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:Spontaneous combustion

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:
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 spontaneous combustion's name.
Source/Explanation
This ability is explicitly named in Edgar's list. Also, in Boom, Noah explicitly states the ability name.


Trevor

Anyone caught the similarity between Amanda's power and Trevor's? Both make objects explode. Green.gif AltesUTC CH

But Trevor's Ability has no sign of burning or anything like that.--Icefire227 15:11, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

  • I agree with Icefire. Trevor's ability is more like shattering not exploding.--WarGrowlmon18 18:14, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Possibly that Trevor's was more a tamed version, didn't the writers say that Arthur's power was like Pete's but more advanced? --TrueBlueBrooklynite 20:19, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
    • Yes there was burning, check this out: Green.gif AltesUTC CH
  • Plus, Heroes Magazine called Trevor's ability "Molecular combustion" . . . - Mike the Man-child!
    • There is a similarity, but it seems Amanda's is based in her mood. She reacts on emotion, whereas Trevor was more clinical. Like the difference between Daphne and Edgar -- Mr Zeddemore 17:53, 7th October 2009
      • Oh boy, I looked at the talk page for Tevor's ability, and I don't want that to happen again, but it does seem to be the same, except that Amanda has no control over it.--Ratclaws 13:39, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
        • Just beacuse one user of an ability has much more control over it than another or use it differently, doesn't necessarily make them different abilities. Look at Meredith and Flint; Niki and Mohinder; Linderman and Ishi; and Tracy and Sylar. --ElleFanBoy 15:34, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
          • We still have no word on whether the person who named Trevor's power in that article was an actual writer of the show, not just someone who simply named the ability. AFA Trevor's ability is concerned, I'd call it blasting, it's simple and accurate. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:58, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
            • I would like, in fact LOVE, for this theory to be true, but, as cliché as it sounds, we have no conclusive proof of this being the same as Trevor's power. Sure, we have this, but unless we see the same effect used every time Trevor shatters a glass, then I don't think it can conclusively be called the same power unless confirmed by a writer. Sweet image, though :). -- Psilaq R.- \m/ -_- \m/- 21:18, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
              • You got me here. Trevor exploded glass twice more, without fire. And that confuses me. Green.gif AltesUTC CH

Wait--this isn't pyrokinesis?

This is a completely new power, but Knox's power is simply lumped under enhanced strength? Am I missing something? Was there an Assignment Tracker or BTE or something that I can never find that I missed again?--Uncanny474 21:15, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Noah named it in last week's graphic novel. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:26, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Pyrokinesis implies that the person can control and manipulate fire, Amanda doesn't seem to have any control over her power, maybe it's an underdeveloped version of pyrokinesis or maybe it's something completely different, either way it doesn't seem like pyrokinesis at the moment -- Jenx222 · U · T · C 13:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
    • I looked at it again. I thought he was just saying that to manipulate Meridith, but at a second look, apparently he is naming it. Can't say I'm happy (it's exactely the same >:-( ) but I can't argue with canon.--Uncanny474 11:05, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
    • I'm in the tank for calling this pyrokinesis, too- despite canon, she's setting things on fire with her mind. When she learns some control over it, I have a feeling she won't be limited to accidentally setting objects on fire. Product Placement 16:36, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
      • If she can create fire without throwing it from her hand, she doesn't have pyrokinesis. Everyone with pyrokinesis creates fire by throwing it. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:18, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Main image change

We have video of her starting a fire from Slowburn, I'd much rather use a live action image to a GN one. We just need to upload it. We'll be needing an examples page too, methinks. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:03, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Should we change it to the image of her doing the fire columns from Slow Burn, Part 10? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:22, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I'm not opposed...but I think an image of an "accidental" fire is more indicative of what she normally does with her power. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Carnival's Flowers

She really was burning the flowers on Amanda's Journey, Part 2, when she finally arrives to the Sullivan Bros. Carnival? Or it was just red flowers? If it's true, we dont have to add on examples of this ability? Gabrielense 16:11, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

  • pretty sure they were on fireGamerelite1 21:26, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Just "combustion"

the new istory simply calls it combustion. --mc_hammark 13:10, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

