Talk:Electromagnetism/Archive 1

WARNING: Talk:Electromagnetism/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Electromagnetism.

Name

Would anyone object to calling this power "Electromagnetism"? This covers both throwing lightning and levitation (repelling himself via the Earth's electromagnetic field). It's also a bit easier to say. --Ted C 09:42, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't like the name "Electrical manipulation". I thought "Electrokinesis " was better. Any idea why it was changed? --Norman 09:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
- I personally don't like "electrokinesis" either; it's not even commonly used in the comic book industry. "Electrical manipulation" is just a huge mouthful, though. --Ted C 09:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  - I guess you're right. It should be called "Electromagnetic Manipulation" or something like that. Electricity and magnetism are two faces of the same coin. --Densus 10:07, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
    - That's part of what I wanted to get at with "Electromagnetism", but I was hoping to keep it to one word. --Ted C 10:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
      - A lot of powers here have 2 words. Why this should be any different? --Densus 10:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        Because "Electromagnetic manipulation" is at least as much of a mouthful as "Electrical manipulation". I'd like something that rolls of the tongue better, is all. --Ted C 10:29, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        Then, just like you've suggested, use just "Electromagnetism". --Densus 10:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        But "Electromagnetism" doesn't describe a power, just a property of rocks. Heroe!(talk) (contribs) ^{Random Page!} 10:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        Why can't it serve as a description? To me, it indicates the ability to generate and/or control electromagnetic forces. --Ted C 11:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        
        "Electromagnetic induction"?? --Densus 10:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        I like electrokinesis best, cause that's what it is clearly supposed to be. It's not altering the flow of electricity already in the environment. Jets of electricity are clearly emitted only from his hands. Those jets can also be used to propel him upwards in a kind of flight, just like with Brenan of MutantX. That said, if electrokinesis isn't wanted, I'd go for induced electromagnetism. It is a form of electric manipulation, so that's fine too.--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        What you just said is exactly why it isn't "electrokinesis". Electrokinesis would be the ability to move or control electricity. It says nothing about the ability to generate it.--Hardvice (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        I disagree cause he's not an electricity man. It would be electricity generation if it was supposed to encompass his whole body. But that only happens after he's been disabled by Niki. Also, note that for Sylar's freezing power we are using cryokinesis, but the Sylar/Peter fight in FYG implies that Sylar can make ice jets/beams with this power (no external water required).--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        "Cryokinesis" is an established (if slightly misleading) term. "Electrokinesis" isn't, and literally just means "electricity movement". The point is that he creates electricity; he doesn't merely control it. Think Pyro from the X-Men comics: he could control fire, but needed a flamethrower to produce it. Generation and control can be two separate powers, and a name that only speaks to control is misleading.--Hardvice (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        
        Ted, you're right, "electromagnetism" is the best I've heard yet. It includes not only the dude's ability to manipulate electricity but to propel himself through the air. There's nothing wrong with having one word as a power (have you seen our list of powers?), especially one that is a good description: "The scary guy has the power of electromagnetism." — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        Electromagnetism is fine, though the reason I suggested induced/enhanced prefix is cause we all have that ability, though to a very small degree. ie. the electricity bolts in a plasma ball follow the static electricity in your hand; rub a balloon on your hair and it might stick to the wall; get close to an old tv and you might cause static noise in the reception, etc.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        I don't think it matters if we have an ability or not. I am really good at remembering things, so I could say I have an "enhanced memory", but I don't have Charlie's power. I am also able to manipulate my dreams by willing myself to think about something, or by eating pepperoni pizza late at night--but I don't have Sanjog's power. Likewise, an unladen swallow can fly, but doesn't have the same power as Nathan (unless somebody has figured out that an unladen swallow's airspeed velocity has reached levels that create sonic booms). I generally think it's okay, in some cases, to have a power name that is also the name of something regular humans might have. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
