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:List of abilities/Archive 2

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:List of abilities/Archive 2 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:List of abilities. Archive.jpg

A new page listing and comparing/contrasting Peter and Sylar

I don't think we have a page like this, specifically listing and comparing their powers. Would it be worthwhile to create on, specifically focusing on these two guys, and their absorbed powers? Yes we can go to the Peter page, and we can go to the Sylar page, but as often as they are compared, it would be nice to have a page solely dedicated to the two of them together in relation to their powers. Thoughts? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2007 (EST)

  • If you wanted to make a "Power transfers" page, it might be interesting. I certainly think it will grow over time, and it might lead to a lot of interesting speculation about their next confrontation. --Ted C 11:17, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Invisible Invisibility

Hey! Why was invisiblity removed!? Heroe 20:31, 12 January 2007 (EST)

It actually wasn't removed, it was hidden. If you edit the page, you'll see it there. Regardless of whether it's there or not, we don't include any information that hasn't aired. Since Claude hasn't appeared (nor is invisibility) yet, they don't belong until January 22 (can't wait, can't wait). - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Table of contents

Should we make a table of contents so someone can go right to a certain power? I tried doping that, but I couldn't get it to work Heroe 23:27, 2 February 2007 (EST)

  • I tried adjusting the template to make the Powers links section headings, but it didn't work. We have anchor tags, though, so we could do a manual TOC. That's probably a better option since it lets us do a horizontal one.--Hardvice (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2007 (EST)
  • OK, got one. Lemme know what you think.--Hardvice (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2007 (EST)
    • That's good, only I think we should also include the section on fan theories in there. Heroe 00:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)
      • Hmmm. The Theories template doesn't put in a linkable anchor tag, and since the section title is piped, it's a pain to jump to. I'll see what I can do.--Hardvice (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2007 (EST)
    • The TOC is great. Simple and neat, pretty cool. It'll be especially nice when our list of powers grows. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2007 (EST)


Ok, help again. Now I noticed the Theories link leads to the Theories portal. I think it should lead directly to the Power Theories page, but when I edited it to do that, it wouldn't work. Could someone do that? Heroe 10:28, 4 February 2007 (EST) * If there's a page that's linking to the Theories portal instead of the proper page, it's because the {{theories}} template isn't being used properly. See the new Usage instructions at the template or the new instructions at Help:Theories and Spoilers.--Hardvice (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2007 (EST)

  • Unless you mean that Theories goes to the portal, in which case it should. There are now separate pages for each kind of theory. Why would we redirect Theories to only one of them?--Hardvice (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2007 (EST)
  • Nevermind. I get what your saying now. It's fixed. I added Theories:Powers midway through the process, and forgot to go back and add it to the template. It's fixed.--Hardvice (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Dale & Enhanced Hearing

Should Dale's Enhanced Hearing power be added to the list yet or when she appears in next weeks episode?--The Empath 14:25, 13 February 2007 (EST)

  • There's a bit of discussion ... uh, somewhere (Talk:Portal:Portals?) about how to treat these previews. For now, we should treat them like previews: spoilers only, no mentions or links from main articles.--Hardvice (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2007 (EST)
    • Yeah, we did the same thing with Claude's invisibility. We knew about that one forever, but we essentially waited until the episode aired. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)
      • Would it be safe to reveal Dale now? The episode has been aired and all we need is a screen capture. Japanimation (talk) 23:11, February 19 2007
        • I'm pretty sure it's ok now. :P --Riddler 23:13, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Hana's Power.

Would Data.JPG be a nicer image for her power, now that it's been shown in the... show? lol. While we can't see her physically do it... we DO have this. I can snapshot any part of the opening scene, as well as Dales original scene... since there are clips at NBC. --Riddler 23:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)

  • Yeah, I definitely think we need to lose the GN picture now. The IM seems like the best choice to me. The image would need to be reuploaded, though: 450x350, and possible better quality. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Also, "acquisition"

According to Sylar in Roadkill... he calls his "Evolutionary Imperitive" (power): "Acquisition". Being the idiot I am, I didn't know what that meant really, so I googled it.