  • That makes more sense. Spontaneous means it's completely unplanned.Gamerelite1 17:00, 25 November 2009 (EST)
    • "Spontaneous combustion" came from a GN, which is a higher canon source than the iStory.--Referos 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)
      • It is? Since when? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2009 (EST)
        • Ah, sorry. Because in Template:Power names the order for near-canon sources are given as Webisodes, GNs, iStory, Evolutions (rather than simply alphabetical order), I thought that this order should be used when there is a "draw" between near-canon sources.--Referos 16:59, 26 November 2009 (EST)
      • Both are Tier-2, either could theoretically be correct canonically. Personally, I'm more a fan of "combustion" ("spontaneous" is almost more a reference to her lack of control initially). --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:27, 25 November 2009 (EST)
        • Combustion alone makes the most sense.--Ratclaws 22:48, 25 November 2009 (EST)
          • For me, spontaneous in this ability name refers to the fact that things simply catch fire, the fire isn't thrown at it, the ability makes the fire appear "on its own", so to speak. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:55, 26 November 2009 (EST)
  • Combustion just refers to the process of burning something. Spontaneous can be defined as "performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus". While not a perfect name, Spontaneous combustion seems to be a more appropriate name for her ability then combustion, and they both come from equally ranked sources anyway.--PJDEP 22:18, 26 November 2009 (EST)
    • If you look here the definition of "Spontaneous Combustion" is "self-ignition of combustible material through chemical action (as oxidation) of its constituents". For it to be spontaneous combustion then there would have to be a chemical involvement and it would have to be a combustable material. Saying that amanda can only burn certain materials is speculation, which makes the name kind of speculative. Combustion simply means to burn, and is not speculative at all. --mc_hammark 11:21, 27 November 2009 (EST)
      • If Amanda's power just manipulated the material itself into exploding, rather then igniting with her own-self generated fire (which is what appears to happen), spontaneous combustion is indeed an adequate name. Also, I feel as if combustion isn't specific enough, both pyrokinesis and fire breathing are combustion. Adding "spontaneous" to the name makes it more unique.--PJDEP 15:59, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Fire manipulation

  • This ability was referred to as 'fire manipulation' in the latest Heroes Interactive, so I added a redirect here. I think the name should remain the same, though, since Heroes Interactive is only a secondary source.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Name Change

I know I argued against it during the begining of the season, but I think "combustion", without the spontaneous in front of it, would be a better name for this ability. It's simpler, and I wouldn't label what she did during her carnival act as spontaneous. Thoughts?--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 01:04, 28 February 2010 (EST)

  • Normally I'd be with you on this, but Noah calls it "spontaneous combustion" in Boom. --Ricard Desi 01:22, 28 February 2010 (EST)
    • Friggin edit conflict.... Anyway, the iStory's dropping of the name seems just as explict as Noah's.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 01:26, 28 February 2010 (EST)
  • I just checked the two sources (Boom and chapter 5 of Slow Burn) and I'll list the revelant parts here to be helpful. In Slow Burn, the Watcher gives the Bowmans a file on Amanda. The file has some photos of her, her height, her weight, and beneath that "Power: Combustion, can't control it very well". In the GN, the section reads:

"Holy sh... you okay?"
"...I think... That was Amanda?"
"Spontaneous combustion. Told you she wasn't like you."

Now, both sources are equally ranked and both names are given quite explictly. In my personal opinion, the Watcher's file is airtight, while Noah's response could just be refering to what he saw, and not what he knew.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 01:25, 28 February 2010 (EST)

