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:Disintegration

From Heroes Wiki
Revision as of 06:49, 9 November 2009 by imported>Altes (→Rename discussion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ability Naming Conventions
The following sources are used for determining evolved human ability names, in order:
1. Canon Sources Episodes
2. Near-canon Sources Webisodes,
Graphic Novels,
iStories,
Heroes Evolutions
3. Secondary Sources Episode commentary,
Interviews,
Heroes: Survival
4. Common names for abilities Names from other works
5. Descriptions of abilities
 Descriptions
6. Possessor's name If no non-speculative
description is possible
Note: The highlighted row represents the level of the source used to determine disintegration's name.
Source/Explanation
"Disintegration" describes what Tom is able to do.

My two cents...

Just merge it with Trevor's ability, and call it shattering. At the very least we should ask BTE if the two abilities are the same, or even similar. --Piemanmoo`

  • We can't call Trevor's ability shattering because no consensus was reached and Tom can't have Trevor's ability. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 05:07, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

You're right, Elemental Manipulator. However, he's not suggesting that, just that we merge this ability with Trevor's. Maybe if we do that, we could call it "Tom and Trevor's ability" if it comes to that.--ERROR 19:44, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Really? Where? Could you send me the link?--ERROR 19:14, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

      • I'm not sure which BTE is the one exactly, but it's one from I Am Sylar onwards, someone asked something about the ability and they said it was like Trevor's, so if it's like Trevor's, it's not Trevor's. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:25, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

Ah, okay.

I think I saw that one, come to think of it.--ERROR 20:07, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Name

  • Remember! If a molecule becomes unstable, then it emits radiation. Molecular Destabilization, while a good name, is a sort of misnomer. Molecular Deconstruction seems more apt. Just putting it out there. Also, I agree with Resonant. Sound did seem to play a part in some way. --Whap 13:42, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I was thinking of the EXACT same name, i mean EXACT. Molecular destabilization sounds like the PERFECT name. Its what I was going to put until I saw someone else put it up there.--Sylar501 17:53, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I think Molecular destabilization would be a good name because it seems that the ornament has been destabilized, not shattered. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 05:07, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I'd call it Resonant Molecular Destabilization because the ornament vibrated quickly before destabilizing, which could be because of a high-pitched sound that human's cannot hear, and it reaches the resonant pitch where the molecules just fall apart. --Madheroesfan 06:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
    • It could be due to high-pitched sound, but that is speculative. I think this would be a great place to test out Consensus check 2.0. Remember to only enter your name and a reason under the power name that you oppose. --Radicell 06:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Can you guys remember to leave a space between the last sig and the next ability name? There are some blocks that almost made me miss an possible name. Also leaving links for the two names I added, please read before opposing them: crumbling and collapsing. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Personally, I like "collapsing" or "crumbling". They both sound good. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
          • People, you're supposed to sign only in the names you don't support. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 11:38, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
            • I'd Called it "Molecular Dispersion" - "Disperse" means to break up, vanish, vaporise. OmniScience

Consensus

!!!!! REMEMBER TO ONLY PUT YOUR NAMES ON THE SUGGESTIONS WHICH YOU OPPOSE!!!!!


If you like an idea and you put your name on it, we're going to assume you're opposed to it, and then won't you look silly? --Piemanmoo 23:03, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Since there is ongoing discussion I will strike out the names that will not be used, as they have been opposed, to direct peoples attention to new names so they can be discussed rather than people missing them. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 07:31, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

    • I've actually revived "Disintegration" because that seems to be the most accurate descriptive term. The objects affected lose their integrity and fall apart. No speculation about mechanisms, just a description of what happens to the target. --Ted C 17:52, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
      • However people have opposed this name, so therefore under the consensus rules this name will not be used (unless you can persuade the opposed people otherwise :) I personally like this name) --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 18:56, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

        • If there's one thing I've observed about attempting to name powers around here, it's that there will be someone who disagrees with every suggestion. Eliminating a name because even one person opposes it will inevitably result in no name. If you want to use an elimination method, you should periodically eliminate the suggestion with the most negative votes until only one suggestion remains. --Ted C 09:36, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
          • I agree however, I did not create the consensus Ryan did and that was one of his rules, he may change it he may not, I will mention this to him though. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 11:54, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

            • It's been wittled down to two left so may a vote be in order? --345tom 12:07, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Merge with Trevor's ability

  • Sound effects and other cues distinguish it from Trevor's ability; I highly doubt it's the same ability. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 07:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, Tom cannot have Trevor's ability. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 07:52, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Again, we're not suggesting that, Elemental Manipulator. We are suggesting that the two abilities be merged into one. Opposed, for all reasons stated above and below. Stating that this ability is the same as Trevor's ability is the same as stating that precognition and precognitive dreaming are the same.--ERROR 19:50, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Too speculative. -- Altes 08:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Not the same --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, not the same, different effects. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed -- Trevor makes things shatter, tom make things "Fragment" --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, Trevor appeared to use outside force to shatter the glass, where as Tom destroyed the doll seemingly from the inside --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • If Sylar never used the ability the "first" time, why would he go after it again? Different abilities. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • They don't act the same at all. --Ikkian 19:45, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Different motions to use the ability.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Molecular destabilization

Resonant molecular destabilization

  • Incredibly speculative. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 07:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • The same as above. -- Altes 08:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Too long and speculative. --Piemanmoo 10:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, same reasons as Piemanmoo. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, a bit over complex. I like names that new viewers would easily understand such as shattering Bosco13 15:42, 22 April 2009 (GMT).
  • Opposed, too speculative. --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Again, speculative. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Shattering