I'm probably alone here, but I still don't like this name. To me, it doesn't really describe a power, just a natural force. If he can create electricity, maybe something like "electrical generation"? --Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I'm with you there Heroe. I wanted to put induced or enhanced in front of the term, but the decision was not to.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  - Electromagnetic generation? --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 15:33, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I did see one somewhere else -- not sure if it was wikipedia or some other site -- that I find quite acceptable: "Bioelectricity". --Ted C 15:39, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
  - Oh, I like that. This is what I got from Wikipedia: "Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity) refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields produced by living cells, tissues or organisms." That sounds pretty precise, imo. --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 15:41, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
    - Adding a bio prefix or generation suffix doesn't change the fact that each of us has this power to a very small degree, but we can't control it. That's why I think it should add enhanced/induced prefix.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
      - I hate to use those prefixes unless they're essential. "Induced radioactivity" requires it simply because that's the label in Chandra's file cabinet. "Enhanced strength" requires it because just "Strength" doesn't imply anything special when used in reference to human beings. "Bioelectricity" or "Electromagnetism" implies an unusual ability, because humans generally don't have any special bioelectric or electromagnetic properties. Best to avoid "enhancing" or "inducing" things until there's no other option, I think. --Ted C 15:58, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
    - I still fixate on an "aesthetic" name: something that will sound good if you say it out loud. I find "bioelectricity" to be superior to "bioelectromagnetism" (and just "electromagnetism", too, actually) in that regard. I suspect that "bioelectricity" will also be a more familiar term to readers, as it's a term that has real-life uses (with respect to electric eels and such). I dare say it can cover all the same phenomena as "bioelectromagnetism" and have a nicer ring to it. --Ted C 15:51, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
    - What does everyone else think of "bioelectricity"? --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 16:43, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
      - I prefer electromagnetism. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
        I also prefer electromagnetism over bioelectricity. Already stated what I think the name should be.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
      - I don't like the name "electromagnetism" either. Every time I see the word I think about a length of wire wrapped around a metal rod, to create an electromagnet. It's counter-intuitive, but as of now I have no alternative suggestion. DismantleRepair 21:42, 13 October 2007 (EDT
        I think "electromagnetism" should only be used to describe the agent in the GN when F.Peter and F. Hiro break everyone out of jail because he hovered with it and you cant hover only being able to generate and control electricty. I think for Peter and the Teenage Patient (and possibly Elle) we whould call it "Electrokinesis" or what ever until one of them displays an ability to hover off the ground. --SimonKesterson 2:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
        Using a more general term like "electricity manipulation" or "electricity generation" would cover both the powers exhibited by the Elle, Peter, and the patient, and the power exhibited by the future agent. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
Why is the aspect of "magnetism" even being included in this at all? It seems like we've only seen this power used in manipulation of electricity, nothing more.--E rowe 17:22, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
- The magnetism is inferred from the ability of the future DHS agent with electrical powers to levitate himself. --Ted C 17:28, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
  - Excellent point.--E rowe 17:37, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
- It appears the "magnetic" aspect of "electromagnetism" is only seen in people with an advanced level of this power. A good example we have seen is that Matt can only read minds, but Maury can also use his power to induce some form of hallucination (Maury said it began for him by reading minds, and he learned to expand his power to do much more). Also, Elle might be able to use magnetism, for instance, since she supposedly has had her power most of her life.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I RECKON IT SHOULD BE ELECTROKINESIS, BECAUSE THAT IT THE CREATION AND CONTROL OF ELECTRICITY, AND THAT MEANS COMPLETE CONTROL, WHICH INCLUDES THE EFFECT OF STATIC ELECTRICITY AND ELCTROMAGNETISM, AM I RIGHT.--Hart (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2007 (EDT)

