Talk:Granulation/Archive 2

WARNING: Talk:Granulation/Archive 2 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Granulation.

Disintegration

I think disintegration best describes his ability, granulation, I think, is a bit off the mark as its called dust not sand which is not especially particulated Mephistopheles 13:45, 31 May 2009

• It's only called "dust" in a reference to the Bible. It's explicitly called sand in the iStory (see here and here, for instance). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Disintegration seems to be a pretty accurate name for this ability. Yes, it turns things to sand specifically, but some classical interpretations of disintegration include this. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 14:17, 29 November 2009 (EST)
    • Disintegration is no longer a viable name, it's been chosen for a different ability. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:54, 29 November 2009 (EST)
      • Yes, however if the name is more appropriate here (and another name -- "crumbling" for instance -- might be more appropriate where "disintegration" currently is) then it might be worth looking into. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:57, 22 December 2009 (EST)
        • It'll be hard to change if you want to pursue that line. I'd like that, I like the name "crumbling"for Tom's ability, I suggested it. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 06:38, 23 December 2009 (EST)
          • I'm all for changing it to disintegration. Yes, he turns things into sand, but isn't he really just disintergrating objects? Does it matter how he does it? Knox and Niki Sanders both had enhanced strength, but they accessed their abilities differently. --Cryofthewolf 13:45, 1 March 2010 (EST)

I think that...

...while sand transmutation might not work (for reasons I stated before), something like sand-based transmutation or psammous transmutation (psammous just means sandy/sandiness-related) might be alright. Both of these suggestions were shot down for the same reasons as sand transmutation, but come to think about it, sand transmutation can be interpreted as "transmuting sand" in the way that microwave emission is interpreted as "emitting microwaves". And that's a problem, since Gordon is not transmuting sand; instead, he's transmuting things into sand. However, if we change "sand" to an adjective (for example, "sand-based"), then it can be interpreted as "causing a sand-based transmutation to happen", which is what Gordon is doing. Any takers? --Radicell 07:44, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

• Sounds good. But how about sand alchemy? =) kidding. Why can't you just name it transmutation into sand? Activation and deactivation has a conjunction in its name, why can't Gordon's ability have a preposition? AltesUTC CH
  • The closest thing to that I found was "arenification", but that's supposed to be a desertification process. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:30, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
    • I'd like to bring this back for discussion again. --Radicell 09:59, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
      • I'd like to bump this discussion again. --Radicell 06:33, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
• I suggest sandification. It's an obscure geography term that refers to soil becoming (or being replaced with) sand, so I think it's applicable here. Although it's not a dictionary word, it gets over 5000 hits on Google. - Hive 20:42, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
  • "Sand-based transmutation". I'd like to bring this up again for discussion. --Radicell 04:20, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Bullets

They were turned into sand when they hit Gordon, while his clothes were not. Strange. AltesUTC CH

• He has control over his ability. Just like Bob doesn't turn everything into gold, neither does Gordon (into sand). Mateussf 22:21, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
  • I'm saying that bullets turned into sand once they hit Gordon's body, but why didn't his clothes turn into sand too if Gordon was like sand-ifying everything he was touching at the moment? AltesUTC CH
    • It's the same way Peter can replicate an ability by touching someone's clothes. Clothes become part of the person, like Claude's become invisible with him. Gordon just has so much control over his ability that his clothes don't. Otherwise the helecopter or the bed he was in would turn to sand. --mc_hammark 08:57, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

However, unless changing the bullets into sand significantly affected their mass (not likely) or drastically reduced their speed (less likely), there's no way he wouldn't have been badly wounded by all the tiny scratches. --Cosmic AC 20:28, 15 December 2009 (EST)

His shirt would have prevented that. Also, it is conceivable that Gordon's ability works through clothing, just like Peter's ability.--ERROR 21:50, 15 January 2010 (EST)

Name?

This discussions for the name seemed to just suddenly stop. Let's pick back up on this. --OutbackZack 14:28, 9 December 2009 (EST)