  • I say it fits better for Trevor's ability. -- Altes 08:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • This isn't what happened. --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed. Doesn't look much like shattering to me. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, the items do not shatter, shatter suggests to break apart with force, these fragment/collapse --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Agreed. I think it should be merged with Trevor's ability and be renamed shattering. Bosco13 15:42, 22 April 2009 (GMT).
  • Agreed, the doll imploded --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Agreed. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Disintegration

  • Neither the angel nor the glasses were disintegrated.--Laudo 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Agreed. --Cro Magnon 09:50, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, no disintegration. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed -- disintegration seems to suggest nothing is left behind, or if something an ash/cinder counterpart --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Agreed, it appeared to be more of an implosion --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Definitely didn't disintegrate. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Although many of you view disintegration as leaving nothing behind, by definition from several sources, "disintegration" means:
  1. - (break into parts or components or lose cohesion or unity; "The material disintegrated"; "the group disintegrated after the leader died")(http://www.synonym.com/definition/disintegrate/)
  2. - 6. a gradual falling into an inferior condition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disintegration)
  3. - (as a transitive verb) 2  : to lose unity or integrity by or as if by breaking into parts (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disintegration)

- Do not confuse "disintegration" with "Obliteration".

I would just like to bring this to the attention of those opposing, because to me, it seemed like this name (which I think would be appropriate) was shut down before it was clearly looked upon. --Bender 23:20, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Disintegration is a fine name for this ability. I like it.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Matter obliteration

  • The matter in question wasn't obliterated completely... It was fragmented. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 07:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, same reason as Thrashmeister. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 07:52, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • The same. -- Altes 08:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Ditto. --Cro Magnon 09:50, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Obliteration would mean it nearly ceases to exist, all this did was make it crumble into pieces.--Piemanmoo 10:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Ditto --Action Figure 11:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, there was no obliteration. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, obliteration suggest forcefully exploding --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Agreed. --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Pieces still exist. Not obliterated. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Telekinetic Disintegration

  • Incredibly speculative. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 12:24, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Nothing suggests he's telekinetic. And if it is related to telekinesis, Sylar would be able to do it already. Also incredibly speculative, as put by Thrashmeister. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Ditto --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Agreed --Crazyaspie 16:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Has nothing to do with TK --Piemanmoo 23:03, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • If we would use this, then why not just telekinesis? NO. - Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I don't believe this has anything to do with telekinesis.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

If we do this, we might as well merge it with telekinesis.--ERROR 19:50, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Crumbling

  • Too close to crumpling, and not really an apt description.--Laudo 16:14, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Again, they don't really crumble, crumble is being broken off into small pieces, the whole thing crumbles though --IronyUTC CH 16:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
    • From the link I gave above: "Crumbling: transitive verb-to break into small pieces; intransitive verb-to fall into small pieces or to break down completely." Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Too casual/informal/both. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

An okay name. Not our best option, but a good one. Although, it is similar (And topographically equivalent) to crumpling...--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Collapsing

  • The word 'collapsing' seems to indicate that the action is reversible.--Laudo 16:14, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
    • From the link I gave above: "Collapsing: intransitive verb-to break down completely." And how does it indicate that it's reversible? Could you elaborate? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Collapse is something the object would do on it's own. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Not necessarily, when buildings are imploded, they put explosives in its foundations, by taking the foundations, it makes the structure collapse. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:25, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed. Collapsing is more of something falling than breaking into small bits. Unless each small piece of matter collapsed from the solid structure, which is more what happened. But then that is speculative. When a person collapses he falls when a chair collapses it breaks, but not into such small pieces, when an ornament collapses it would break into larger pieces than shown.--Tommo 15:35, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Argument to justify opposition please. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:51, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
      • This to me is just another way of saying "Demolition" which sounds better in my opinion.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 22:56, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
        • Not according to the definition I gave above, there's a link to it upper in the page. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:34, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
          • I kinda like this name.--ERROR 20:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Fragmentation

Object destabilization

  • Opposed, too vague. --Ego 20:28, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, same as above. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:34, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Sounds too weird. If I lean too far back on my chair it becomes destabilized, but it doesn't splinter into little pieces.--Piemanmoo 23:03, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Speculative. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:20, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Fracturing

Vibration control

  • I don't think this name is accurate. Tom used vibrations to destroy an object, but I wouldn't say that he controls vibrations. Likewise, Nathan may use air pressure to fly, or Linderman might use the body's natural systems to heal people, but we wouldn't call their abilities "air pressure control" or "body system manipulation". This just doesn't sit right with me... -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Same as Ryan. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:44, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Too speculative, as Ryan pretty much said.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Sedimentation

  • How about that?--Cairoi 16:28, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, sedimentation is a process in which minerals are deposited over an area. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:22, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Sonic disintegration

  • Opposed, same reasons as disintegration is. The object isn't disintegrated. --345tom 08:41, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Actually, it is, technically. But the "sonic" in there is speculative.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Demolition

  • Doesn't really seem to fit with other names. Why not just call it Demolishing? --Laudo 14:17, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Demolishing

  • Inappropriate. --Ted C 17:52, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
    • How so? The term doesn't seem to conflict with the ability's description. --Xepeyon 19:12, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Maybe it's just me, but I associate "demolishing" with some sort of violent process. Tom just makes things fall apart. --Ted C 11:57, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Same thing as Demolition to me.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Vibrational breakdown

  • Assigns a mechanism with no evidence. --Ted C 17:52, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Speculative.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Vibrational destruction

  • Assigns a mechanism with no evidence. --Ted C 17:52, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
    • How is it no evidence?... He blatantly made it vibrate and then afterwards it was destroyed... 2+2= vibrational destruction -- petrelli
      • But we don't know if the vibrations are a cause or just an effect. --Ted C 11:57, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Nothing with the word "vibration".--Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
    • For the last time, speculative.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Molecular/Object/Particle Dispersion