NO ACTUALLY ELECTROKINESIS LITERALLY TRANSLATES TO "AMBER MOVEMENT". ALSO THE CAPS ARE KIND OF UNNECESSARY.--Hardvice (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2007 (EST)
- er sorry, and amber movement, oh, well then--Hart (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2007 (EDT)
  - Well now I feel bad for being mean. I assumed you were a troll since you tried to post in 24-point all caps. My mistake. But yes, literally translated from the Greek, "electrokinesis" does indeed work out to "amber movement".--Hardvice (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Re: Ted's power

Shouldn't we list Ted's power of induced radioactivity as a form of electromagnetism? I mean he did create an EMP using it...EMP = electromagnetic pulse.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Perhaps a See Also, but we want to be careful about implying that there's a definite connection between the two powers. Ted can generate radiation, and that radiation includes energy in the electromagnetic spectrum. Personally, the name of this power is beginning to bug me. While I think "electromagnetism" is a good name for the Agent's power, I'm beginning to doubt how well it fits with Peter's or the patient's ability. All they've ever displayed is the ability to generate electricity, and both Peter and the crew have referred to the effect of his ability as "lightning" on multiple occasions, which makes me think that "electromagnetism" is too broad. I really think, from what we've seen, that both Peter and the patient are limited to projecting arcs or blasts or balls of electricity (something Ted didn't do, though he may have been able to) and not, for example, hovering around like the Agent.--Hardvice (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
  - On electromagnetism: I concur. We haven't seen any magnetic effects from Peter, just the sparkies. -- FissionChips 18:09, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
  - On Ted's EMP: I'm about to show, not only my age, but my nerdly roots. In TSR's Marvel RPG terms, Ted pulled off a "Power Stunt" with his induced radioactivity. It's using a power in a way it hasn't been used before. The first thing I thought of in the scene with Bennet walking Ted through causing an EMP was "Well, that was 100 Karma points well spent." I know the show is not Marvel or the RPG, but that may provide some vocabulary for the talking. -- FissionChips 18:09, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
    - LOL. That's exactly the first thing I thought of, too!--Hardvice (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
      - Nice! I may just have to brush the dust off my books and throw some more old school TSR lingo around here. FEATS! Talents! Power Ranks! The beloved Universal Table! -- FissionChips 19:08, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
        I've been tempted to turn to the Ultimate Powers Book for ideas from time to time during these naming debates.--Hardvice (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
      - Heh. Karma is still used on many RPG's, it's old but definately not outdated. But the EMP scene reminded me of MutantX and how each of the character's powers evolved to a higher level over time, potentially collapsing their DNA if it got too far (the virus?). ie. Brennan developed the ability to fly using electromagnetism, Emma got the ability to do mental blasting that could knock people out, etc.
        Ted could control the spectrum of the "electromagnetic" particles he emitted, which is why he could do an EMP. I'm hoping Peter gets to do some other forms of Ted's power to confirm my theory. Maybe ultraviolet or infrared?
        My opinion is that if we change the name for Peter's power to just lightning, then we should change the name of Au Co's power to just plant growth. We are keeping it broader than exhibited just in case a new aspect of the power emerges. I would rather do the reverse, but that's not what Help:Naming conventions, which Hardvice wrote, suggests for us to do.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
        The thing is, the EMP aspect of Ted's power is totally consistent (because nuclear explosions do cause EMPs), so I don't think it's necessarily the case that Ted has full access to the whole EM spectrum. The fact is that he could use his radioactive powers to produce an effect which is actually produced by radioactive explosions. I doubt Ted could shoot lightning--that seems well outside the boundaries of his abilities. At best, these two powers overlap somewhat.--Hardvice (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
        That EMP explosion didn't look nuclear to me. We saw what nuclear looks like for Ted (remember the nuclear bombs going off in his open palms?). Ted had to concentrate to change his emissions to "burn bright, not hot" in order to produce the EMP, so I would think that's enough evidence that he changed the Electromagnetic spectrum of his power (it even resembles lightning in this photo). I guess I'll have to hope for a flashback where the Primatech scientists testing Ted detected his ability to isolate a portion of the spectrum.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
        Compare a thermo-nuclear bomb to say a neutron bomb which is more consistent with how he used his powers at Primatech. Fission reactions can release a lot of radiation or a lot of heat, it's all in how they're utilized. (Admin 01:26, 13 October 2007 (EDT))
        To clarify, a neutron bomb is a form of thermo-nuclear bomb, and part of the difference in reactions from the standard version is that neutron bombs emit more neutron radiation instead of using it to build up the explosion itself. Thus, there is a difference in the form of radiation emitted, just as Ted emitted more particles of a "brighter" portion of the EM spectrum.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
        The form of radiation isn't different, only how it's utilized. With conventional thermonuclear bombs it's focused and used to help generate the heat and explosive yield whereas with a neutron bomb it's essentially bled out. (Admin 02:45, 13 October 2007 (EDT))
        I define a difference in how it's utilized as a difference in form.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
        It's not, though. If you take a given amount of radiation and focus it on a particular point you can heat that point. If you just release it then you end up flooding the area with radiation with a different effect. To use my example before, the form of radiation generated by a conventional thermonuclear explosive is essentially the same as a neutron bomb, but both produce very different effects. If you light a pool of gasoline on fire you end up with a flaming pool of gasoline. If you put that gasoline inside a container and ignite it you end up with an explosive. In both cases you're igniting the vapors but with drastically different effects. (Admin 22:55, 13 October 2007 (EDT))
        It's really just a minor matter of linguistics. "Form" has 16 different definitions at thefreedictionary.com, but I'm referring to "form" as in a procedure or methodology. The initial ingredients are the same to produce a gasoline bomb or a flaming pool of gasoline, but the method used is different to make a different result.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
  - There is a magnetic field generated by any electrical current. In virtually every instance of the power we've seen so far they've focused on the electrical aspect of it, however in the graphic novel they may have been taking advantage of the fact that the current generates a magnetic field to also allow him to be flying. I'm not too fond of the current name for this power because it's giving a lot more weight to the magnetic component of the power than they seem to be focusing on. I wouldn't mind seeing the name change to something focusing on the electrical component making sure the page itself notes that a current generates a magnetic field that has in at least the agent's instance apparently allowed him to levitate. (Admin 00:25, 13 October 2007 (EDT))
    - That may be our best option. I guess there's really no need to divorce the agent's power from Peter's, even if they do seem capable of using it for different effects. But I totally agree: now that we have users who aren't using it for magnetic effects, a name which focuses less on that side of things might be better. And while it's used in the show and the GN and the commentaries (and Beeman's blog ... crap, I'm defeating my own case here), I'd hold out against "lightning" (which so far is used as a description of his power's effects) as long as possible, because it's not really a power so much as the manifestation of a power. Perhaps when we see she from whom he learned it, we'll get a better sense of what it's capable of.--Hardvice (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
      - I can't remember where (possibly an interview with some writer) but someone asked if one power will be exhibited more than once, and someone from the crew mentioned that it is possible, but it won't necessarily be the exact power per se. I think this is the case. For example, the future agent can float, whereas Peter (for now) can send blasts of energy that he calls sparks. I think that, for now, we know it as a form of "lightning" or "sparks", so we should keep it as is. If, for example, we know that Elle has this ability, then it's solidified. Otherwise, I'd leave the speculation versus canon source (Peter describing it as a spark).--Bob 03:43, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