• I think the "sand granulation" idea that was discussed above works, but I guess that at this point I wouldn't even oppose "transmutation to sand".--Referos 18:12, 28 December 2009 (EST)
• I'd rather forget this ability ever existed, along with Doyle's magic movement ability, spider mimicry and touch n' go. I know it's fantasy, but there must be some limits.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 20:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
  • Honestly, I think this would be a much more fitting ability to be named "disintegration" (and this power to be named something like "crumbling") --Ricard Desi (t,c) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (EST)
    • Sure, but that would require twice the work. Let's just rename this ability and be done with it.--Referos 09:45, 7 January 2010 (EST)
      • Looking back at the prior consensus and the rename tag on the article, is there anything wrong with "reverse sand mutation"?--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 16:07, 7 January 2010 (EST)
        • Because it is a fairly nonsensical term with multiple implications. I think it is worth renaming the current "disintegration" page to put this in its place, if "disintegration" is an acceptable name. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (EST)
          • I'm iffy about disintegration for this power, he appears to be turning things into sand, with one writer calling him "turns-stuff-into-sand-guy". While neither of those statements actually refute the name, it still doesn't seem quite appropriate, in my opinion at least.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 16:12, 7 January 2010 (EST)
            • Classical definitions of "disintegration" tend to have objects disintegrate into some kind of granular/particulate material, be it sand, dust, or ash. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 16:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)
              • I don't really mind it, I suppose. But doesn't Tom's ability have to be renamed before we can consider calling this disintegration?--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 16:19, 7 January 2010 (EST)
                • Well yes, that would be the trick, unfortunately. I'll start up a discussion on the talk page. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 16:20, 7 January 2010 (EST)
                  • These could both be the same ability. Tom talked about his ability like it could disintegrate a person, and we've seen Gordon disintegrate a person. Other than how they disintegrate people (Gordon uses touch, Tom uses a hand gesture) these are practically the same ability. Vampirate68 | Talk | Contribs | 20:29, 7 January 2010 (EST)
                    • Gordon turned them into sand somewhat gradually, whereas Tom snapped his fingers and the object seem to instantly collapse upon itself.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 20:47, 7 January 2010 (EST)
• Gordon turns stuff into sand, people and objects, and it's been confirmed by a writer. Tom just breaks things down, that's it. Two different abilities. Very clean and cut. Look at them for what they are and not what we can speculate. --OutbackZack 21:28, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Like I said before, "sand transmutation" and "silification" are our best options, and my vote's on the first one.--ERROR 21:44, 15 January 2010 (EST)

• Actually, it seems like there's some momentum behind "disintegration" as well, and honestly I think it's a better name than either "sand transmutation" or "silification". --Ricard Desi (t,c) 14:21, 16 January 2010 (EST)
  • I think OutbackZack is correct; Tom's ability is a separate ability which breaks down an object into its composite material, which is normally not sand.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2010 (EST)
    • I don't think the motion was to merge this ability with Tom's, it was to rename Tom's ability to something more appropriate, and then call this ability disintegration.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 21:09, 16 January 2010 (EST)
      • Correct, and I just gave my reason why I am opposed to calling this ability disintegration.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2010 (EST)
        • Tom broke down a ceramic figure into bits, we don't actually know whether it would do the same on a person, even if he threatened Sylar. We didn't call Trevor's ability "shattering" because it isn't reasonable to believe that Sylar could shatter into bits like the glass did, so why is it more believable that Tom could "disintegrate" Sylar? Also, as Richard said above, there are other definitions of disintegrate.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 22:10, 16 January 2010 (EST)
          • It makes more sense for things in general to be disintegrated than it is for flesh to be shattered. The only way flesh shatters is when it is frozen, as Tracy showed us. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 22:16, 16 January 2010 (EST)
            • My point was that we only saw Tom use his power on a ceramic figure, yet now that it's called disintegration everyone seems to assume Sylar can snap his fingers and turn someone into dust. We have no way of knowing whether that's true or not. "Shatter" is defined as "break or cause to break suddenly and violently into pieces", so why does it make more sense for something to fall into pieces gently rather then violently?--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 22:23, 16 January 2010 (EST)
      • Just to be clear, I oppose calling Gordon's ability 'disintegration' mainly cause I do not think 'disintegration' implies sand. If you accept that, then the name for Tom's ability is a different issue and I ask for us to please continue this at Talk:Disintegration.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Poll

I think it's about time to start the poll. I have gone through the above consensus check, and I think there are the following three valid names (names which do not have uncountered arguments) in addition to the possessor's name: reverse sand transmutation, mineralization, and sand granulation.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2010 (EST)

• Agreed. Let's move forth with a poll. --OutbackZack 22:29, 16 January 2010 (EST)
• Uh, may I add my input, or has the poll already begun? If not, then personally, Sand Transmutation actually sounds pretty good. It could imply that he transmutes matter into sand or that he transmutes sand itself, BUT if you see the power at work, you can tell how the name fits the ability. Although, if that doesn't pan out, there's always the name Sand Conversion (the ability to convert matter into sand. User:Shadowulf1 15:44, 28 January 2010 (EST)
  • Neither sand transmutation or sand conversion is acceptable, as they both imply that sand is being converted into something else instead of vice versa. It would have to be reverse sand conversion, reverse sand transmutation, mineralization or sand granulation. You are free to express your preference below, but we may soon be getting some help with this ability's name, so you might want to wait a couple more weeks.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2010 (EST)
• Agreed, I think its time we started the poll. This name has been up for discussion for months. --Leckie -- Talk 15:57, 28 January 2010 (EST)
  • Poll it....maybe we'll get lucky on this one, and we can knock at least on "XXXXX's ability" of the list! --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 01/28/2010 16:53 (EST)

