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:Granulation/Archive 1

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

FINALLY

I have been waiting for this power. Plus, I believe that sand mimicry is the best name we have.--BoomerDay 07:35, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

His ability

I think his ability is to simply turn anything he touches or touches him into sand. This is a line from the latest IStory, "Bullets hit the other guy too ... and turn into sand." The bullets turn into sand not Gordon. I think we should call it Sand transmutation. --posted by Laughingdevilboy Talk 10:26, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I think this is right as well. When I saw the gn, I assumed that the bullets touching him simply became sand. Also he didn't spit sand, that was marys blood being turned into sand --IronyUTC CH 10:30, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Of course you prefer The Mummy, but the citation is from Genesis 3:19 "Dust to Dust": he does not "mimicry" dust, he lets somebody else return to dust! --Juba 14:27, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I think he can become sand.. When Mary's blood hit him it made a "szzz" sound which is what I imagine "acid blood" would sound like if it hit sand.. --Peter 15:08, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
        • I dont think it is Mary's blood I think that is the bullets turning to sand. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 15:13, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

  • They call it dust in the novel, not sand.--Riddler 15:17, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk 15:19, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Check the fourth page of the comic. On the bed and the floor are what i assume to be bullets. If they are that means he could've became very dense sand and the bullets kind of bounced off OR he became sand, the bullet entered his "sand-like body" and then he pushed the bullets out (like when Sylar/Claire is shot and they cough up the bullet) --Peter 15:31, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
    • My problem is what takes precedence, the IStory or GN, as the IStory states they turned into sand. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 15:49, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I'm thinking sand transumation, he may have used his ability on himself possibly --Lolwut 17:20, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
  • It should definitely be sand transmutation. There is no indication in the gn that his body turned into sand and in the iStory it is stated that the bullets turned into sand, not him. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 20:09, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I agree that it should be transmutation, not mimicry, since we haven't seen Gordon turn into sand.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Sandwitchcraft!...lol--Anthony Gooch 23:38, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I had considered sand transmutation when naming the article, the problem was, I felt that the name would imply that he transmutes sand, and not transmutes things into sand. In other "turn things into XXX" abilities, we always used a simple verb - "freezing", because to freeze is to turn things into ice. "Melting" or "liquefaction", because to melt or to liquefy is to turn something into liquid. But there is no such verb for sand, and I'm opposed to sand transmutation for the reasons stated above. I chose sand mimicry since to me it seemed like he was shielding Eric Doyle from bullets with his sand-form body, which would get hit by the bullets harmlessly, and the "turning others into sand" bit was simply an extension of his ability to others. --Radicell 04:11, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
        • However, the latest iStory confirmed his body doesn't turn into sand, he turned the bullets into sand, so the page cannot stay as sand mimicry.

--Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 04:21, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

        • I like sand trasmutation suggested by Elemental Manipulator. --Scorvi12 04:33, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
          • He's a pulverizer: pulverization, or sputtering! --Juba 04:47, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
            • No, none of those match what we know of his ability. I still think my first suggestion of Sand transmutation is the best name for this ability, until we get more information on this ability. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 05:43, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

              • lol...Sanding...Ok, that's my last corny joke.--Anthony Gooch 12:05, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
                • My favorite name... Dusting works too. Definitely less complicated than the rest... --Ice Vision (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Since the iStory said he changed the bullets, and the image we have from the Graphic Novel doesn't actually show penetration (we'd be able to say his body was sand if the bullets came out the other side, we only see them turn to sand), I took it upon myself to move the page.--Riddler 15:22, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I second sand transmutation!Draphoenix 23:58, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Consensus check

I was asked to run a consensus check on this ability's name. I think it's a good idea. As outlined at here and piloted here, this consensus check will be a little different than the ones done in the past. Rather than "voting" for your favorite ability name, only sign your name under ability names that you oppose. You shouldn't place your name under ones that you just "don't like", but under names that you conclusively oppose. Not putting your signature doesn't mean you necessarily think the ability name is perfect, just that you're not going to stand in the way of the name being chosen. Of course, your opinion can (and should) be voiced along with your dissent. This can be done either under the ability name, or in a new section. Any name that is reasonably opposed by an editor will be considered out of the "running". The final ability name will be chosen from among the names that are not opposed. If all names are opposed (which I doubt will happen), the name will default to "Gordon's ability".