  • I have to point out that the reason for the "spontaneous" is because there is no outside source for the things to catch fire from. Even if you look on wikipedia, spontaneous combustion is "a type of combustion which occurs without an external ignition source.". This fits in perfectly with Amanda's ability. --mc_hammark 08:04, 28 February 2010 (EST)
    • Amanda is the external source.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 11:55, 28 February 2010 (EST)
      • What we mean is that with her ability, she makes stuff catch on fire on their own, she doesn't throw the fire at stuff like Meredith and Flint did. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:08, 28 February 2010 (EST)
        • We don't know that. She may be throwing some type of psionic fire that ignites when it comes in contact with the desired object. Also the Watcher's file seems morer explicit.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 12:12, 28 February 2010 (EST)
  • To back my statement up, the Watcher's file is about explicit as you can get. It clearly says "Power: Combustion". Whereas Noah's response to Meredith could be taken a few different ways. We're assuming that he knew the name for the ability and simply wasn't describing what he saw. "Spontaneous combustion" is a more popular word due to that myth that people might sudenly burst into flames. Also, I'll say it again, "spontaneous" implies that nothing, visual or otherwise, caused the explosion.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 12:23, 28 February 2010 (EST)
    • To think there's some sort of psionic fire is speculative. The spontaneous in this case refers to the object suddenly being on fire, just that, otherwise we could go around arguing loads of ability names due to technicalities. Not a precedent I'd be willing to help set. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:57, 28 February 2010 (EST)
      • And it's not speculative to think that she makes the material explode on her own? I wasn't saying that was the way she did it, I was simply saying that we don't know how she does it, and therefore assuming otherwise cannot be used as support. In any case, sponatneous is uneeded in the name and could possibly be incorrect. Combustion was given explictly as possible as doesn't assume anything we haven't seen.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 13:00, 28 February 2010 (EST)
        • It isn't, we've seen her blowing stuff up, including a car and some bags at the carnival. She either gets nervous or focuses, and stuff is on fire. Her ability is to make things catch on fire by themselves, you're making this into a case of semantics. Noah is a reliable source, and that's how he called the ability. Edgar's list, which appeared in an episode also calls it "spontaneous combustion", seventh person on the list. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:08, 28 February 2010 (EST)
          • You yourself have said that we shouldn't derive names directly from the list (puppet master, remember?). And I'll say it once again, One cannot makes something spontaneously combust, that's an oxymoron. One can be spontaneously combusted but not that other way around. Going from Mc hammark's description from wikipedia, "a type of combustion which occurs without an external ignition source". Amanda's the external source, thus, it cannot be "spontanoues combustion". Whether she's throwing something at the object or simply manipulating the material itself into exploding, she's igniting it, and she's outside the object. There's a difference between "semantics" and "using words properly".--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 13:29, 28 February 2010 (EST)
            • Amanda is not the source. The source must be physical, like a struck match or a spark. Her power is the ability to combust materials spontaneously, i.e. without an ignition source. --Ricard Desi 13:40, 28 February 2010 (EST)
  • The episodes are the "Canon Sources", Edgar's list says "Spontaneous combustion" so that's the name. --Tanderix 13:45, 28 February 2010 (EST)
  • We have a canon source in Edgar's list, and a near-canon source in Noah (an expert in abilities) both calling the ability "spontaneous combustion". We have another near-canon source calling the ability "combustion", which seems like a generalized term of "spontaneous combustion" (or better said, "spontaneous combustion" is a more specific type of "combustion"). Both names describe the ability. There is no conflict of sources as neither source negates the other, thankfully. All are explicit uses of the name ("Amanda's ability is called ____.") However, we can only have one name for the title of this page. Ultimately, this is not a decision to be made based on whether Amanda's ability is "spontaneous" or not--arguments could be made for either side. The deciding factor in the name of this ability is the source. In this type of case, we normally prefer explicit canon sources over explicit near-canon sources (which is really the only reason we ever designated a difference between canon and near-canon sources in the first place). But even if we were to go with frequency of use (which is not the normal way we choose names), "spontaneous combustion" would still be the choice. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2010 (EST)
    • Personally I don't see how "combustion" is any less explict then Noah's description or Edgar's list, which is a mish-mash of names and descriptions that were most likely taken from our site. Also, Samuel's says "controls the earth" or something but we didn't rename that to "earth control". I'm not trying to refute the decisions, just putting my final thoughts in.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 18:42, 28 February 2010 (EST)
      • It's not any less explicit than Noah's description or Edgar's list. I don't think think I ever said that it was. In fact, I said that all are explicit uses of the name. But we have to choose one name over the other, so we have a rare case of a canon source trumping a near-canon source. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2010 (EST)