Cannot be Disintegration

I'm just throwing something in the discussion and this might be contradicted easily but here's what I think: The ability cannot be named as "Disintegration", for a reason asides from the fact that the name's already used for Tom Miller's. "Disintegration" means "To become reduced to components, fragments, or particles.", which is not what the ability's about. The ability allows the user to turn things into sand or dust, as mentioned somewhere in the site. Keep in mind that he used his ability on a man, and he turned into sand/dust. I highly doubt that if you reduce a person into fragments or particles, the result would be a pile of sand/dust. This would also apply to the bullets that turned into sand. The name "Disintegration" wouldn't account for that. Just a thought...--Realistic

• Dust is, by definition, any of a number of miniscule particulate matter. Likewise, sand is, by definition, any number of particulate salts/rocks/minerals. Thus, "disintegration" is quite valid as an ability name. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:15, 1 February 2010 (EST)
  • why is sand conversion not viable again? If you want to be that inflexible about the naming of superhuman abilities, then why not call the power Matter-to-Sand Conversion... I still think Sand Conversion is a good name (if you explicitly mention that matter is converted into sand, and that sand is not converted into anything else... aw, hell, try to be flexible in how you decipher context clues and stuff...stuff is not that written in stone... ugh. Hell... If I need to vote on another name, then I have no idea what I'd pick... Shadowulf1
    • Sand conversion is vague for the very reason you present: it implies the user is converting sand into something else. Disintegration is honestly not only the simplest (real-word) name for this ability, but it takes both the literal and figurative meanings of the term (you wouldn't say in passing that Gordon "sand-converted" a bullet, but you would be likely to say he disintegrated it). --Ricard Desi (t,c) 00:14, 5 February 2010 (EST)
      • You wouldn't have to say he "sand-converted" it, you could say he "converted it into sand"... I thought we were above the nit-pickiness...

User:Shadowulf1 08:26, 5 February 2010 (EST)

The name "Sand Transmutation" and its derivatives

I know I'm against the name "sand transmutation" because it implies that the sand is being transmuted. However, I believe any of the following derivatives are viable names:

• Sandy transmutation
• Sand-based transmutation

The reason is that these derivatives use adjectives instead of a noun in order to describe what is being transmuted. Thus, people will better understand that Gordon is causing a transmutation that is sandy (which accurately describes what he's doing) rather than causing sand to transmute (which is what "sand transmutation" would suggest). --Radicell 07:31, 31 January 2010 (EST)

"*Sand-Based Transmutation seems to imply that sand is used as a means to transmute matter; sand transmutation implies that the user must be somehow involved in sand to transmute matter, nag, nag, nag"

see how anal it can be to have power names nit-picked like you did sand conversion and sand transmutation? Personally, I think that a compromise should be made,and the ability should go by several names, with one decided main name, but the other names are also acceptable, like say:

Sand Transmutation

and then on the main page, when you describe the power, you say that "it can also be called Sand Conversion, Sand Degradation"...etc., etc. User:Shadowulf1 13:56, 3 February 2010 (EST)

HEY, YOU THERE

• User:Shadowulf1 14:06, 8 February 2010 (EST) "Sand transmutation" can imply either that the user is transmuting sand into something else, or that matter is being converted into sand... it's not only a one-way interpretation of the ability name; just like the power Spider mimicry could have implied thaty the user just mimic the powers of a spider (like Spiderman) without actually taking on the appearance and characteristics of a spider... Not everything is so easily worded to exactly describe the ability; just like "head" of lettuce and "head" of cattle don't mean the same thing... the same goes for Sand Conversion. And if you don't like that, then, like I suggested before, there's always "Matter-to-Sand Conversion"
  • Good ideas, there, Shadowulf1. I prefer matter-to-sand transmutation now... it's a bit wordy, but I think Gordon's ability is most commonly thought of as a kind of transmutation, and adding "matter-to-sand" is the best clarifier I've heard mentioned thus far (better than 'reverse', imho).--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2010 (EST)
    • I know this is horrifically semantic a comment, but "matter-to-sand" does imply that sand is not matter :P --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)
      • No, no it doesn't...it implies that all OTHER (non-sand) matter is converted into sand...let's not be too semantic or picky or choosy about the name; if that happens, you'll just end up back at Gordon's ability, because the ability name can be picked with numerous contexts in mind. If perhaps we said that Jessica or Knox had Super strength, one could argue that enhanced strength is better because their abilities are enhanced to superhuman proportions through some stimulus (Knox's being the detection and conversion of fear into physical power; Niki's being the manifestation of her alter ego, Jessica); in the end, though, both names are deemed acceptable and are kept... see where I'm going here? User:Shadowulf1 16:06, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • I like "matter-to-sand conversion". I also like "sand-based transmutation". Although I'd like more people to weigh in on this; this ability seems to have fallen out of touch with the front-running ability name debates. --Radicell 03:14, 21 February 2010 (EST)
          • Honestly, I'm still more in favor of naming this "disintegration" and renaming "disintegration" to "crumbling" (or combining the two). --Ricard Desi (t,c) 03:41, 21 February 2010 (EST)
            • I've always supported naming Tom Miller's ability "crumbling", being the one who first put that name forward, but I still think that this one needs something with sand, because in iStories, it was called sand, at least that's what people who have read the iStories said during the debates. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:11, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Sand Inversion Convertion