Names are being culled from discussions I've seen on the wiki. If I missed one, feel free to add it. Remember, only sign your name if you oppose a name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Please don't forget to leave a reason for any opposition your are expressing. Opinions can be expressed next to your signature, or in a new section. And thanks for being patient with this new form of consensus check! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I have put a line through the names that are definatly not being used as we have had two new names that have not had long to be discussed. So please only sign the last two names if you think they are incorrect for this ability and you are strongly opposed. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 12:03, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I sent an email to Bill Hooper... -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Lets change it soon theres only one name with no oppositions.--345tom 15:36, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
      • We are going to wait until Bill gets back to RGS, if he gets back to us with a name then we will use that, but if he does not then we will use the name without opposition which at the moment it Reverse sand mutation --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 15:39, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

        • Make that reverse sand transmutation.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Sand transmutation

  • Hate to do this, but I disagree. Sand transmutation doesn't at all suggest that he's transmuting things into sand, but that he's transmuting sand itself. --Radicell 06:01, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
  • In light of the new name(Silicification), I have to agree. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 10:38, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

    • I should point out that just because one name might be better, that does not negate another name that is still valid. So just because "sand transmutation" is not the best choice does not mean it's invalid. We should only oppose names that are conclusively wrong. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I think Ryan is correct that the term is not invalid. My thought is that sand transmutation means to transmute items into sand, while sand mutation means to mutate sand into different items--transmute meaning to change into, while mutate meaning to alter. I'm not opposed to using "sand transmutation" for that reason.--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Sorry my fault, In that case I am not opposed, sorry again. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 12:16, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

          • No worries, I think it's part of working out the kinks from a new system. I'm glad we're seeing some of the issues that might arise. I'll be sure to emphasize this one in the future. Now, if this is done properly, in the discussion we'll see that we have two names left over--sand transmutation and silicification. One should stand out as the clear favorite, which at this point is silicification. That doesn't mean "sand transmutation" is an invalid term, just that it's not the best term for the ability. It's a bit of trust that we have to exercise, which is especially hard to do with a new system that we've never really seen in practice before. But we have to trust that even if a name we don't particularly care for is still left, that the "better" name will ultimately be chosen. Mature users, trusting in the process, and all that jazz. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Ah, well when I see the name sand transmutation, the general pattern of ability names here makes me think that sand transmutation = transmuting sand, as water generation = generating water. This is probably because I perceive the word "transmute" as meaning to change, but not change into. If you get what I mean. --Radicell 19:51, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
          • Right, so are you comfortable with mutating your perception enough to not oppose this name? ;)--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
            • I don't think so, sorry. The reason why I opposed it in the first place was how it bothered me like that, so I'm afraid I'll have to stay opposed. --Radicell 02:58, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed as of reasons above --IronyUTC CH 10:38, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, the objection about sand transmutation implying that it's sand being transmuted still stands.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I disagree. It depends on how a person reads it. I mean, a person can read "Melting" as "lowering the temperature until the object melts", but that's not how it is. I'll try to use sand transmutation in a sentence. "The bullets that were fired at Gordon went into a sand transmutation." Not the clearest but you get the idea. Sand transmutation CAN imply that it's transmuting sand, but only if you read it that way, and that's the incorrect way to read it.--Riddler 00:26, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I agree that it can be looked at both ways, but I don't think it's an incorrect way, and therein lies the problem. We have a lot of abilities, such as electrical manipulation, mental manipulation, etc., where what is being operated on/manipulated/controlled comes always first as an adjective. So I think it's a safe assumption that people will think sentences like "Gordon performed sand transmutation at the beach, creating a stone castle out of sand." more than what you suggest. If you can find a source for a name for any kind of transmutation into a single material at Marvel or DC that supports what you suggest, then great. I have searched and not found anything of the sort.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
        • I have found support for my line of thinking, though. Check out the plot of the Fullmetal Alchemist, a Japanese manga. In the comic, some of the characters research human transmutation, and they define that to mean modifying humans into other things and not creating humans out of other creatures as you would suggest. Now, how about a woohoo for Japanese manga? :)--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
          • That's just one definition of it in one show. Read up at Transmutation for a bunch of different definitions. Most describe one thing changing into another. As for a DC/Marvel reference, most of their characters have Elemental transmutation abilities, which in the Heroesverse we know as Alchemy. But if you want names, Alchemy, who has "Matter transmutation. In fact, in Fullmetal Alchemist, they practice all kinds of transmutation, and Human transmutation is taboo. On this site, the only reason we called it alchemy instead of transmutation is because of a writer's comment, and that we didn't know if he could only change things to gold. In this situation we do know (or, I think we do, and if we don't, we can't use any form of transmutation) that he can only turn things into sand. And since we know he only changes things into sand, there is no ambiguity and this would lead us to Sand transmutation rather than just transmutation or elemental transmutation.--Riddler 01:51, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I know about "elemental transmutation", and it is defined as being able to alter chemical elements, not transform other things into chemical elements. So what other different definitions are you referencing???--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Nuclear transmutation - One element into another. Transmutation of species - One species into another. As a synonym for Transubstantiation - Bread and wine into body and blood. Again in religion, Jesus transmuted water into wine. The ability we have now, Bob's Alchemy, is actually a form of transmutation. It's named Alchemy due to a writer's comment. We can call this one transmutation as there are no comments against it. To say "Reverse" would be saying "An object that was transmuted into sand has been reverted to it's original state." --Riddler 02:11, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I think your definitions are distorted if you think they support your point. Yes, alchemy is a form of "matter transmutation", but "matter transmutation" refers to the transmutating matter into other things and not changing other things into a particular form of matter. "Nuclear transmutation" refers to the process of transmutation being done being a nuclear reaction, not that something is being changed into a particular element. "Transmutation of species" doesn't follow the pattern of "___ transmutation"; and instead, it refers to changing one species into other species, not vice versa. "Transubstantiation" is not at all in the format "___ transmutation"; and it's a religious term for a holy form of transmutation, not particularly related to a single object but normally associated with transforming the bread and wine into the body and blood. Now, to say "reverse sand transmutation" means that the process of transmutation of sand is reversed. In other words, the process of turning sand into something is altered such that now you are turning things into sand.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
        • It doesn't matter whether or not it's into a particular matter, the change will still be one into another. And what are you reading? It doesn't matter if it's done through a nuclear reaction, one element or isotope is still changing into something else. As for transmutation of species, though it's not in the same format, it supports transmutation and again, is still one thing into another. Transmutation is synonym of Transubstantiation, which even though it's a holy thing, and it's a thought and not an actual transformation, it's the idea that two things are changing into two other things. Then we have the transmutation of water into wine, look it up. And I believe you're wrong, reverse sand transmutation implies heavily that something that was made into sand has been reverted. --Riddler 14:02, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
          • I did look it up, but you are the one not citing any sources that support your argument. I cited human transmutation and the several definitions that you mention support my argument instead. You can't say "sand transmutation" doesn't mean to transmute sand, cause that's exactly what it means. As for your rebuttal, I am reading the definitions as cited. You are right that this is a form of transmutation, but according to the forms of transmutation you have cited and the "human transmutation" cite I found, you cannot just add "sand" in front of "transmutation" and mean something other than sand being transmuted into other things. Those are the facts as I see them. As for using "reverse" to mean the opposite process, it is a common nomenclature in science and engineering. Check out "reverse osmosis" and "reverse sublimation" (aka deposition). You do not have to have "osmosis" occur before you perform "reverse osmosis".--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Sand mimicry