  • Assigns a mechanism with no evidence; excessively complex --Ted C 17:52, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Reduction

  • Doesn't reduce anything, its the same amount of matter, just deconstructed from one solid composition to many little ones. --Tommo 17:03, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Yes.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Degeneration (definition) passing from a more complex to a simpler form

  • Opposed. Doesn't sound like something that causes things to explode/shatter. --DontEatRawHagis 19:18, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
    • to me it appeared to just lose its cohesion and fall apart, but not "explode".--OneOfThem 23:02, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
      • Opposed, If you have to explain the names definition its not a clear descriptive name. Using the definition closest to yours that i have found it is where something can be classed as something simpler, not changing into a simpler thing. 'A class of object changes its nature so as to belong to another, usually simpler, class.' Example is a point is really a circle with a radius of 0, but its still a circle and has the exact same properties as a circle. The ornaments properties where different.--Tommo 15:28, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Particle separation

  • Opposed, object becomes particles, but it's not composed of particles. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
    • The object would be composed of particles by definition of a particle.

Definition: 1. A very small piece or part; a tiny portion or speck. 2. A very small or the smallest possible amount, trace, or degree (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Particles) In this case, everything is composed of particles (like atoms) and this ability selects individual portions and separates them from each other. It is simply breaking down the object into smaller pieces. It's just a thought, but how I saw it, everything is made up of smaller units (atoms).--Bender 21:31, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

      • How am I going to say this? Particle separation not only is too specific, but (at least for me) goes to say that the object is already broken down, a bit like having a vase that was broken and put back together like Lego blocks broken again. It's already cracked (in this analogy, it'd be particles already), and then broken again (particles being separated). Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:08, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
        • Fair enough, I guess I'll strike it then. --Bender 23:03, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
    • What is your reason for opposing? --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 20:05, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
      • I don't believe it's what Tom was doing.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 22:56, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Object Breakdown

  • --Catalyst · Talk · HL 15:47, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
    • What is your reason for opposing? --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 20:05, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
      • When you say it...well it just doesn't sound right.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 22:56, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
        • Object breakdown... I'm actually okay with this name.--ERROR 20:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Raze(definition) to destroy to the ground.

  • Opposed, it's a synonym to demolishing, opposed for the same reasons as Ted's for demolishing. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:34, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
  • I believe it works on the basis that the "result" matches the definition.--OneOfThem 23:16, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Sure, okay, but it should be "razing." "Raze" isn't an ability name.--ERROR 20:00, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

(Matter) Devastation

Rapid Destruction

  • Opposed, bits of it are left, they're not destroyed. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:34, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
  • When you destroy a building pieces are left over, but its still destroyed.--OneOfThem 23:16, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Another okay name.--ERROR 20:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Rapid Breakdown

  • Opposed, could also be used for Trevor's ability, it's ambiguous. Could also drop the rapid. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:36, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
  • "rapid breakdown" works as the object is "broken down rapidly", and not as in trevor's ability "exploded/shattered". --OneOfThem 23:16, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
    • I like this one, too.--ERROR 20:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Breakdown

  • Opposed,its a noun and all abilities (correct me if I'm wrong) are verbs so like Raze its not fit to be an ability name.--ZeroTime 09:48, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Uhhhh,seriously is PHASING I REPEAT PHASING A NOUN! Since when did nouns start having -ing at their ends.Anyway most of the names you mentioned actually make sense on their own.However breakdown isn't fine on its own.Here is an example of what I mean. "I have the ability of freezing." Sounds right. "I have the ability of breakdown". Doesn't sound right at all.--ZeroTime 04:36, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
    • You're right, Phasing is a verb. My bad. That is not my point, my point is that there are plenty of ability names that are nouns and just because you think that Breakdown doesn't sound right when you use it a certain way in a sentence, it doesn't make Breakdown an invalid name to use. Also, check this out: "I have the ability of puppet master." It doesn't sound perfect, but that is the name of the ability. --Bender 12:15, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Induced breakdown

  • Opposed for same reasons above and also if you say induced breakdown it just sounds like he's gonna break himself down.--ZeroTime 09:50, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
    • This name is just broader than the above one. So I like it.--ERROR 20:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Atomization

  • Opposed, using this implies we know what is the process the subject of the ability goes through, we don't. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:47, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
    • I'm actually opposed. This ability doesn't break molecular bonds.--ERROR 20:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Material Breakdown

  • Opposed, material? Seems redundant. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:23, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
    • "Material" isn't redundant, but I can find no other word for it. Opposed until the "material" is removed.--ERROR 20:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Atomization

  • Opposed, speculative to say it goes that far. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 11:28, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Why has this name been suggested twice? Almost in a row, too.--ERROR 20:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Breaking