Just putting it out there. SIC for short. --mc_hammark 13:57, 1 March 2010 (EST)

Um...well, how about Non-Sand-Into-Sand Transmutation? Heck, we are being too freakin' specific on these names. Let it just come to a real consensus, without anyone adding any other ability names (the most commonly occuring name suggestions, or the most reasonable, non-speculative name suggestions), and then bring it down to a good ol' fashion democratic vote. User:Shadowulf1 14:18, 1 March 2010 (EST)

And DON'T tell me what I did or didn't mean as a joke. It wasn't a gag suggesting this name, it was put up because you idiots are thinking too hard about the specific naming of this ability. Idiots... User:Shadowulf1 13:25, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

For real this time....

We have countless names for this ability, and now that the season is over there's little to divide our attention. I'd like to start a poll, but I have no idea which names are still viable and where the suggestions should stop. We can't have a poll with eleven options, so we either need to narrow it down a bit or have another consensus check (which seems unneccesary). How should we go about this?--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:29, 1 March 2010 (EST)

• Anyone?--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:19, 3 March 2010 (EST)

I went through the archived consensus check and the names that weren't crossed out were;

• Sand transmutation
• Reverse sand transmutation
• Mineralization
• Psammous transmutation
• Sand output transmutation
• Sand granulation
• Granulation

I'm not saying that these are the names we should use, but we need to decide which are valid and which are not. In addition to this, names are still being suggested.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:29, 3 March 2010 (EST)

I think that "sand transmutation" would be a good name, put people don't like it because it implies he's changing sand into other stuff, not stuff into sand, hence the "reverse sand transmutation". I think that while this is a viable argument, I think that the fact is there is no perfect name for this ability, so for me, "sand transmutation" would be ok as long as we properly explain in the power page that he turns things into sand, not the other way around. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:35, 3 March 2010 (EST)

• I'm fine with most names, I'm just heavily against the ones that are overly-complicated. Given that the season is over and the only thing that could disrupt our attention from this is the new GN arc, I think we really need to get down to it and finish this.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:39, 3 March 2010 (EST)
  • On that note, I have to say that my favorite name for this ability is psammofication. I'm aware that this isn't a true word but it seems to be the most accurate and literal label for Gordon's ability.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:42, 3 March 2010 (EST)
• Sand transmutation is the best. It means to transmute into sand. I have heard other sayings such as Human transmutations from other works, and it would mean to transmute into a human.--OutbackZack 19:33, 3 March 2010 (EST)

How should we go about this though? I'd like to open a poll but I don't know which names are legitimate at this point. Should we just go with the names remaining after the consensus check and ignore the new suggestions or incoporate them also? Essentially, I need consensus for a consensus.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 20:12, 3 March 2010 (EST)

• I thought we might see some more of this ability in the iStory, but I guess that plan was changed. In any case, I still support 'matter-to-sand transmutation' as the clearest name with the most common elements. As for the consensus process on this name, people are welcome to continue suggesting other names. I think that's a good thing. As for what is legitimate, we'll have to go back and review the discussion (I know it's lengthy, but that's just how the process works).--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2010 (EST)
  • So we should have another consensus then? I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 23:33, 3 March 2010 (EST)
    • I don't think the first consensus check ever ended. If you're confused about what the status is for a possible name, just re-list it and we can double check it. I'll try to make some time this weekend to go through the discussion and confirm the still-open names for the poll.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Induced Silification

Yep. --Piemanmoo 01:15, 4 March 2010 (EST)

• My problem with any name containing "silification" is that sand isn't just silicon dioxide, there's more to sand than that. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 07:11, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Consensus Check Round 2

Given that the last consensus is archived, I thought we'd continue it here with all of the names remaining from the first one and the names that have been recently suggested. Add your signature to what you oppose. If a name is in the struck-out section, but you have an argument for it, feel free to re-add it and add your counterargument.

