a power like Nerve gas emission, it was likely put in just to fill in the empty space on the back wall, so i don't understand why we can't re-name it, if there is a major arguement, I can't see why, but move it back, so I say move --IronyUTC CH 16:38, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
            • Yep, but I fear getting this suggestion to take hold and actually happen will never fly. At the time in the early days of the wiki when we did this, it kinda made sense with the limited info, the likelihood of future repeat episodes involving those type of characters with unclear ability names, and such a smaller ability pool...but now it just comes across silly with the XXX's ability default placeholder in most cases. Can't think of one case right now, where we couldn't have a valid name and move on. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/21/2009 18:07 (EST)
              • I agree but I think we should still have a conscenus since this page is yet to have one. I will add one and make it the new conscenus to see if that will help. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 18:47, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

New Consensus

Please sign and give a reason to the name you are opposed to. If no conscenus is reached then this will remain Future terrorist's ability. --posted by Laughingdevilboy Talk 18:47, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

  • In this case, we still don't know whether this was meant to be a melting beam or some sort of gooey liquid, so the only non-speculative name is that of the possessor.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • 'Colorist Beth Sotelo said in an email that she was told the ability was a "green melting beam." Artist Micah Gunnell said the power "was supposed to be some kind of melting power"'. Is that not evidence enough to say that the ability is a 'green melting beam' and it came from him so Melting beam emission is better than Future Terrorists ability. --345tom 15:38, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Ah, thanks for the reminder. You're right. I'm not sure why we haven't had a consensus for this until now. "Melting beam emission" sounds like the best name, with a secondary source.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Its been two days since last comment and there seems to be a clear favourite. I will change this now. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 04:27, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

        • A clear favorite does not equal consensus. I have opposed the name "melting beam emission" prior to this new consensus. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
          • I don't see why there's a need to oppose it since we were given additional information by both the writer and artist who both described the ability as one that melts. On top of that it's a beam. Saying it's only been seen once isn't really a good argument since there been numerous of other abilities that have only been seen once and named. --OutbackZack 17:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
            • No disrespect to artists and colorists, but we rarely use their words to name an ability, unless they're quoting a script. And even in that case, we're taking the writer's word. Likewise, a prop master or a hairdresser might have good information and have access to the script, but we don't base ability names on what they say (unless they were to quote the script). Micah's comment that it's supposed to be some kind of melting power further cements the idea that the power wasn't specified in the script. However, I'll send an email to Bill Hooper to see if he has anything to offer--I'm not sure we've tried that yet. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Future Terrorists ability

  • Opposed, we have enough details about the ability, to give it a proper descriptive name. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/22/2009 13:03 (EST)
    • Unfortunately you cant oppose this because we have more information. If someone opposes Melting beam emission then this will stay as Future terrorist's ability. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 13:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Melting beam emission

  • Opposed for reasons stated in discussion above in the past -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, see above -- Psilaq R.- U -T- C- 15:12, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Laser emission

Talk 13:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Opposed, see above. --345tom 15:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, above. --BoomerDay 18:21, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, see above -- Psilaq R.- U -T- C- 15:12, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Energy Beam Emission

  • Opposed, absolutely no basis. -- Psilaq R.- U -T- C- 15:12, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Name Change (Again)

Sorry, if this has been discussed before (I haven't read through all of the above posts haha), but shouldn't we use "Green melting beam" as the name? I ask this, because this name was supplied by a member of the crew and we used "Green energy blast" for Ricky's ability based on the information given by Oliver Grigsby. How is this situation different?--Hiroman 04:44, 13 April 2010 (EDT)

  • I like how you think HM! I'll consensus with ya on this! --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/13/2010 14:12 (EST)
  • Oliver Grigsby (unless I'm mistaken) mentioned the term "green energy blast", but "green melting beam" was mentioned by an artist or a color...-er. They aren't involved with the story, so their words don't carry as much weight as Oliver's do.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 16:19, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
    • Plus with Oliver's statement, it was public and is on his twitter, so there's no doubt. --mc_hammark 16:22, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
      • Right, that too.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 16:24, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
        • <sigh> Okie-doky, then. I just wish we could get all of these un-named abilities NAMED! lol :-)--Hiroman 17:01, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
          • Same, but we can't really just make something up that sounds about right. If we name an ability the name has to work for every aspect. (Granulation as an example) --Leckie -- Talk 17:13, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
            • Right. I get very suspicious when we start discussing a name for an ability simply because we want to name the ability. When abilities don't have a formal name, it's almost always because we don't know very much about the ability. It's okay to have unnamed abilities. Not ideal, but okay. However, naming them just to name them is not okay. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2010 (EDT)