  • Fits perfectly with our old description of this ability, which was "Tom's ability is the ability to break objects." Should have suggested this name then, but eh. It still fits.--ERROR 20:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)

moved dissent discussion involving opposition to Tom's ability naming convention

  • (To not generate discussion within the consensus-check items, I've pulled the following two replies out of the above list. I don't think we want to hold arguments over names within the consensus checks themselves; but rather, just list our opposition to the names in the list we are opposed to.) --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/22/2009 13:21 (EST)
    • A name can't be opposed because you don't like it, or because another name is better. The name can only be opposed if the name is deemed incorrect. "Tom's ability" is an accurate name for this ability. There are others which are better, but opposing a name because others are better is simply not how it's done. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Tom's ability is incorrect, when there are sufficient attributes, characteristics, and details provided about an ability to name it based on those attributes. The only time XXX's ability should be used, is a temporary placeholder where the ability is either barely or vaguely used in such a way that it is yet un-namable. The ability that Tom presented was very clear; the only problem we have, is agreeing to one of several acceptable and equivalently suitable names. Tom's ability is incorrect, because of the amount of details we have been shown concerning this ability. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/22/2009 13:18 (EST)
        • No, "Tom's ability" is never incorrect. This ability is definitely Tom's ability. It might not be the best name, but it's not an incorrect name. Having details about the ability does not change whether this name is correct or incorrect. In fact, "Tom's ability" is the only name that is neither too broad nor too narrow. I agree with you, it's not the best name, but it's not incorrect. One of the tenets of the new consensus check system is that only absolutely incorrect names should be objected, not just names you don't like. In the end, if everybody follows the consensus check correctly, there would be several names left over, and we would make a choice from there. "Tom's ability" is always valid. Not ideal, but valid. Any opposition to that name will be ignored. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Gesture

When Tom uses this ability, does he makes the same hand gesture as Trevor? NuparuMahnika

  • Nope, Trevor held his hand like a gun. Why, I have a name - Gun mimicry!))) -- Altes 08:49, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Linderman never kissed people when healing them, but Ishi did. Gestures seem to be more of a personal preference rather than a required aspect. --Piemanmoo 10:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Well, apart from kiss, there were no other effects. I always expected that healing should be going with some sort of light, but it never did. -- Altes 11:08, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Then what gesture did Tom did then? NuparuMahnika
          • Like when you hold your thumb and the next finger together to make an O shape.--Fr0z3nB0nes 13:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
            • I believe it was his middle finger and thumb, then he snapped his fingers when he dissolved (or whatever you want to call it) the porcelain doll --Mc hammark 18:14, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

Don't forget, his hand also vibrated, and so did the ornament. I added that to the Limits section. If you want to reword it, go ahead.--ERROR 19:41, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

  • His hand didn't vibrate not nearly as much as the object, it trembled a bit, but not as much as the object. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:05, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Ah. Right.

On a somewhat related note... First Trevor's ability. It shatters objects, and you use it by making a "gun" with your hand, and lowering your thumb. Then Tom's ability. It breaks objects, and you use it by focusing on an object, and snapping. What's next? Swiss cheesing objects by punching in their direction? And by "Swiss cheesing," I mean putting a bunch of holes in the object, making it look like Swiss cheese (Maybe if Swiss cheesing DID appear on the show, it would put a singular hole in an object per use.). Thoughts?--ERROR 20:34, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Object Disentergration

That's what I thought of when I first saw the ability.--WarGrowlmon18 18:15, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Video

Is anyone able to upload the video of Tom's ability on YouTube? --Ikkian 19:51, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Shameless bump because it would still be helpful. --Ikkian 15:00, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

Tom's ability = Trevor's ability?

It seems to me that both powers are very nearly the same. The hand gestures are different, and the looks of the "shattering" aren't quite the same, but is that any different from the red flame/blue flame difference between Meredith and Flint? That brings up a related thought: can two people share a "So and So" ability?--Cro Magnon 10:59, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

I would agree with you. Knox's strength and Niki's strength were also listed under the same page despite having different attributes- Niki's is more or less constant, Knox needs people to be afraid. The difference between Tom's and Trevor's ability seems much less then that between Niki and Knox, or Sylar's telekinesis and Misha's (Misha's eyes glow blue when he uses telekinesis, Sylar's do not). The powers are close enough to be listed as different executions of the same power, not two distinct powers.Swmystery 9:16, 23 April 2009 (GMT)

sonic disintegration?

I was thinking sonic disintegration, because the object didnt disintegrate until tom clicked his fingers...so im thinking maybe the sound of that causes the effect, also it vibrated slightly before hand thats why im thinking sonic? --petrelli 20:53 ,22nd April 2009.

  • Probably related to vibration, and no need for the block bolding and italizing. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:00, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • My guess was in relation to ultrasound waves. I watched that part again today and there were high-pitched sounds for a while before he snapped his fingers. There has to be a correlation.--Ikkian 17:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

i'm in favour User:50000JH

Fracturing?

The one fact about what we saw is that the item broke apart into many pieces. To fracture something is to physically break it. Tom's ability broke the item into many pieces. How the power did it is unknown, but the basic fact is the item was broken by Tom's ability. Whatever the actual power turns out to be, the result of it appears to be the complete fracturing of the figurine into pieces. --Ego 20:47, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I think fracting is a bit too open for it, there are countless descriptions to what he did, finding the best description is what's tough. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I see your point. It's easy to open the thesarus and pick a word that seems to fit, but it's got to describe it as best as it can. However, we have to go off of what we know for sure, and that is that the figurine fell apart into pieces. I would say if not fracturing then crumbling. Crumbling fits more since the pieces appeared to just fall apart, like crumbs. --Ego 21:13, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I've added crumbling and collapsing to the options a while ago. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 21:19, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
        • I saw that you included it already, thanks. I was just supporting crumbling as probably the best option so far for describing what we actually saw. Fracturing does not fit as well after thinking about it more. Whatever caused the 'crumbling' effect is beyond me though.

Combine then rename

I think this article should be combined with Trevor's ability, then renamed. NuparuMahnika

  • I don't. I don't think we know enough about either one to say that they're the same ability. Similar, but I'm not convinced they're the same. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I really don't think they should, either. Trevor's ability seemed to me like kinetic energy projection, while Tom's one seems like ultrasound projection. Not the same at all. --Ikkian 15:36, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

induced disintegration

Anyone? --Tsmarg

Naming The Ability

Surely, as it seems, we can describe the ability and lets face it, that's better than "Tom's Ability". We should try to find a suitable name that descibes it just now and change it so we don't have to look at his name", I just hate that. I mean, what if another person came along and had that same ability, would we call it "Tom and X's Ability or still "Tom's Ability"?