Sand transmutation

1. Opposed. Seems like you are transmutating the sand. --Leckie -- Talk 17:37, 9 March 2010 (EST)
   • That's actually not true. Other works of literature and television shows have used phrasing such as Human transmutation, which meant to transmute something into a human. Then there's gold transmutation, which described the process of transmuting another metal into gold. Just because "sand" comes before "transmutation" doesn't mean it's the process of creating something out of sand. The word before "transmutation" is actually used to describe what the end result will be. --OutbackZack 19:33, 10 March 2010 (EST)
     • In my opinion it sounds like the holder of this ability is transmutating the sand. We already have a good enough name for "Gold transmutatinon", my problem with this name is, even though its written like "gold transmutation" it still seems like the user can only transmutate the sand, same with gold transmutation. --Leckie -- Talk 15:27, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
       • Then you're opposing it because you misunderstand the meaning. Like I said, many other works phrase it as "X" Transmutation as the "X" being the result of transmuting something. Just because you misunderstand it doesn't mean it's not a good name for an ability --OutbackZack 15:01, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
         • If someone is opposing it because they misunderstand the meaning, then it is very likely that a lot of other users of viewer's to the site will also mistake the name to mean something else. --Leckie -- Talk 17:23, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
2. Opposed. Pretty much the same as Leckie. Even though it may not technically be incorrect, it could be misleading for some. Since we have other names that aren't as ambigious, I think we're better off avoiding this name.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 17:12, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
   • • Since it's not technically incorrect you can't oppose it. What you're doing is voting this name out instead of giving it a strong case as to why the name isn't good. Remember, you can't oppose out of preference for other names. --OutbackZack 15:01, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
       • My opposition is because it's a term that can be misunderstood for something else. I think that's a valid enough reason for opposition.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:32, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
         • Exactly what I have just said above. --Leckie -- Talk 17:23, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
           • because some people can/do misunderstand it doesn't make it a wrong choice. That's like saying math is wrong because a lot of people misunderstand it. The name is still a valid choice. Is it the best choice? That would come up in a vote.--OutbackZack 03:01, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Granulation

Disintegration (not a merge, see here)

1. Opposed. Double name.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)
   • Hence the "see here" link. I think that at the very least, we should be able to debate "disintegration" among the rest, and if it seems to have a possibility of actually being the chosen name, we can go about looking into the currently-named disintegration ability (which already has some murmurs of a name change as well). --Ricard Desi 18:30, 10 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed. Gordon' ability and disintergration are completely different abilities. If we name this disintergration we might as well merge other abilities that are like this one. -Leckie -- Talk 16:12, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
   • Again, it's not a merge proposition, it would rename the current disintegration page to something else (for example, "crumbling", which actually has a decent amount of support right now). --Ricard Desi 16:46, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
     • Right okay, I understand that now. Even so, I think that the current Disintergration page is good as it is, I don't believe that this would be good as disintergration. To be honest my prefered name for this ability is Granulation, which seems to be the only one without opposition. --Leckie -- Talk 16:54, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
3. Opposed. It isn't exactly clear to what the ability does and we have more specific names.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 17:12, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
   • How is "disintegration" unclear? Especially as compared to most of these other names ("psammofication"? "sand-based transmutation"?), "disintegration" is one of the clearest terms possible. Bullets disintegrate on impact with him, and he can disintegrate people and other matter as well. --Ricard Desi 10:28, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
     • Even better: Dictionary definition of "disintegrate": "to reduce to particles, fragments, or parts", which is exactly what's happening here. --Ricard Desi 11:03, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
       • The current ability named Disintergration falls into that description aswell though. --Leckie -- Talk 17:23, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
       • Additionally, the double name change discussion on the Disintegration talk page hasn't stirred in two months. If we take that into consideration along with the fact that many users are gone until the start of next season, I don't think it's realistic to shoot for a double name change.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 17:38, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Psammofication

1. Opposed. "Psammofication" is not a word. --Ricard Desi 22:44, 11 March 2010 (EST)

   True, but it has the makings of one. Psammo is a prefix meaning sand, and it's combined with the suffix -fication. The word literally means to turn into sand, which appears to be exactly what Gordon does. It sounds a hell of a lot nicer then some of these three word ability names and is accurate to boot. I don't think the naming conventions say we can't make a word using a perfectly viable thought process.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 23:32, 11 March 2010 (EST)

   I agree, Pyrokinesis wasn't in the dictionary when Stephen King used it, but it is now. I see no reason why we can't do the same. --mc_hammark 05:52, 12 March 2010 (EST)

   However, that is an instance of an author intentionally using/creating a new word, as opposed to this instance of the fans trying to invent a new word to encompass it. --Ricard Desi 11:59, 12 March 2010 (EST)

2. Opposed. First thing that comes to mind is "What the hell does that mean?", bit of a mouthful as well. --Leckie -- Talk 15:27, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

   See my explanation above for what it means. It's a tad on the complicated side, sure, but "sandification" just sounds..... uneducated. This word means the same thing. And while it is six syllables (assuming I'm pronouncing it correctly), it's only one word, and doesn't look terrible.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:59, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

   This word doesn't mean anything, as it's not a word. --Ricard Desi 10:26, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

   You're arguing semantics. The point is, the "word" was made by combining a prefix and a suffix which make sense together, so it's not as if I pulled this out of my ass (not that I made it). That being said, I'm not going to have a stroke defending the name, I simply wanted to get my point across.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:45, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Sandification

1. Opposed. "Sandification" is not a word. --Ricard Desi 11:02, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

   Additionally, the places it is used online appear to describe it as a geological effect (also known as "sandy desertification"). --Ricard Desi 11:06, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Struck-out names