  1. the act of contracting or assuming or acquiring possession of something; "the acquisition of wealth"; "the acquisition of one company by another"
  2. something acquired; "a recent acquisition by the museum"
  3. learning: the cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge; "the child's acquisition of language"
  4. skill: an ability that has been acquired by training

The first and third one seem to sum up his power very well. Maybe better than "Intuitive Aptitude"?--Riddler 23:28, 19 February 2007 (EST)

  • Furthermore,
  1. Learning is the process of acquiring knowledge or skill through study, experience or teaching. It is a process that depends on experience and leads to long-term changes in behavior potential. Behavior potential describes the possible behavior of an individual (not actual behavior) in a given situation in order to achieve a goal.

The way they describe it sounds alot like Sylar, and his behavior.--Riddler 23:35, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I wouldn't say it's his "power" per se as much as it is what he does with his ability. Kind of a reach, but it's like saying Micah's originally-thought power was "telephone-fixing" when we know that's something he does with the ability. Granted, he definitely acquires abilities, but so does Peter. Bob - 19 Feb 22:41 CST

  • Read the definitions though: Learning (what he does when he studies, such as the watches he repaired, or the books about brain removal, or even what most of us theorize he does with the brains), and aquiring, what he does when he steals powers. I think it sums it up nicely.--Riddler 23:44, 19 February 2007 (EST)
    • You're right, Sylar does acquire powers, and he might use his intuitive aptitude to do it. However, that's still speculation. We have no idea if somebody else is also capable of stealing a power, so we don't know if power theft is a power or just one of Sylar's crimes. That's why it's just a subcategory of powers right now. The reason we don't call it "power acquisition" is to distinguish it from empathic mimicry, Peter's power. "Power theft" is a bit more ... active. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2007 (EST)
    • Also, "acquisition" just seems too ... vague. It gives no information as to what he acquires, or how, and, as Ryan notes, we're not even 100% sure he uses his ability to understand how things work to acquire powers. The word fits, but it's just too broad.--Hardvice (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Peter included with absorbed powers?

Since Sylar is listed with the powers he has taken, should Peter also be listed with the powers he has demonstrated he has absorbed? Granted, he's not the only person with these powers (unlike Sylar who makes sure of that via murder), but he does possess these abilities. Just a thought, figured I'd put it up. Bob - 19 Feb 22:58 CST

  • Now that some of the pages have been changed to reflect this, I have to say I really dislike it. For one thing, sooner or later Peter will be listed on every power. For another (and it's a close distinction), Peter doesn't really have the powers -- he just copies them. For example, if he were injured in a way that prevented him from accessing Claire's power (say, a sudden, unanticipated bullet to the back of the head), he wouldn't necessarily heal automatically like she would; Sylar, if he stole her power, probably would. For a third, it makes the portal look really crowded. For a fourth, it makes the whole "empathic mimicry" power and article seem kind of redundant. I think it's sufficient that each power article notes that he has mimicked it (and thus presumably has free access to it, provided he has time to call it up), and that it's noted as an available power on empathic mimicry. But maybe that's just me.--Hardvice (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)
    • Okay my thoughts...
    1. I don't mind Peter being listed on every power page, just like Sylar is.
    2. I'm not sure we can make a definite distinction between how Sylar, Claire, and Peter would heal, or how any other power would be used. For instance, as far as we know, Sylar uses telekinesis in the same way Peter does. Peter is just newer at it. In the end, he's absorbed the powers and recalled them without the originator present. If he has access to it when he wants, to me he has the power.
    3. I agree, the portal is beginning to look crappy. Personally, I think we should take Peter and Sylar off everything on the portal except their one original power.
    4. I don't think listing Peter on the powers he's acquired makes empathic mimicry any more redundant than, say, prophecy makes precognition.
    • In the end, I think a good solution would be to make the infobox have an "originally held by" and an "acquired by" (or "absorbed by") variable. I also think we should leave the portal to just those that originally held the power--Peter and Sylar get mentioned once on that page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2007 (EST)
      • The only thing I can't get over is that Peter has to do something extra, above and beyond what the original user of the power had to, to use it. When he flies, he's using his power to mimic Nathan's flight, whether or not Nathan is present. It seems like a huge stretch to say he "has" flight. Could Sylar steal it? Could another person with Peter's empathy copy it? What about powers he may have copied but doesn't know about? Does he "have" cryokinesis, or eidetic memory, or persuasion? If it boils down to it, I'd rather get rid of both Sylar and Peter from the stolen/absorbed/copied/whatever powers, but to me there's a huge distinction between the two. To my mind, Peter's ability to recall powers in no way changes what he's doing: he's still copying powers, even if he's copying them from memory.--Hardvice (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2007 (EST)
        • Regarding the 'calling up' of powers.. fwiw Peter was able to perform telekinesis when he broke the broomstick, but when asked who had that power, it took him a few seconds to realize it was Sylar who had it. If he was 'accessing' the power, he would have thought about Sylar before he used the power. It seemed like the use of the power was a reflex, not a conscious 'calling up'. It also seemed reflexive when he was almost hit with the HRG's tazer. Anyways that all being said, I think the cleanest solution would be to just change the table in the portal to say "Originally possessed by" instead of "Possessed by".. :) --Frantik (Talk) 05:08, 20 February 2007 (EST)
          • See, I assumed that he reacted with telekinesis because the situation Claude put him in was similar to the situation Sylar put him in: physical assault. Even if he didn't do it on purpose, his similar feelings called up the power he used when he was last in that position.--Hardvice (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2007 (EST)
            • I just don't buy that he was thinking of anything in that split second. And certainly afterward, it took him awhile to actively remember. That said, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another; I have my opinion, but I don't really care if we put it or not. So, in the great wiki tradition of fighting till the death, RIP Ryan. :)