  • I competely agree, I despise having to see "....'s Ability", it bugs the hell out of me. For now we could at least name it something simple like object breaking XD. We really should go with crumbling, it desribes the ability just as well as crumpling does for crumpling. Fracturing, crumbling, smashing are all very similar, we should pick the most accurate one--Fr0z3nB0nes 16:34, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Porcelain and Glasses

  • It seems to me that Trevor can only break glasses while Tom can only break porcelains because at the scene where he was killed the porcelain figures were emphasized (Just like when the puppets were emphasized when Doyle was introduced.).--NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

What are you talking about?--ERROR 20:03, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

    • well I agree that there were many examples of Trevor breaking glass, but if you noticed Tom only broke one item. also tom said that he could hurt Sylar, who is obviously not porcelain --tsmarg

Tom and Trevor

While they don't give it an actual name, BTE confirms this to be a variation on Trevor's power. --Laudo 17:26, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

  • i also think that they're the same but, where did BTE say that? i dont remember reading it.... --Peter 18:22, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
    • "Peter Dawson wants to classify Tom Miller’s ability:

“So what exactly would you call Tom Miller's ability? (By the way, nice Clint Howard cameo!) The same thing as Trevor's thing from Volume 3, or something different?”

It looked like a variation of Trevor’s power to us, right? The original iteration of his power involved him snapping and looking out at a chimney across the way – but it was another thing jettisoned in preproduction – as it was deemed too difficult to produce. " --Gibbeynator 18:58, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

    • If this is enough proof, I vote for Destruction. Simple, and it covers both Tom and Trevor's abilities nicely. --Gibbeynator 19:09, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I disagree, I do not think these are the same abilities. It is like saying Power absorption and Ability replication are the same ability, they are both variations of taking abilities. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 19:11, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

        • But both abilities involve destroying an object using a finger expression. Are Niki's super strength and Knox's super strength somehow different, because Knox needs to absorb fear before his works? --Gibbeynator 19:18, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
          • The objects are shown to be destroyed in two very different ways. Just because they're SIMILAR does NOT mean they are on and the same, by any means. --Crazylicious 19:30, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
            • Again, Niki and Knox both have super strength, but Knox has to absorb fear before it works. They have the same result, just different means to get there. Trevor and Tom both use their fingers to destroy an object, they just... shatter differently. Trevor's power explodes, while Tom's power breaks apart. We also have no idea how much practice Tom had, it seemed like he only used his power a few times. --Gibbeynator 19:38, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
              • Niki and Knox were specifically stated to have the same ability: Enhanced strength. Up there in BTE, they didn't really confirm that it was the same power, just that it looked like a variation of the power. Combining the two is too speculative right now (and Destruction is way to broad a name even if they are the same ability). --Crazylicious 19:53, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
  • The way in which it was answered leads me to believe that Trevor's ability = Tom's ability = Shattering. Trevor shatters glass, Tom shatters ceramics. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 10:52, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
    • The ceramic didn't shatter, the glass did, if the ceramic had shattered it wouldn't have landed in a pile. Variation I think means the ability does the same thing i.e. breaks down a material, but in a different way which means a different power. Like I said you wouldn't sat Ability replication, Power absorption and Aura absorption are the same ability they are all variations of ability taking. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 11:37, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

      • Correct, I wouldn't equate them because the nature of those powers are very different. Ability replication is the ability to copy a single power, power absorption is the ability to permanently steal a person's power(s), and aura absorption does the same while killing the other person. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 12:05, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

BTE?

Sorry but I'm new to this, who is BTE? Bosco13 05:30, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Behind the Eclipse, a Q&A with two of the writers at comicbookresources.com. Check out the latest one here. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 06:31, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Pointless?

Not to be disruptive, but what is the purpose of Tom and his ability? He appeared in the second to last episode of the season, only used his ability once, and Sylar hasn't demonstrated it at all. Now Sylar has basically zero connection to the ability so it doesn't seem likely that it would ever come up again.

At least Trevor's ability was used to show how Elle corrupted Gabriel and revealed his hunger. But this guy? Come on.

Your thoughts? -Barbedknives (talk)02:50, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Sounds like a repeat with Trevor's ability haha --OutbackZack 02:55, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
  • At least Trevor's ability was used to show how Elle corrupted Gabriel and revealed his hunger.
And killing Tom for his ability was an act of Sylar reminding himself that he was Sylar. But heck, why such a dumb ability? -- Altes 14:55, 1 May 2009 (EDT)


    • Sylar always get abilities he never uses... He doesn't use that sound manipulation he got.
      • In fact half of Sylar's abilities have never been used, or just once, or just "forgotten".

Ever since Luke's been gone, he's never detected a single lie, ever since Jesse was killed, he's never used the power, same with Alchemy (except with the gun), he's never used Tom's ability or anything like that.

His main powers are IA, TK, RCR and Lightning, everything else is a dud, except Clairsentience had 'some' use in the last episodes.

At least things like lie detection, alchemy, and sound manipulation were either tied to somewhat developed characters or had some stake in advancing the plot. Tom's power and character were both introduced in one scene and he died in the same scene. His power didn't advance the plot at all and Sylar didn't indicate for a second that he would ever use it. -Barbedknives (talk)


One of his new recent powers is shape-shifting of course. Also with the 'sweet spot' moved, surely he's immortal? I mean if he made it microscopic inside of his fingernail, gg? --Arkillion 07:51, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

  • No, I don't think so. I believe he moved the spot to a place which is hard to reach even by penetrating the head. Like in the mouth, or something. The spot is in the brain, anyway. -- Altes 03:25, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Clearly, this power is here to showcase the epicness that is Clint Howard. --Crazylicious 23:39, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

I hope that Sylar uses this more, or at least gives it a name. I also hope that he gives a name for Trevor's ability. But yes, what a dumb ability. Ooh, he can shatter objects by snapping! Big deal.--ERROR 19:13, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

How about another consensus?