  • Opposed --IronyUTC CH 21:07, 15 April 2009 (EDT) He hasn;t been shown to mimic sand.
  • Opposed, not shown/said to mimic anything.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed for reason above.--Crazylicious 23:43, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
  • As above reason. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 06:53, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Dust transmutation

  • Opposed --IronyUTC CH 21:07, 15 April 2009 (EDT) I believe it is sand
  • Opposed (Sorry, my bad...The iStory says "sand" and thats pretty canon, plus, I would imagine dust to have more of a whispy effect than the one shown.)--Anthony Gooch
    • Opinions with out reasons don't count... Anthony, please give a reason.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, iStory says that the bullets turned to sand, and it DOES look more like sand to me. --Crazylicious 23:43, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Same reason as above --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 06:53, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Opposed, Gordon said "to dust you will return", but looks too much like sand, and iStory says it's sand. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:50, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed. I believed he said "to dust" b/c it was a prayer.. "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to dust.." --Peter 15:19, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Dust mimicry

  • Opposed --IronyUTC CH 21:07, 15 April 2009 (EDT) I believe it is sand not dust
  • Opposed (He's not mimicing dust, he turned bullets and the gaurd to sand)--Anthony Gooch 21:08, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Opinions with out reasons don't count... Anthony, please give a reason.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed--Scorvi12 He doesn't mimic dust.
  • Opposed, not shown/said to mimic anything.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, iStory says that the bullets turned to sand, and it DOES look more like sand to me. --Crazylicious 23:43, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
  • As above reason. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 06:53, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Opposed, Gordon said "to dust you will return", but looks too much like sand, and iStory says it's sand. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:50, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Silicification