              Ah, less flippantly, I only really care what the pages look like, that we're consistent, and that we have accurate info. If we take Peter's name off the powers pages, that's fine with -- it's well documented on that page and others that he has used the power. But we should probably do the same with Sylar, and for the same reason. Second, I like the idea of chaging the template. It's easy and seems to satisfy both camps. Third, we've gotta clean that portal page so it just lists the original owner. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2007 (EST)

              • Who says Sylar doesn't have to do the same thing as Peter? That is something to think about. The only time I can think of that Sylar automatically used an innate ability that he had acquired, was with Super Hearing from Dale, he had it for a while but it didn't affect him until he was there thinking about her. -Level 12:08, 20 February 2007 (EST)

New Power

  • Time to add another power to the list. This time, drum roll please....SHAPE-SHIFTING!!! Possesed by Candace Wilmer.--The Empath 22:06, 5 March 2007 (EST)
    • I don't think it's shapeshifting in the traditional sense. I think the original idea of her creating illusions is what we saw. The whole room got the effect, and the real Simone vanished.--Riddler 22:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)
      • From what I've read it sounds like "Illusion" may be the intended name for this power and it would be consistent with what we've seen so far. (Admin 22:20, 5 March 2007 (EST))
        • hmm...I think you are right. I got so caught up on calling her a "Mystique-Raven Darkholme wannabe", but I still believe that it is Shape-Shifting. Maybe it's a mixture of both but it seems more leaning towards Shape-Shifting, you have to admit. Well, I'm out for the night. School in the morning and stuff. I'll catch up later tommorrow.--The Empath 22:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)
          • Check out the scene where she initially transforms from Simone back into Candace. She used her power to hide Simone's dead body on the bed behind her. When she lowers the illusion and reappears as Candace Simone's body also reappears on the bed. I didnt notice that originally, but going back over the episode I see it now. So it looks like the power is definitely Illusion now. (Admin 22:27, 5 March 2007 (EST))
          • IMHO, two people came to mind, in regards to the comic-book feel of the show. Lady Mastermind, and Mastermind. Read the power's listed on both pages. Anomy 23:00, 5 March 2007 (EST)
            • Well then, Illusions it is!--The Empath 19:01, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Gotta love Mohinder

Seems our problems are solved. Courtesy of the Heroes 360 experience: A list of powers by Mohinder Suresh! Anomy 23:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)

  • That is a list made by fans and is not canon. -Lөvөl 15:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Plant Growth

Might want to be re-thinking 'Plant Growth'. The newest .07% spoiler shows Linderman (aka probably Austin) admiting to being able to heal things, and then proceeds to heal a dying flower. I am going to start a theory, if there isn't one on the theory page, that Linderman/Austin is more than a healer, but is 'One of Those' that Claude called Peter in 'The Fix' and Austin absorbed Au-Co's influence over plantlife....