First: can anyone tell accurately what exactly Tom did to the ornament? If we find a proper verb, we'll be able to name his ability properly. -- Altes 03:28, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

  • The consensus is still going. Who knows, maybe 19th name's the charm. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 03:47, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
    • And my question? What did Tom do? Did he make it collapse? Did he shatter it? -- Altes 08:30, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
      • He broke it into tiny little pieces with a frequency. Lets at least find a good way to name it. I think the way he breaks it (or other) should go first then he breaks it (or other). So like Sonic shattering or Frequency crumbling or Vibration manipulation. Or it could be something like Sonickinesis, transferring the vibrating sound waves into the object.
        • Vibrational shattering? -- Altes 14:20, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Too speculative.--ERROR 15:58, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Other names

  • Reduction --OneOfThem 09:51, 7 May 2009 (EDT)OneOfThem
  • Degeneration-(definition) passing from a more complex to a simpler form--OneOfThem 00:37, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

The figure didn't go from a complex form to a simpler one. It broke apart. And doesn't reduction mean shrinking?--ERROR 20:27, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Atomic/Molecular Deconstruction

The ability to cause the molecules or atoms in an object to completely stop. I remember hearing something where if you get to Absolute Zero atoms or molecules would stop moving completely causing the item or object to turn into what appears to be dust. The only difference between the ability and the affects of absolute zero is that Tom's ability does not require extremely low temperatures, he can do it himself. I put this as a suggestion for Gordon's ability but someone said I should put it here as it would fit better.--DontEatRawHagis 01:08, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry

Sorry to interrupt this interesting discussion page. but where do i go to ask about the consensus thing? Scorvi12 02:00, 11 May 2009

  • also sorry to interrupt, but does any one know when we vote on the names up for nomination? i don't really know how things work around here.--OneOfThem 16:53, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Is it still possible to propose two names for consensus? If it is, I'd like to put forward Material breakdown (it breaks down material, this would cover the ornament as well as the possibility of other things, all of which would be material; plus I am almost certain that the ornament could be described as being broken down, and not disintegrated, but it was not broke down on molecular level) and Object breakdown (maybe not as accurate, as Tom did seem to think Sylar could be injured when the power was activated). Thanks, SylarMonroe 17:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)


Questions

  • How and when do we vote?--OneOfThem 00:03, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry

I know this is very last minute but how about Induced breakdown rather than Breakdown or Object Breakdown? I thought it is a bit more descriptive and accurate than my previous suggestion, the latter of the two. SylarMonroe 04:34, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Breakdown

It has gone unopposed for a week. I'd say that adding Induced would be good, but it might just be taken away as when I named Induced sedation. I'll put it up there, but I do want someone to let me know when they think it would be appropriate to change the name of this page. --Bender 17:05, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

No offence, but you said nothing new.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Let's see here...

Breakdown, breaking, crumbling, collapsing, induced breakdown, object breakdown, rapid breakdown, and rapid destruction are the only ability names for this ability that haven't been slashed out (There was also raze, but that's not an ability name. Other than that, though, it's fine.). These are all pretty much okay with me, but I vote most highly for "breaking," because that goes with our description: "Tom's ability is the ability to break objects." "Disintegration" also has such a vote from me. What do you guys think?--ERROR 20:00, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

  • I completely agree, it's time this ability had a name. Any of the names not slashed out would be fine with me.--OneOfThem 12:40, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

All these "so-and-so's ability" abilities are just ridiculous. Most of them are worthy of a better name (In fact, the only one I'm willing to let slide is the future terrorist's ability, because we don't know that much about it - though we did learn it was supposed to be a melting beam emission-type thing.). As for this one... Crumbling, collapsing, object breakdown, rapid destruction, rapid breakdown, breakdown, induced breakdown, breaking, and I hope disintegration are our sole options, and are good options. Not sure how this ability naming normally works, but I think we should just vote between those, and the one that gets the most votes after some spatial or temporal limit should be the name that this page is moved to. In the case of a tie, we start over, with only those. Those who voted for any of the removed names would then have to vote for something else, hopefully resulting in a winner. Again, I vote for "disintegration" and "breaking." Thoughts?

We should just do this "narrow down and vote" naming strategy for ALL of the "so-and-so's ability" ability names. I personally think that it would be a lot faster (Not counting, of course, the fact that we don't spend all our time on this site, let alone, for instance, this page.).--ERROR 22:41, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Ultrasound projection discussion

I managed to rewatch the episode and Tom's ability seems, for me, to work this way: He emits ultrasounds (Maybe from his hands) towards a target (The statue) for a set period of time then snaps his fingers to create an even higher ultrasound that destroys the object. My clues were: The high-pitched sound during use of his ability, the vibration of the object and the way the object broke down when he snapped his fingers. This is why I propose this ability name. --Ikkian 15:03, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Hmmm... Too speculative.--ERROR 19:13, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
    • I do know it is my idea, but I don't see much speculation from it. If you watch the scene again and cross-check with my observations, maybe you'll notice it's not very speculative. --Ikkian 20:27, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
      • It's speculative because there's really no evidence that Tom creates ultrasounds. Just because there are clues that point to a viable and very possible explanation does not make it so. "Speculative" means reasoning based on inconclusive evidence. It's terrific reasoning, but the evidence still requires one to conjecture about what happened. If the supposition requires any guesswork at all, it's speculation. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
        • It's something to do with ultrasounds ,cause just see him snap his fingers u will see his hand vibrate and then the doll vibrate and break apart.Anyone have a video of Tom using his ability,if so then just pause when he snaps,you will see his hand vibrate.So I'm guessing it is ultrasound projection.--ZeroTime 08:04, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
          • It's a great guess. But remember, it's still just a guess. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Seconded. Too speculative.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Why is he Worried?