  • Opposed, we don't know if the sand he turns things into is this substance and only that or if it has other components to it. This name narrows the ability's definition too much for me, they gave us sand, we'll use sand the same way they gave use puppet master. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:50, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
    • If silicon dioxide is commonly known as sand, what's so bad with this name? It's better, more scientific and more accurate than what we have now. Also, names can be changed. If there is more to the ability than currently known, we can change the name. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 06:44, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
      • As I said, sand isn't just that substance, the composition of sand can vary greatly from place to place, saying the ability is silification would mean he turns things into SiO2 and that only, plus, the iStory gave us sand, we should use sand in the ability name. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:54, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, in light of the comments above. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 12:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Sandiness induction

  • Opposed, sandiness is not a real word. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 06:38, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, sandiness just doesnt seem to fit, it sounds made up (even though it isnt). --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 13:54, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Opposed, really doesn't sound good. Sandiness is the quality of sand, of graininess, it would say that he doesn't change people into sand, but that he turns people in a "meat sand", for the lack of a better term. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:54, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Sand induction

Talk 12:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Sand conversion

  • Sand conversion still implies that it is sand being converted, and not that sand is what is being converted to.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Reverse sand mutation

  • Opposed, descriptive names should be as simple as possible, and I have no idea what this name's supposed to mean. Sorry. --Referos 13:48, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Your not understanding what it means does not make it an invalid name. Descriptive names do not have to be simple. However, reverse means opposite; sand mutation means to mutate sand.... I'm not sure how much simpler we can get.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
      • The naming conventions do give simplicity as a guideline. Otherwise we could just pick the Latin word for sand and invent nouns like "arenization" (too bad that word actually exists in French and Portuguese). Anyway, while I think I get the logic in "reverse sand mutation", this name could also imply "reversing the mutation of sand", as in making non-sandy sand become sandy again.--Referos 18:24, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Keeping it simple isn't required. But even if it were, it's not the same thing as not making up separate words, which I agree with you we can't do though that is not the case here. And making non-sandy items become sandy is exactly the implication we're looking for..--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
          • Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant is that the following situation could be interpreted from "reverse sand mutation": Bob mutates some sand into gold dust. Then Gordon uses his ability to reverse the mutated sand into normal sand again. In other words, this name implies that Gordon reverses a mutation that has already occured: he restores the sandiness of mutated sand.--Referos 20:18, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
            • Gordon says "from dust to dust" when he used his ability on a human being. That can be thought of as referring to the principal that we all started as particles of sand-type stardust flowing through space that coalesced into our sun and the rest of the solar system. So when Gordon uses his ability, he turns things into sand again, reversing the mutation that formed them. Mutations don't have to be caused by abilities.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
              • Hmm, that's quite a stretch, but I suppose it is better than losing this page to "Gordon's ability". I will remove my opposition, but I still pray someone comes up with a better name.--Referos 22:11, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed. I generally have been staying away from these new consensus check's as I don't agree with the process, but here's my two cents. Reverse sand mutation is bulky and confusing, and doesn't really explain what's going on. If you say "Reverse mutation", you're saying that you're taking a mutation away from something. To mutate something is to change it, but it's the same at it's base. For example, the elephant man mutated, but he was still the man underneath. That's not what Gordon is doing, Gordon is changing the things he does into another substance/material/whatever you want to call it entirely. That's transmutation. To transmute something is to change something into something else entirely. --Riddler 00:13, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Then I guess it needs to be "reverse sand transmutation".--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Argument against this: To use "Reverse" would imply that "an object transmuted into sand has been reverted to it's original form."--Riddler 02:12, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
        • See the above discussion. That argument has been proved invalid with examples.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
  • opposed, many dont understand the name, no point if its just going to confuse people.--345tom 12:13, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Just because people may not understand it I dont think is a valid argument, as they can just click on the name and it will explain it in the info box and the first sentence. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 15:11, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

      • I understand that if they really wanted to know about the ability they's read more than just it's title but, i dislike the reverse aspect of this... It's confusing... Also, "mutate" means that you can change other things, as well as yourself. We'd just need to put in the Limits section that he can't (or hasn't yet) mutated himself. --Peter

Reverse sand transmutation * Opposed. Hate to do this, but if I came on the wiki looking at these abilities, I wouldn't have a clue what reverse sand transmutation means. If been on this wiki for a while now and I still can't get to grips with what this means --IronyUTC CH 06:41, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

    • Can't oppose something just because your not clear on what it means. It will explain his ability when the link is clicked on. It means since sand transmutation is to turn sand into something then reverse sand transmutation is to turn something else into sand. --Tommo 15:01, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
      • In my defense, that is what you were doing on Activation and deactivation without any opposition. --IronyUTC CH 17:28, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
        • Tommo is right regarding this case. Not sure what you are referring to regarding "activation and deactivation", cause we ended up using that name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
          • I meant on other, perfectly good names for Activation and Deactiation --IronyUTC CH 02:19, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
            • Which ones? I specifically called out on Talk:Activation and deactivation a couple times where people just said they were opposed or didn't understand.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
              • The one which peeved me completely was state inversion with the reason it could refer to states of matter , but it could also refer to state as in the United States of America, or the Department of State, or someone stating a fact, it is just common sense, which seems to be lost in the new consensus check process --IronyUTC CH 15:14, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