  • Alternately, I think it introduces the possibility that both Au Co's and Austin's power is simply healing, but isn't limited to people. The mythical Au Co was a healer, so it's possible that her name is intended to be a clue that she's doing the same thing.--Hardvice (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Thr official name for "Plant Growth" is Chlorokinesis------Patrick 18:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

    • According to whom? "Chlorokinesis" translates to "green movement". That's a preposterous name for this power.--Hardvice (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
      • I agree. It's cute, but I don't think it's appropriate. I don't think "plant control" is right either. "Plant growth" seems better, but I'd rather wait for another GN or two. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
        • "Chlorokinesis" better describes the contents of a dirty diaper.--Hardvice (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
          • This might seem off topic but in the Bionicle set of Heroes who have elemental power there was a Toa Hero who can control plants. And she was called a "Flora". Maybe we could call it Flora Manipulation or Plant Manipulation. No way would we ever use chlorokinesis. Jason Garrick 17:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
            • I see nothing wrong with Chlorokinesis. I am using it in a book I am writing as the name of the ability to manipulate plants, trees, etc. If one looks at Chloro- as coming from chlorophyll, which is in plants and it helps them grow. So I see absolutely nothing wrong with that title. Now other alternative I have thought of is Chloropathy/Chlorpathy. seeing as -pathy as to do with the mind.--The Empath 18:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
              • That's all well and good, but the "chloro-" in "chlorophyll" just means "green". It's the same root at chlorine. Similarly, just because "-kinesis" is used in "telekinesis" (movement across distance) and "pyrokinesis" (fire movement), it doesn't mean "super power"--it means "movement". Root words don't change their meanings based on what words they are used in, so no matter how you break it down, "chlorokinesis" just means "green movement", which is a pretty poor description of a power that grows plants, but a pretty good description of the contents of a dirty diaper.--Hardvice (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
                • Why don't you stop acting like a five year old and actually help. It was just a thought on a way to look at the word.--The Empath 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
                  • Now, Now, Empath, play nicely. Heroe!(talk) 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
                    • I don't see anything wrong with Hardvice's comment. "Chloro-" means green, "-kinesis" means movement. It could just as well describe money laundering or stirring a bowl of guacamole. The example Hardvice chose was just a bit more ... vibrant. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
                      • Hardvice's reply was very good, I was going to point out the same thing earlier, but he beat me to it (and even said it better than I was going to). I believe he was definitely trying to help by explaining why considering "chlorokinesis" to have something to do with growing plants isn't accurate based on the root words. Well said, Hardvice. (Admin 22:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT))
                          • I'm sorry you decided to take offense. It wasn't my intention to be insulting--I merely wanted to point out why "chlorokinesis" is a very poor description of this power. "Telekinesis" makes a great deal of sense, and "pyrokinesis" is fine (particularly when it's used in reference to fire control, and "pyrogenesis" is used to describe fire production). Even "cryokinesis" (cold movement) and "chronokinesis" (time movement) at least describe the power in question, although perhaps not as precisely. But even if you take "chloro-" to refer to chlorophyll and not its literal Greek meaning, "chlorokinesis" still doesn't describe the ability to make plants grow. Chlorophyll enables photosynthesis, which only indirectly enables growth. Au Co doesn't move or control chlorophyll any more than she moves or controls plants ... she causes them to grow, which is not described by "-kinesis". If describing the way these root words work isn't "actually helping", I'm not sure what is. Isn't the point of a discussion to raise both sides of the question?--Hardvice (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
                            • Did you see my other suggestions of Chloropathy/Chlorpathy? I know they are weak but suggestions none the less.--The Empath 22:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
                              • We ought to be careful with "-pathy" powers, too. "-pathy" doesn't mean mental or of the mind; it literally means "feelings". "Telepathy" (distant feelings) and "empathy" (to go into feelings) both describe what they are fairly well, and "technopathy" (machine feelings) is, while slightly anthropomorphizing the machines in question, not too far off the mark. But some of the "-pathies" on the activatingevolution wiki are downright silly. The other thing to be mindful of where "-pathy" is concerned is that in addition to the Greek patheia, it could also refer to the Greek word pathos, meaning "suffering" (like psychopath, sociopath, neuropathy, and pathology), so if it's used with an unusual prefix, it can lead to unnecessary confusion (is a pyropath someone who senses, feels, or communicates with fires, or someone covered in third-degree burns? Is a chloropath someone who senses, feels, or communicates with (for the sake of argument) plants, or someone who is suffering from chlorine gas poisoning?)--Hardvice (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
                                • I'll jump in on this one with a knuckle-headed thought. I don't know about you guys, but when thinking about someone who causes plants, vegetables, and fruits to grow, the first thing that comes to my mind is horticulturalist. Someone who would cause plants to grow abnormally, and in an accelerated way would be a hyper-horticulturalist. When my 90 year old grandmother would venture out into her garden, she could do things with the plants that were earn the name 'hyper-horticulturalist'. It didn't pass through the family genetically though. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/19/2007 09:39 (EST)
                                  • Ehh, that doesn't really sound like an power to me. The one I've been endorsing is Induced Fecundity. Induced means "to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind" or "to bring about, produce, or cause." Fecundity means "fruitfulness or fertility, as of the earth" or "the capacity of abundant production" So to me, it perfectly describes Au Co's ability: To produce and/or lead plants into fecundity (assuming they start from seeds). Heroe!(talk) 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
                                    • I like the consistency of the Induced prefix. Is there a more commonly recognizable synonym to Fecundity? I'd rather see us with a common, recognizable name that might not be exactly spot-on with its definition, than to introduce an exact-scientific term that noone is familar with, and will have trouble remembering. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/19/2007 10:38 (EST)
                                    • I was actually kidding when I recommended "induced fecundity", though it is a pretty spot-on description of the power, because I suspected that "fecundity" isn't the best known word and I've always liked that it sounds vaguely obscene but isn't. I must note that it saddens me that "fecundity" has been relegated to the dungeons of "scientific terms", which it isn't--what on Earth do they teach in schools these days?--but there's also "fertility" and "fruitfulness". "Fertility" has the obvious problem of conjuring up images of When a Daddy and a Mommy Love Each Other Very Much, and "induced fruitfulness" isn't much better, what with the admonition to "be fruitful and multiply". Truth be told, it seems like every term we're bandying around is either a poor description of the power or merely an unnecessary grandiloquism for "plant growth". Sometimes simple is best...--Hardvice (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Other Powers