Psammous transmutation

1. Opposed, means the same thing as "sand transmutation" and there is no reason to use a more obscure word.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 00:53, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed, same reason. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
3. Opposed, means the same thing as "sand transmutation" and the most people dont know what "psammous" means.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)
4. Opposed, same reasons. --Leckie -- Talk 14:42, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Sand-output transmutation

1. Opposed. Immediate reaction to this name is "Huh? What does that even mean?" --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed, same reason.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)
3. Opposed. Seems like you are moving the transmutating sand elsewhere. Also, too wordy. --Leckie -- Talk 13:58, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Sand granulation

1. Opposed. Implies this ability is the power to granulate sand. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed, same reason. --Leckie -- Talk 14:42, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Transmutation into sand

1. Opposed, overly wordy.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 00:53, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed. This is a description, not a name. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
3. Opposed. Same reason(s).-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Matter-to-sand conversion

1. Opposed. "Conversion" implies a process of sorts. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed. Overly wordy.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)
3. Opposed. Same reason(s). --Leckie -- Talk 13:58, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Sand inversion convertion

1. Opposed. What does this phrase even mean? Sand isn't being inverted. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)

   I think when I mentioned this above, (if it was me) I meant Sand inversed-conversion. "Sand conversion" would be converting sand. Inverse converting would be converting to sand. --mc_hammark 13:10, 9 March 2010 (EST)

2. Opposed. Overly wordy.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)
3. Opposed. Too wordy, same reason as PJDEP. --Leckie -- Talk 13:58, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Induced silification

1. Opposed, sand isn't made of just silicon.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 00:53, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed, same reason.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Non-sand-into-sand conversion

1. Opposed, I think this was only suggested as a joke.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 00:53, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed. Ridiculous name. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
3. Opposed. Overly wordy.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Sandy transmutation

1. Opposed. Is "sandy" supposed to describe "transmutation"? "Sandy" implies the sand is secondary to some other aspect. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed. Sandy sounds a little... Strange. Why choose sandy if you can also chose sand?-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 12:43, 9 March 2010 (EST)
3. Opposed. Same reasons as above two. --Leckie -- Talk 13:58, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Mineralization

1. Opposed. This would imply the user turns things into solid rock or mineral, which is not the case. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Reverse sand transmutation

1. Opposed. Sounds like you're implying a reversal of an already existing process. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed. Same reason. --Leckie -- Talk 13:58, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
3. Opposed. Same reason.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 17:12, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Sand conversion

1. Opposed, sounds like you are converting sand. --Leckie -- Talk 14:42, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed, same issue as sand transmutation.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 17:12, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Sand-based transmutation

1. Opposed. Wordy, implies some other aspect. --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)
2. Opposed. Same reason.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 17:12, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
3. Opposed. Implies that sand is required "before" the transmutaion takes place. --Leckie -- Talk 17:23, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Discussion

Just to note: "sand" can mean a number of things, but primarily it refers to simply a size of rock particle. Specifically 1/16 to 2 millimeters. Likewise, "sand" is often a descriptive (non-scientific) word. We don't necessarily have to hold directly to the use of the word "sand". --Ricard Desi 12:17, 9 March 2010 (EST)