* Opposed, If you reverse sand transmutation (assuming that transmutation means that you turn things into sand) then you turn things from sand, into objects --IronyUTC CH 18:40, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

    • Sand transmutation means you turn sand into other things, so that argument doesn't count. See above discussion.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
      • haha, so reverse sand transmutation is the perfect name :) --IronyUTC CH 05:46, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

The main problem is it is never called sand, rather dust - so I think disintegration would be better

  • Opposed. This term is very clunky (like calling pyrokinesis "Production of varicolored flame from the phalanges". There must be a simpler term for this ability.--D and d 123 12:48, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Mineralization

  • Opposed, doesn't say it becomes sand. The defination of this word, or the one thats closest to the use is 'In biology and chemistry, mineralization is the process where a substance is converted from an organic substance to an inorganic substance'. But he changed a bullet into sand. None organic into a lesser none organic form. --345tom 09:35, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
    • That goes to to show how good he is. Mineralization means to turn into mineral. Sand is mineral, going into specifics means we'll never have a name for it. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:18, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
      • Sand is a mineral, but it is also composed of small finer rock chuncks and rocks are sometimes made of mineraliods. Not all minerals are sand. Could be salts. Minerals come in thousands of forms. --Tommo 15:09, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
        • Mineraloids are still closely related to minerals, some minerals are formed by non-mineral substances, the most common substance in sand is SiO2, which contains oxygen, which isn't a mineral. There are many definitions for minerals, there are minerals as in mineral elements (calcium, magnesium, etc...) and mineral substances with non-mineral elements, as seen with SiO2. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
          • Its a descriptive name though, so should really include sand as that is the simplest most obvious thing about the ability. --Tommo 16:19, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
            • It's the closest thing I could find without making up the word "sandification", the only other name I can think for the ability to turn things into sand is "sand turning", and that doesn't sound very good to me. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
              • Sandification is a kind of soil erosion (where soil becomes or is replaced by sand). - Hive 19:07, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
                • It doesn't seem to show up in online dictionaries, the only thing I find when I serch that word is either geography related or "do you mean sanification/sanctification?". Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:29, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
                  • Opposed. I think it should describe that the object (or person)actually becomes sand--Hiroman 11:43, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Sand degradation

  • Opposed, could mean to refine sand into smaller or finer chunks. This is commonly done for glass processing.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Sand-based transmutation

  • Oppossed, implies he can turn sand into something else. --Tommo 15:06, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Sandification

  • This is not a real word.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Same as MV, but if it were a real word, it would definitely be my pick. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:36, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Sandification has over 4000 hits on Google, some of which are academic papers. It seems to at least be an acceptable geography term, even if it's not a word you'll see in a dictionary. - Hive 00:11, 5 February 2010 (EST)

Sand manipulation

  • Opposed, he was only shown to turn things into sand, he doesn't control sand. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:33, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, same reason. --Ikkian 00:52, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Psammofication (Psammo is a prefix for sand while -fication is the "turning into" part.)

  • Opposed, not a real word. --Radicell 03:42, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Since when does a prefix and and suffix can't compose a word? Most words are made like that: television, microscope, telekinesis, pyromania, claustrophobia, etc. --Ikkian 20:49, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
      • Actually, all the words you listed (except for "psammofication") have root words. But sticking a suffix and prefix together does not necessarily make a new word. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
        • Ok then, there should still be a way to use "psammo", though. --Ikkian 22:11, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
          • If there's an actual word that uses it, and if the actual word fits the ability, perhaps. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
            • Psammous transmutation is the way to go, I believe. I've added another heading below. --Radicell 23:10, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Psammous transmutation

  • Psammous just means sandy. Similar problem as "sand transmutation", it implies sand could be the input.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Sand output transmutation

  • Seems horribly complicated for nothing. --Ikkian 20:25, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Sand granulation

  • I know I helped come up with this name (see below), but the only issue I have with is that it might be seen to imply that the power further granulates sand, not granulates things into sand. But that's a very minor downer, even for me. I'm otherwise all for this name.
    • Since sand isn't sand unless it's a grain, you can't further granulate it.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