Should there be a section for powers that have been mentioned but not seen, or not enough is known about to have their own pages? -Lөvөl 13:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I think they can live comfortably in the Notes section of this page until we know more about them. --Ted C 13:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Powers from the journal and Walls, Part 1 should be added. -Lөvөl 13:14, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
      • I just added a new table and labeled it unconfirmed powers, and put all of the other 'potential powers' that have been identified in either the Journal or in Walls that have not yet been confirmed. Hopefully it is organized in a way that is easy to read and understand, and allows us to document all of the powers so far revealed on the same page. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 05/2/2007 14:46 (EST)

Explanation of Peter's Power

In the description for Peter's Power, it says that he can absorb the powers of other evolved heroes while in their proximity. In many episodes, he has demonstrated the ability to use the powers when not in proximity. We should add something that addresses THIS aspect of Empathic Mimicry. Jpschus 05/09/2007 4:36 (CST)

  • That's a good idea. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Naming Consistency

While the discussion over Guillame's power got me thinking on this, and I mentioned it on the other discussion thread, I find overall, there is a naming consistency we should address; regardless of whatever power we settle on with Guillame.

The terms 'Control' and 'Manipulation' are synonyms for one another. Presently we use 'Control' only with the power of 'Plant Conrol', but we are using 'Manipulation' on 3 other powers (Dream, Mental, and SpaceTime). There is also discussion in both directions with wanting Guillame's power to be either 'Emotion Control' or 'Emotion Manipulation'.