• I agree. In addition to that, it seems oddly impossible to find a pratical and simple way to use sand in the ability name.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 19:39, 9 March 2010 (EST)
  • However, as I understand it, the word "sand" was used to describe the result of the ability in an iStory. I may be wrong, but I'm sure it's worth double checking. --OutbackZack 19:36, 10 March 2010 (EST)
    • But as Ricard said, sand is a very general, non-scientific word, so I don't think we're locked in for it.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 20:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)
      • But if the word sand was used to describe the ability in any sort of way in Heroes, then it should be first priority to have an ability name with the word sand in it. --OutbackZack 20:30, 10 March 2010 (EST)
        • I disagree. Unless someone said "he turned them into sand!" or "I turn things into sand" we aren't necessarily obligated to.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 20:35, 10 March 2010 (EST)
        • I went through the material that Gordon appears in. In the GN, the only reference he makes to what he is doing is "to dust you will return". While it is possible that he's implying he turns things into dust, I think it's more likely that he's quoting the bible. In the 10th chapter of The Agent, he again says "dust to dust", but that also keeps in line with his religious tendencies. Rachel also says "The agent screams. And disintegrates into chunks of sand, like an old beach sculpture". Also, when the agents burst into the room a little while before, Rachel says "Bullets hit the other guy to... and turn into sand.", and later she refers to him as "the dust-to-dust guy". I think that this is all that's been said about his ability. Now, while Rachel uses the word sand twice, I still don't think we're required to have it in the ability name. As mentioned several times, sand is a very general word.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 20:49, 10 March 2010 (EST)
          • But you just said Unless someone said "he turned them into sand!" or "I turn things into sand" we aren't necessarily obligated to. and you just pointed out that Rachel said "Bullets hit the other guy to... and turn into sand." and "The agent screams. And disintegrates into chunks of sand, like an old beach sculpture". You're contradicting yourself as I see it. --OutbackZack 22:43, 10 March 2010 (EST)
            • Sorry, perhaps I'm not explaining myself clear enough. What I meant was, "sand" is a very general term. For example, if his ability was to turn things into sugar, and the quotes I just listed reflected that, it would be inappropriate to leave that out of the ability name because "sugar" is a specific term. "Sand" is too general a term to say that's what he's turning things into, just as "dust" is. Gordon used dust most likely to reference the Bible, and Rachel may have been using the word "sand" for her reference to a beach sculpture, if that makes any sense.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 22:47, 10 March 2010 (EST)
              • And actually, "dust" is equally an un-scientific term, referring to any particles less than .5mm in diameter. Meaning that any rock or mineral based particles between 0.0625mm to 0.5mm is technically both sand and dust. --Ricard Desi 23:30, 10 March 2010 (EST)
                • Then call it "particulate", it gives a reasonable idea of size, and no speculation on composition. But really, I think that Rachel's use of sand is enough for us to consider putting sand in the name. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:27, 11 March 2010 (EST)
                  • Why not "dust" also then? We can assume that it's a biblical reference, but that doesn't mean he didn't mean it literally at the same time.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 14:51, 11 March 2010 (EST)
                    • I know this is subjective, but the sand reference seems more explicit, at least to me. Also subjective, the substance Gordon turns things into looks more like sand than dust to me in the GNs. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:10, 11 March 2010 (EST)
                      • I'm inclined to agree with you, but to be fair we shouldn't say one is more explicit than the other. I'm not saying that sand shouldn't be in the name, just that we shouldn't be obligated to have it in the name. For example, "granulation" seems like a perfectly acceptable name, even though there's no reference to sand.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 16:17, 11 March 2010 (EST)
                        • • If sand wasn't required to be in the name, we could call it "pulverization", it seems accurate enough if you don't want to specify what it turns into. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 07:41, 12 March 2010 (EST)
                            • To me at least, "pulverization" implies a breakdown due to intense physical force, rather then simply falling apart.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 15:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Shall we take a poll or keep this consensus open longer?--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 18:16, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

• Lets give it a day, then do a poll --Leckie -- Talk 08:26, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

Sandification

I think, although we're into the second round of consensus, we should consider this name. It means the same as psammofication, and is a term used in geography for an area of land which turns to sand. I think it is a viable name, and nothing wrong with it. The only two things with "psammofication" that caused it's opposition were it's not a word, and what it meant. This is a word, uses the word sand, and it pretty obvious what it does. Opinions? --mc_hammark 18:07, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

• About 5000 hits (I've had this argument before, does anyone know what the average amount of hits is?) on Google, so I don't doubt its validity as a term. I'm not crazy about it, but I don't oppose.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 18:14, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
  • It depends on how popular the topic is. There can't really be an average number of hits (unless someone can figure out a formula to create every possible question, sentence, word or whatever you can put into it. I would prefer psammofication (it looks cooler and sounds better as well), but I do understand why some people oppose it, and if not it, I would like this one. --mc_hammark 18:18, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
    • I added it to the discussion. It's growing on me, and we'll see what happens.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 18:22, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
• Just because it gets internet hits doesn't mean it's a word. In fact, I can't find any dictionary entries that recognize "sandification" as a word. --Ricard Desi 11:01, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Additionally, any Google hits it gets are about what appears to be a geological effect, which slowly turns areas into desert-like places. Definitely not the same as what's happening here. --Ricard Desi 11:05, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
    • It's still the most similar description for what's happening. The thing Gordon is touching, turns to sand, which happens with sandification. --mc_hammark 14:47, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
      • Not exactly. Sandification refers more to the land eventually becoming desert from some other geological situation over time, but it's not literally transforming the ground into sand. --Ricard Desi 17:12, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
        • Then throw in another word. Accelerated sandification, induced sandification. Out of these two, I favor induced. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:40, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
          • Unfortunately, "sandification" is still strictly a geological term. It would be like saying that someone who can throw wind has the ability of "hurricanes". It doesn't mean what we're trying to make it mean. --Ricard Desi 18:34, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
            • Before Elle's AT profile came out, we called her ability "lightning", which is a term used to describe a meteorological phenomenon. The only difference is that in this case, the term doesn't come from the series itself. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:47, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
              • Exactly, that's the point, it came from the series. Would we still have considered lightning a viable name if it wasn't mentioned in any way?--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 21:03, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

Poll for the name

So far the only viable names left are: Sand transmutation, Granulation, Disintergration, Psammification and Sandification. I think its about time we did a poll, since this consensus has been going on for quite a while now. Put you signature under your preferred name.