Granulation

  • Opposed, as discussed below. Granulation refers to the making of grains in general. Gordon can only make the sand variety.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
    • I agree, destroy the school! *Cough* I mean, too general a term. PowerSink

Induced silicification Opposed for the same reasons I opposed silification. Sand isn't simply silicon dioxide, it's more than that. See sections above more more elaboration on this. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:05, 5 February 2010 (EST)

Silicification discussion

Could someone explain this so people can understand what it is before making a decision. Since this name has not been mentioned before I thought it best that either the person who added it or someone who knows what it is could explain. Thanks :) --posted by Laughingdevilboy Talk 10:18, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

To silicify is to turn/convert into silicon dioxide, which is found most commonly as sand. Silicification is the act of silicifying. --Radicell 10:23, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Well, well looks like we have a better name than mine :) --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 10:36, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Sand mimicry discussion

  • it sounds right because look at Water mimicry, and also think about Sandman from Spider-Man,and doesn't it look like he turned him self into Sand so it made the sand go through him?--Skyeatsout 21:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
    • It's already there and it's not good cause he doesn't become sand, he just turns things into sand. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 21:08, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Assuming that they do continue Gordon's story and he turns himself into sand, what will we call his ability? Change it back to Mimicry or just another aspect of transmutation? --Peter
        • If he could both mimic and transmute sand (change other things into sand), then it would be sand manipulation.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Sandiness induction discussion

Gordon Hovey turned the agent into sand. In other words, Gordon made the agent sandy. --Radicell 06:17, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk 13:54, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

    • What does induction mean in this context? I have looked through the dictionary webistes and none of the meanings seem to fit what he does. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 14:08, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

      • Agreed, most of them are about a method of creating an argument, opposed to deduction, or something related to physics. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:54, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
        • I would assume it means to induce the affected matter to become sand.--Blkmasta 15:24, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Sand conversion discussion

I was having a think and to convert something means to change it. So why not Sand conversion. --posted by Laughingdevilboy Talk 12:48, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Because that can still mean to change sand into something else.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Reverse sand mutation discussion

I've been puzzling over a term/prefix that would mean the opposite of sand mutation (transforming sand)... this is the best I can come up with.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I think "counter sand mutation" is clearer, but it sounds ridiculous--Referos 18:24, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
    • "Counter" could also refer to a noun (ie. table-top counter). I also thought of "sand counter-mutation", but that has the same problem. Too bad "demutation" isn't a word. "reverse sand mutation" will have to do for now, I think.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

-- I'm not sure. Reverse sand mutation sounds a bit strange.

  • The term "reverse sand mutation" gives me images of nightmarish aberrations shambling around, their horribly misshapen forms slowly crumbling to dust. It sounds like something the Great Old Ones would do. --D and d 123 12:50, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Mineralization discussion

Sand is composed of a set of minerals, he's turning things into minerals, in the form of sand. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:31, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Could this noun imply that the ability can also turn things into other minerals such as ores? I'm not sure. --Referos 13:48, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
    • This noun implies that he might be able to create some ores, but only ores that are comprised totally of minerals. An ore is a type of rock that contains minerals such as gemstones and metals that can be extracted for use. However, I think the problem is better expressed another way... If we want to be picky and say that silicification isn't valid because all sand isn't SiO2, then it should also be noted that sand is defined as "a naturally occurring granular material composed of finely divided rock and mineral particles", and rocks can contain both minerals and mineraloids (such as coal or lignite).--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Mineralization in its simplest definition means to turn things into minerals, as far as I can see, it is neither too wide so it includes things the ability can't do nor narrow to the point of bening over specific. If "sandification" was a word, that's what I'd choose, but since it isn't, I tried to find the closest thing to it. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:15, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Sand degradation discussion

What about sand degradation? You can only interpret it in the sense of "things being degraded into sand", because it wouldn't make sense to think of "degrading sand" since sand is already degraded. Of course, degradation can be changed to other nouns, such as erosion, pulverization or disintegration.--Referos 13:48, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Actually, you can degrade sand. Naturally, sand degrades into smaller and finer chunks over time. In the business world, there is a machine called a hydrosizer that is used to refine sand for things like glass processing... check out this pdf for some info on that.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Matter Conversion?