I would simply like us to consider being consistent, since these two words are synonyms of each other, and their meanings are the same (Microsoft Word Thesaurus).

I would like to see us choose one or the other, and apply it consistently to all existing powers, as well as any future powers that are debuted that would be applicable.

Which sounds more consistent?

  • Dream Control
  • Mental Control
  • SpaceTime Control
  • Plant Control
  • Emotion Control


  • Dream Manipulation
  • Mental Manipulation
  • SpaceTime Manipulation
  • Plant Manipulation
  • Emotion Manipulation

Do you guys think consistency in this manner (and in yet-to-be debuted powers) is important? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 06/19/2007 14:57 (EST)

  • I don't really care one way or another. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 16:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
    • I prefer manipulation over control, both cause it means there's less to change and cause it sounds better. For me, control implies a mastery of the power that I'm not sure all of them have. Also, I'm thinking it could be Plant Growth Manipulation to be more specific.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
      • I, too, prefer "manipulation" over "control". In answer to your question, no, I don't think it's important to be consistent in using one word over the other. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Personally, when that Activating Evolution site came on and every ability essentially fell into some naming convention (mostly ending in -kinesis), it just looked awful. I think it should resemble the ability displayed, and not follow some convention for naming. My personal belief is the name itself shouldn't be the focus of the ability, but a description of the name. Like I said in the clairvoyance discussion, just use the anatomy of the word to see if it describes the ability. Using manipulation and control is just garnish on the big metaphorical platter. If the name describes the inherent nature of the ability, I'm fine with it. I just don't think we need to spend a month on naming something that's not going to be used any more in the show (presumably). --Bob 16:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Power Classification

Given that the Nine Unknown Men has been cited as an inspiration to Heroes, could it be possible that we could begin to classify these powers into the 9 groups? Even maybe in the theories page or something? --Unfalln 22:04, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

  • I'm not sure what kind of classification you are thinking of, but I don't think it fits neatly into 9 groups. Besides, the Nine Unknown Men is an inspiration, not necessarily an adherence to classification. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
    • I know it's certainly not easy to classify all the powers into 9 neat groups, especially given only the info that we currently have. I just feel it'd be a good idea somewhere to begin to think about what sort of classification the powers would fit into. It would certainly help with the naming of the individual powers. I just began to wonder about this myself when I realised that the reason why Claire needed to be saved was so there were 9 heroes (only counting either Hiro or Sylar, not both) involved in the kirby plaza thing and maybe that each had a different power, possibly representing the 9 different books. I dunno, just a thought I guess.--Unfalln 01:00, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
      • An interesting thought. Why don't you work something up on a user subpage ("User:Unfalln/Power Classification", for instance) so I have a better idea of what you're thinking. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
        • Err, that would involve learning how to wiki. My only experience so far is sideline commenting. Perhaps I will try on the weekend. --Unfalln 01:14, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
          • Well then it's good practice for you! :) Even if you can't figure out a table or anything, that's okay--just make 9 lists, or group them however you want. The way to get to that page, by the way, is to put brackets [[ ]] around the page name, or to type the page name into the search box and then clicking on the red link at the top of the page. If you need help, let me know. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2007 (EDT)


Just for clarification, clairvoyance (as defined in the world of Heroes) is the abilility to see people that are not in one's presence. Clairsentience is the ability to perceive the history of objects. The name clairvoyance, for our purposes, comes from a folder in the Genesis files. The name clairsentience is mentioned by Bridget Bailey to be the subject of a section in Activating Evolution. Just wanted to clair-ify. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

  • After reading the last-weeks entry (Sept 12) by Bridget, I was actually about to find and upload a picture of the Charles Lamb Plague that she used that day on her break from court to do one of her Clairsentient connections. I am going to use it as the picture in the infobox for a new page-in-process called User:HiroDynoSlayer/Clairsentience, that I will start building in my user section. If it ends up being worthwhile, let me know later, and we can look at moving it into the mix. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09/19/2007 16:13 (EST)