Why is Tom Miller worried that he's gonna accidentally kill Sylar? His ability seems to only work when he wants it to, and it also seems that it only works how he wants it to. And why does he hate his ability so much? After Sylar said, "That looks like fun," he did say, "Fun? Are you crazy?" What's his deal?

Thoughts?--ERROR 19:13, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Maybe he lost control of his power in the past, possibly hurting someone or something he was close to.--OneOfThem 15:42, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

How could he lose control of his ability? It activates by him snapping.

Hold on, maybe you're on to something. Maybe it activates every time he makes the gesture, whether he wants it to or not. I highly doubt it, though.--ERROR 08:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Perhaps he lost control of his ability and used it without snapping his fingers? Like when he was angry or anxious? --Ice Vision (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Perhaps he was listening to some heavy drum n bass, and couldn't help but click his fingers and shake to the phat beat, leading to the demise of his crew. But that's just speculation. We need to ask BTE about Tom's music taste --Lolwut 13:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Hmmm... Or maybe he instinctually uses it sometimes, like when you hold your hands up when something is in your face. But I highly doubt that. This ability takes a few seconds of extreme, undivided focus, THEN snapping. Which leads to me asking how he discovered his ability, like with Trevor. And how do you CLICK your fingers?--ERROR 20:25, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Tom could just be calling Sylar crazy because, in Tom's opinion, having this ability is bad and dangerous. Think about it: all the sudden whenever you snap things get destroyed. Basically, Tom just thinks it crazy for anyone to want to do that or even have the ability to do so. As for being afraid of 'killing' Sylar, he probably hasn't really practiced with his ability and therefore is afraid he could kill him. --Peter 13:14, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

Makes sense. Of course, the ability requires active concentration. And again, how do you CLICK your fingers?--ERROR 10:53, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

    • An unknown and menacing-looking guy comes into your house unexpectedly, you just realized you can destroy things by snapping and you have no idea why any of this is happening. You'd be pretty freaked out. Possibly freaked out enough that your adrenaline starts pumping. You haven't practiced with your newly-found ability so you don't know the extent of it. With all this happening you'd be afraid you'd do something horribly wrong, completely by accident. Tom was just trying to take the necessary precautions as to not possible hurt/kill Sylar. As for clicking your fingers, you're the only one who's mentioned clicking. What do you mean? --Peter

I suppose you're right... Guess I got my answer (And I know that if I had an unknown ability, I'd be scared, too). I didn't think of that. I was just under the impression that he knew a bit more about his ability than that. Ah, well... Also, Lolwut (What an odd username... Like mine, I guess...) said "couldn't help but click his fingers" a few comments above this one, and I wanted to know what it meant to "click" your fingers.--ERROR 20:01, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

That's what I thought. But if it means "snap your fingers," then why say that? Why do people say CLICK your fingers, not snap your fingers, if it just means that? Clicking and snapping are two different sounds, people!--ERROR 16:41, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Breakdown problems

So if there's a problem with breakdown or induced breakdown because it sounds like Tom himself is breaking down, then wouldn't my previous suggestions of object breakdown or material breakdown be more suitable? They show he is breaking down and object rather than himself. So is it possible to add material breakdown on to the consensus even though only object breakdown is there so far. SylarMonroe 15:10, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

You didn't really say anything new. And why is this section called "Breakdown problems?" Why isn't your comment somewhere else, where it belongs? Like with your suggestions, maybe? It'd serve more function there than on it's own, if you ask me.--ERROR 16:57, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Okay...I'm sorry but this is my first consensus... SylarMonroe 12:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

There is no need to apologize, it's also my first consensus--OneOfThem 15:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

If anything, I need to apologize. I was being very rude.--ERROR 15:57, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

One final suggestion, Inductive breakdown, rather than suggesting that he causes himself to breakdown. As far as I know this would suggest that breakdown is applied to something else. If I am incorrect, I'd appreciate if something could point me towards the correct variation of induce to mean causing something else without coming across as it occurring to oneself. Thanks, SylarMonroe 15:31, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

You mean induced? Or inducible? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:35, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Judging by prior comments, induced breakdown implies he makes himself breakdown, so I thought inductive means to cause to others rather than someone. I might be wrong but I don't think induced is right, inducible might be right. Look up define:inductive on a search engine, that's where I got the idea from. SylarMonroe 17:56, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Object Collapsing or Object Destruction

Well... I know the consensus is against these two names, but that's exactly what Tom was able to do. He made the ornament collapse, he destroyed it. What do you think? -- Altes 06:36, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

  • i think that Object Destruction is probably the best. i dont really understand why it is so much trouble. its not even a very significant ability in the first place! but i think that, that name explains it simply. but thats just my opinion. --Scorvi12 09:42, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Object dismantling or object dismantlment

-what do you people think of these names. Dae-von 15:25, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

  • ummmm personaly I think that are much more accurate names already in place. --tsmarg

Voting?

When do we vote on the names up for consideration?--OneOfThem 14:49, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

There's no need to repeat what you already said. And right now, we're not voting for names, but eliminating names by putting our names under them, and saying why we oppose them. So I don't think anybody knows when we're voting.