I just thought of this one, now bear with me. Matter Conversion: The ability to convert one type of matter into another. Only Gordon Hovey is know to have this ability. Limits: Gordon can only convert matter that he touches or that touches his skin. At this point in time, Gordon can only convert matter into sand. Gordon can choose what is converted by this ability(He doesn't convert EVERYTHING he touches). It seems to fit, but it's also VERY vague and open. But then again, perhaps so is his ability, maybe it has much more room to develop? -- PowerSink

  • That's incredibly speculative. He can turn things into sand. That's all we know. There is no point naming something after a what-if. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 00:14, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I don't see how it's speculative. It expresses precisely what Gordon's ability does. The description would add his limits as turning stuff to sand only when he wishes too, which is still not speculative at all.--Ikkian 01:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I think what elemental is trying to point out is that it's too broad a name. Based on his ability being shown multiple times and it always changing things into sand, we have to assume that is a limitation. Also, there is someone else in the iStory that can mutate his clothing, which is not the same ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Yeah, I know that, but while being very broad, it's also the narrowest we have, strangely. We haven't been able to find the word to say that he turns stuff to sand.--Ikkian 12:42, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
        • See "reverse sand mutation" above...that describes him turning stuff to sand. Also, we could just as easily call it "sand-related ability", but that would be as broad as "matter conversion". We need to use terms that are not too broad or too narrow that they don't define all aspects of the ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
          • How about "Matter Conversion(Sand)" or something similar? That then opens up other naming conventions for similar abilities. -- PowerSink

An honest response from Bill Hooper

I asked Bill Hooper, "What would you call Gordon's ability? Does it have a name?" He said (quite honestly, I might add), "I have no idea what to call it. "Turns-stuff-into-sand" guy?" Obviously we're on the right track, since neither we, nor the writer, could come up with a name. Maybe we're better off with just "Gordon's ability". :) Thanks for the response, Bill! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

  • If anything, this helps Sand transmutation, IMO. "Turns-stuff-into-sand" is basically exactly what sand transmutation describes.--Riddler 23:42, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Thanks for trying, Ryan; And thanks Bill Hooper for being so cooperative. Also, Ryan, please add your comments to "reverse sand transmutation" if you are opposed to the name. As far as I know, no one has given a valid reason to oppose that name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I agree, he pretty much confirm to us what he had in mind when he created the ability. --OutbackZack 00:38, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Ugh, they must enjoy watching us suffer like this. Can't we chalk this up (Ha! Chalk is a mineral like sand! Get it? I'll be here all week, folks) to sand transmutation and leave it at that?--Piemanmoo 00:41, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Unfortunately not. Just found a comic that opposes that name. See the discussion at "sand transmutation" above. I think "reverse sand transmutation" is okay. It is a mouthful, but it's accurate and it's no more complex a term than "rapid cell regeneration"...--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
  • "Reverse sand transmutation" suggests that he is turning transmuted sand back into sand. You guys are overdoing this. Sand transmutation generally suggests that he is turning sand into other things, not the other way around. Silification works, too. We have perfect names for this ability, but you guys aren't using them for some reason. Personally, I vote for "sand transmutation." It describes the ability perfectly, and people who think that it turns sand into other stuff will be told otherwise when they go to this page. You could use my previous sentence to defend "reverse sand transmutation," but remember that that action is a little ironic, because the name was formed because you're worried about people's first thoughts on it, and then you'd be defending the choice by not worrying about it.

Bottom line is, I think our most sensible options are "sand transmutation" and "silification," and my vote's on the first one.--ERROR 14:42, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

Similar to Alchemy

Instead of turn things into gold he turns them into sand. I'd say sand transmution or something sounds good enough.

  • Who are you?--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I think we should keep it closer to home as well. I thought of Alchemy. DarthYotho 17:49, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
      • Sand Transmutation. Sand Transmutation. Sounds like the best name for the power. And this is a power that I have waited a long time for Heroes to put on the show or graphic novels. Gordon touches things and they turn to sand. Just like Bob turning this to gold. In a Heroes Mag that I read, they called Bob's power Alchemic Transmutation. So why can't we name this power Sand Transmutation like we had it before? Joshua Korolenko
        • Agreed. Sand transmutation is hardly speculative. --Lolwut 14:57, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Atomic deconstruction discussion

Though it seems everyone is intent on calling this ability something along the lines of sand transmutation, what if it was something a bit more complex? Say... Atomic/molecular deconstruction, the ability to stop every single atom in an object. The idea is used in science fiction, when an object reaches absolute zero the atoms stop moving and can no longer hold shape there by the atoms will fall apart and all that is left is a pile of what appears to be sand/dust.

The only Difference between the ability and the event happening at Absolute Zero is the fact that there is no freezing involved, it is clear that Gordon might have the ability to disassemble Atoms. This means that he can take a coin and turn it into what appears to be sand, but in actuality it is just a bunch of atoms or molecules, and will not be able to reform it back into what it originally was.