New Company Bosses golden power

I did a little research on this, and the common name of is either 'transmutation' or 'alchemy'; both of which are more generic and not specific to only turning metal to gold. If it ends up this new power is limited to just turning gold, then that specific power is called Chrysopoeia. If it ends up being a more robuts metal power, we have more alternatives to choose from. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09/24/2007 22:56 (EST)

  • We have started to disscuss this on the page, Alchemy.--The Empath 23:00, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Known power and how we classify it two-ways, instead of three

I'm confused on something. On the "known power" space, it says Maya's power is "none". However, we know she has a power, we just don't know exactly what it is. So is her known power still "none"? --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 20:21, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Right, if we take into account spoiler info, we could add her to the evolved human category but since the exact power is not known, "known power" should be "none". Minus spoilers, also, we don't know she has a power. She could simply have a virus similar to one described in Chandra's book.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
  • You said it yourself, Heroe: we don't know what her power is. So she has no known power. Confusing, I agree. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Shouldn't it make more sense to put "unknown" rather than "none"? When you use "none", it seems to state that she doesn't have a power at all, which isn't true. -- Reubs1 03:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
      • She doesn't have an "unknown known power". She has no "known power". Ergo, "none".--Hardvice (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I've updated it on the theory we know she has the power to kill people, even though we know almost nothing about how she kills people. --Ted C 10:07, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
    • On a related note, would we want to create a page called Maya's power, to be renamed later when we know more about it? --Ted C 10:09, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I have thought the way we use the 'known power' box is confusion as well. This option is really has a tri-phased answer, and the way it is designed presently, it is can only handle a two-phased answer (Y/N). What if we changed the label to just say: "power:" (removing the 'known'); and then we only support 3 answers.

1) power: none (no power exists) or
2) power: Flight (a power exists, and we have agreed upon its name) or
3) power: uncertain (a power exists, but we are yet uncertain of its name...and their might be a better word than uncertain, but the premise it conveys should show a yet-to-be-named power definately exists)

This tri-phase approach would remove the confusion, and we would know for every person, whether or not they have a power, and if it is certain, what that power is. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09/25/2007 10:17 (EST)

  • That would be an acceptable solution to me. --Ted C 13:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
    • I like HiroDynoSlayer's solution, but it opens debate on whom we are sure is an evolved human. ie. is Charles Deveaux evolved? I'm okay with that, but I think that's the main reason this was not previously changed as HDS is now suggesting.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
      • "Uncertain" actually allows more leeway than HiroDynoSlayer suggests, since it can be used for characters who may or may not have a power, although there is reason to think they do. You could also use "uncertain" for people about whom we suspect a power without being sure, and using "undefined" for characters we know have a power without knowing what it does. --Ted C 13:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
        • Right. The extra "leeway" is exactly the reason I think this was not done before. The tradeoff is clarity for certainty, and we should let the other admin voice their opinion; though, don't get me wrong--I do like the idea, I'm just playing a little devil's advocate here so we don't get our hopes up too soon that this will get changed.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
          • Maybe 'Undefined' is a better term than 'Uncertain' to describe the 3rd phase of 'Yes, they have a power, we just aren't ready to name it yet' case. Maya is the best current example, we know she has a power, we just haven't come up with a name for it yet. Here power isn't none, but it is Undefined. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09/25/2007 14:37 (EST)

Punctuation and fragments

If I'm not mistaken, there shouldn't be punctuation marks on the end of the power descriptions because they are not sentences. "The ability to transform the composition of materials" is a fragment and shouldn't have a period on the end of it. Right? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Aqua Man

Water Density Mimic.jpg

"Aquakinesis" The power to mimic the density of splashing water --Hiroyatta 09:37, October 30, 2007

  • Just want to point out that if "aquakinesis" is a real word then it would actually mean the ability to move water, not to mimic the density of it. (Admin 09:54, 30 October 2007 (EDT))
    • Better to just stay with the canonic name given to it in the Graphic Novel. While Aquakinesis and Hydrokinesis both 'sound good' and fit with alot of the other names we have that are similar, the Graphic Novel calls it Water density mimicry. We should stay with that, until we see more of this guy (or anotherone with this same power), and it is named specifically something else. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/30/2007 10:24 (EST)