Did that come off as rude? I think so, and I can't think of a way to make it sound nicer.--ERROR 14:51, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I have asked this question many times with no answer, thank you for answering.--OneOfThem 00:59, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

You're welcome, and I don't think you offended anyone.--ERROR 20:06, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

It has nothing to do with sound.

Almost every ability goes with a sound effect. Telekinesis, for example. Won't you say Sylar manipulates sound to make objects move? Or space-time manipulation - would you say Hiro used to affect sound in a way time froze? Or even invisibility - of course Claude doesn't generate a sound which bends light and conceals him. Do you agree? -- Altes 09:50, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree that it has nothing to do with sound but what name would you suggest? --Tsmarg

Dunno, but I just say that all sound-related names are most definitely wrong. And probably vibration-related ones. -- Altes 03:45, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

Agreed, because those names are speculation.--ERROR 14:45, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

naming

we can't just keep coming up with more names for his ability we need to vote on the names we have; there are so many ways to describe it that people will just keep coming up with new combinations of words that basically describe the same thing. we already have many good names. is anyone with me?? --Tsmarg

agree [50000JH]

i hope somebody else has this ability in the next season then we can give a name. sorry if i sound rude 50000JH

  • Anyone know who is in charge of starting the naming process?--OneOfThem 21:04, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

cellular degeneration

How about cellular degeneration or rapid cellular degeneration?

  • It isn't related to cells. AltesUTC CH

molecular explosion

i think this fits 

  I don't see an explosion

Name Change

I believe that we should change the name to molecular disruption. Molecular Disruption is to disrupt molecules which makes them separate from one another. Like first the ornament seemingly shattered but this could actually have been the molecules separating from one another somewhat slowly. Then, the little specks disappear this could be the molecules going back to the smaller than microscopic size.--jbennett338 13:36, 31 October 2009 (EDT)Sylar will die

  • There's just not enough information to tell what this power really is. AltesUTC CH

I do think it sounds pretty cool though but that doesn't really matter.--jbennett338 16:53, 31 October 2009 (EDT) Sylar will die

    • It doesn't matter, so please stop moving the page.-- By Danko CH 17:08, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Okay pushy you don't have to be so rude(I know you said please but it was still kind of pushy).--jbennett338 22:09, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Rename discussion

Since people no longer pay attention to the counter-arguments left in the consensus check above, I'll summarize them here, in an attempt to restart the rename discussion process:

  1. Crumbling was deemed "too close to crumpling", which was countered since precognition and precognitive dreaming are also particularly similar. The original opposer then neglected to leave a comment. Same thing happened with the arguments of the name being inaccurate, and too informal. Both these arguments were countered, and then never justified. The point is, there hasn't been a completely valid justification that invalidates this name.
  2. Object breakdown was deemed by one person to "not sound right when it is said out loud". Perhaps others might agree with this reason, but personally I think it's a bit foolish of us to reject names based on how they sound; accuracy is what we've after. And to me, "object breakdown" is a completely accurate name, although others might disagree. Furthermore, I don't even think it sounds that bad.
  3. Disintegration was rejected by multiple people for being inaccurate, specifically because disintegration "implies that nothing is left". However, someone came along and posted the definition of "disintegration" from several sources:
o Although many of you view disintegration as leaving nothing behind, by definition from several sources, "disintegration" means: 

  1. - (break into parts or components or lose cohesion or unity; "The material disintegrated"; "the group disintegrated after the leader died")(http://www.synonym.com/definition/disintegrate/)
  2. - 6. a gradual falling into an inferior condition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disintegration)
  3. - (as a transitive verb) 2  : to lose unity or integrity by or as if by breaking into parts (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disintegration)
Then he warned the community not to confuse "disintegration" with "obliteration" (which was what those who rejected the name were doing), but no one responded since the excitement of naming the ability had passed. Personally I believe this is the best name for the ability. --Radicell 21:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Yes let it be disintegration as you know i like moving pages so when you do change it, please send me a message and summary and i'll move it(sorry for being a bit pushy but moving pages is fun)If you don't want me to it's okay just don't send any messages about me making random statements or anything.--jbennett338 14:11, 7 November 2009 (EST)

  • It has been a day, with no objections raised to the name. Can it be changed now?--Ratclaws 21:21, 7 November 2009 (EST)
    • Did we even have a legit consensus? -Vampirate68 | Talk | Contribs | 21:26, 7 November 2009 (EST)
      • I asked Ryan because we have as much info about this ability as we do Trevor's. I just wanna be sure it is ok to. I know we have no objections, but still, good to have administrator input.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 21:29, 7 November 2009 (EST)
        • This seems viable, everyone is in agreement. There is consensus here - Jenx222 | U / T / C 04:31, 8 November 2009 (EST)
          • I agree, I've always liked this name -- By Danko CH 10:47, 8 November 2009 (EST)
            • Also agree. It is disintegrated. --mc_hammark 10:49, 8 November 2009 (EST)
              • ya I thought that it was a bad fit at first when I read the sudjestion but then I looked up the word and it seems to fit perfectly 11:14 8 November 2009
  • I was asked to put my input on this page again. I'm pretty much in favor of most of the names I've heard: "crumbling", "collapsing", "disintegration"...these all sound fine to me. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (EST)
  • So are we all happy to move it to disintegration? - Jenx222 | U / T / C 18:09, 8 November 2009 (EST)
    • 10 votes I think and no objections...I'd say so.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 18:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Yatta! Tom's ability is finally and officially disintegrated! AltesUTC CH

Retrieved from "https://heroeswiki.ddns.net/index.php?title=Talk:Disintegration&oldid=288553"