Please take into consider this possibility as calling this Sand Transmutation or Mineralization seems odd when A. Sand is not a pure Element Like Gold it is a bunch of different elements and B. Mineralization says that he can turn an object into any Mineral, meaning he could turn someone into gold if he wanted to, even Nickel or Gallium.

As I said before please take this into consideration. --DontEatRawHagis 00:08, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

  • I like this, my only concern is we know he turns things into sand, it was confirmed by the writer, however could this not be used on Tom's ability? --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 07:29, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

    • Atomic and molecular deconstruction are good theories for how Gordon does what he does, and it could also be rapid degradation. Unfortunately, we don't know how Gordon's ability works, so we can't use a how-type name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Psammofication discussion

  • We could use "Psammofication" which sure is ugly, but fits perfectly. Psammo is a prefix for sand while -fication is the "turning into" part. --Ikkian 00:42, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Sure is ugly, but rolls off the tongue a lot better then 'reverse sand transmutation', imho. PowerSink 17:25, 27 May 2009 (AEST)

Talk 13:02, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

        • At worst, people while have learned of a new word when finding Gordon's ability page. --Ikkian 20:51, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
          • I like it. If psammo is actually prefix for sand, psammofication it is. Mateussf 21:21, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
            • Check the link, it seems real to me. --Ikkian 22:03, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
              • As Ryan pointed out, this is not known to be an existing word. If you can find a source for the entire word, it would be perfect, but we shouldn't make up new words.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Sand output transmutation discussion

It's a wordy name, but it's accurate and easily understandable, so I thought I would add it to the mix.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Granulation discussion

  • After more research, I propose Granulation. Definition: "the act of forming something into granules or grains". Seems to fit right well, implies grains, which could perfectly be sand and isn't speculative. --Ikkian 00:08, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Although grains of sand is a possibility, the name is too broad. When I think granulation, I normally think grains of wheat. Grains can refer to any small particle, including gold, pepper, and gunpowder.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
      • So then "Sand Granulation", or perhaps "Granulation to Sand" would fit the bill? PowerSink
        • Yes, "sand granulation" is another possibility. Good idea. PS: It's not appropriate to capitalize it since it's not a proper name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
          • Yay! I knew "granulation" had potential! --Ikkian 12:36, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
            • We might have a name. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:29, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
              • Can I do the "yippie I've had a good idea even though I had to search really hard since I'm French" dance? --Ikkian 14:55, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
                • Dancez, je crois que c'est possible. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:01, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
                  • Yay! I shall dance. :P --Ikkian 15:04, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
                    • A little too excited there? "Granulation" by itself is too broad. Not sure why you just added it above, but I'm still opposed to it and noted that above. I had already added "sand granulation", which is okay.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
                      • Sand granualtion is NOT ok because it implies granulating sand, and not granulating TO sand. Besides, I still view Granulation as being the most precise one without going in overcomplicated terms or one that mix you up terribly. --Ikkian 13:18, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
                        • Double standard, Miami. If "Sand transmutation" suggests the transmutation of sand, "Sand granulation" suggests the granulation of sand.--Riddler 14:21, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
                        • Not a double standard. It's about common use of clarifiers for two different words. It's an apples and oranges situation. Also, sand cannot be granulated because it is already in granular/grain form by definition. Transmutation clarifiers commonly refer to what is being transmuted. Granulation clarifiers specify what is being formed.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
                          • It's relative to who's reading it. I read both as what is being formed. You read one each way. Can you list some "Granulation clarifiers"? The only definition I can find for "Granulation" itself has to do with healing, nothing to do with grains. --Riddler 03:01, 30 May 2009 (EDT)
                            • Did you try searching for examples of "sand granulation"? I found a bunch. I'll list them in a new thread below.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

Sand granulation discussion

Merriam-Webster defines granulation as "the act or process of granulating", and defines granulating as "forming or crystallizing into grains or granules". Since there are many grains/granules, we need to add "sand" before the word "granulation" to clarify the type of grain/granule being formed is sand. Doing a search, I've found "sand granulation" is a common construction term. It is used in an American Foundry Society article, mentioned as a step for sand reclamation for foundries. I also found "mortar sand granulation" discussed in the Swiss Red Cross's construction manual pdf, noting the granulation size of the sand necessary to make good mortars. There's even a blog noting how the "sand granulation" of a certain beach is perfect for exfoliating the skin.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Nicely put Miami. English is a 'stupid' language in that it has many contradictions into itself, as exampled above (Flammable and Inflamable mean the same thing?! Poppycock!). This takes away my previously mentioned doubts about this name and it's convention. PowerSink
    • I guess sand granulation would work then, although I'd still prefer granulation to sand or something similar. --Ikkian 20:29, 31 May 2009 (EDT)