Sand transmutation

1. --Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 11:57, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
2. --Imax99 12:41, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
3. --OutbackZack 18:37, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
4. --Shadowulf1 4:26, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

Granulation

1. --Leckie -- Talk 08:44, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
2. --Ricard Desi 12:36, 21 March 2010 (EDT) (second choice)
3. --PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 13:36, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
4. --MiamiVolts (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
5. -- By Danko CH 17:16, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
6. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
7. --Faflec 6:44, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Disintegration (not a merge)

1. --Ricard Desi 12:36, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Psammification

1. ----Boycool42 14:17, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Sandification

1. --mc_hammark 10:43, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
2. --Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 11:57, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
3. ----Boycool42 14:17, 21 March 2010 (EDT)(Second choice)

When a clear winner emerges we will change this ability to the chosen name. Probably a name with +5 more votes than in second place --Leckie -- Talk 08:44, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

• Can we vote on more than one name here if we feel there is more than one appropriate name? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 11:46, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
  • I think we can, but I'd keep it to a maximum of 2. --mc_hammark 11:53, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
    • Sand transmutation and sandification are good to me, but I wouldn't cringe to granulation. I feel sand should be part of the name, if Psammo was something more mainstream like pyro, hydro and the link, it could work, but it isn't. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 11:57, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
  • I'm not crazy about the voting twice thing, can't we just change our votes if our name is doing great?--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 13:36, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
• I'm still not thrilled that "psammification" (note the spelling) is not even a real word (something that is not the case for any other ability name). I changed the spelling, as "psammofication" has only this webpage as a result. "Psammification" has exactly one result: a German biology report from 1985. I really don't think we should make up a word when actual words can suffice. --Ricard Desi 17:00, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Agree. I do not think psammofication should be part of this poll as we do not normally use made-up words.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
    • Is there a specific rule against that though?--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 23:09, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
      • I believe so. Otherwise we'd have -kinesis as part of a lot more ability names.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
• Not here too often, but I think Granulation is our best bet. It is unopposed in the opposition poll, and calling what Gordon transforms a "granular substance" is the least speculative assumption about the ability.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Chosen?

Since there has been little activity on this page since Tuesday, shall we go with Granulation as the chosen name for this ability? --Leckie -- Talk 13:24, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

• No, there's only three difference between Granulation and the other two which are in joint second place. There'd need to be a majority. --mc_hammark 14:01, 25 March 2010 (EDT)
  • I thought we only needed a plurality of the still-valid names?--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2010 (EDT)
    • I honestly don't think anyone knows. I wasn't even aware that we had to hold a poll if a name went unopposed during the first round.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 21:29, 25 March 2010 (EDT)
      • A name doesn't get removed just cause someone doesn't like it. There has to be a reason to remove it, and the name stays in if there's a argument presented to counter the removal reason. That's why there are multiple names for this poll. I was referring to Mc hammark's comment about needing a majority--we don't need a majority for polls as they are supposed to be only for names agreed to be still valid.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (EDT)
        • Yes, I understand that. I was merely relating to the conversation with a point that eluded me personally.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 22:32, 25 March 2010 (EDT)
• Bump. Its been almost 2 weeks now. Lets change it. --Leckie -- Talk 13:30, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Yeah, as I understand it, the one with the most votes becomes the name, even if it is a difference of one vote. I'm not sure how to rename articles, but someone should just go ahead and rename this Granulation. --OutbackZack 15:43, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
    • Its not just that, its been almost two weeks with no changes. I'm pretty sure Granulation has won. I'll start the move now. --Leckie -- Talk 17:19, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
      • Finally... This was a tough one. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:31, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
        • One of the toughest, and the only one I've taken a proper interest in :) I've started the move, can I get some help please? --Leckie -- Talk 17:33, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
        • Glad we finally have a name, I've always liked granulation. -- By Danko CH 18:30, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
          • Whoa.... what happened to five more than the one in second??? --mc_hammark 19:45, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
            • Please read above--that's never been a requirement.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
              • Sorry, so is this a vote or a consensus? And if it's a vote, how come in other places we can't have a vote and have to have a consensus? --mc_hammark 06:38, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
                • First we held a consensus for an agreed-upon name or names. Since there was more than one still-valid name, we held a poll to determine which name would be used. The poll requires only a plurality.--MiamiVolts (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Disintegration Redux

• What happens if disintegration recieves the most votes? Do we automatically change the current disintegration or do we have a completely new vote on that article?--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 21:50, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
  • There's some discussion starting up on the current disintegration page about "crumbling" (I'm going to start up some more discussion about what to do if that happens, over there). --Ricard Desi 22:00, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
    • Since 'disintegration' is already used for a different ability, it cannot also be used as the name for this ability so I'm not sure votes for that name count for much. Though you may disagree about it being the best name, I have noted on the 'disintegration' page that I feel that the name for the current 'disintegration' ability should remain the same unless we get new information about the ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2010 (EDT)