The dying patient.

I aparently skipped the second comic, but I just read it. Mohinder explains that he has the ability to absorb electrical currents - they even bolded it in the comic. I don't think it's the same power; he's intaking currents, and Peter/Elle have let them out. His power would be a bit more useful to 'causing blackouts (hence the title) and theirs would be more for powering things up.--Riddler 22:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Or, more than likely, it's the same power but Elle has mastered her use of it. The agent possibly has an even more advanced use of the power: the ability to levitate. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Split?

The new Behind The Eclipse states pretty clearly that Elle's power is just the ability to generate electricity, not to control the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Anyone else think it's time to split Elle and present-day Peter's power off from the Agent and Future Peter's? For what it's worth, they use "electrokinesis", but they're just repeating what the querent said.--Hardvice (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
- I wouldn't mind it if you are willing to also clarify Au Co's power as just plant growth, but since you aren't I say to leave it be. Elle's power and present-day Peter's may eventually become electromagnetism if they develop their power further. Such is also the case with Matt and his father's telepathy. On a side note, maybe there's something to the fact that future Peter in Walls didn't hover when using the Agent's electromagnetism. Maybe he hadn't mastered the magnetic part of it yet, but that doesn't mean that he didn't absorb and use that power from the Agent.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  - I'm really not sure what Au Co's power has to do with this question at all. I bring it up because they were pretty much asked point blank if it was a different power.--Hardvice (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  - Barring a split, I'd say we'd be best served by switching to a different name and noting that the agent, and so far only the agent, appears to create magnetic effects as well. It makes us look kind of bad to continue listing Elle's power as "electromagnetism" when the creators have answered a direct question to that effect in the negative.--Hardvice (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
    - Agreed. Peter's/Elle's power definitely needs to be reclassified given the content of that interview. As for the agent I'm not as concerned. His power could be considered like Peter/Elle's with just a note that the agent appeared to use his power to also levitate. So either splitting or renaming sounds good to me as long as Peter/Elle's power is renamed in the process. (Admin 17:46, 29 October 2007 (EDT))
      - Next question: to what? I'd prefer something simple like "electrical generation" or "electricity generation" to "electrokinesis", which is still not a particularly well-established power name. It's not as abhorrently terrible as most "-kinesis" names (although it doesn't really get to the idea that she produces rather than merely moves or controls electricity), and Aron and Joe did use it (albeit while merely repeating the question asked).--Hardvice (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        They did make it a point to call it "Living Lightning". :) Sometimes I think they make up names like that just to tease us. heh I don't really know the best name for the ability. (Admin 17:59, 29 October 2007 (EDT))
        Living Lightning is a comic book character.--Hardvice (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        Oh, thank goodness! I was afraid it was a suggested name for the power. That's a relief. :) (Admin 18:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT))
        You're in good company. Tim Kring asked Jeph Loeb "what's a magneto?"--Hardvice (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        
        Looking around some sites, "Electrical manipulation" seems to be the common nomenclature for this ability (strictly electricity).--Bob (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        I think that's acceptable, though it still doesn't really indicate that she produces electricity, rather than merely controlling existing electricity. On the other hand, it fits nicely with some of our other powers. One more strike against "electrokinesis" is that it's already a word that has nothing to do with superpowers: "Electrokinesis is the particle or fluid transport produced by an electric field acting on a fluid having a net mobile charge." I have no idea what that means, but it's apparently an element of electrokinetics, the study of "the dynamics of electrically conducting fluid".--Hardvice (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        Since we have to change it, I'd prefer electrical generation, then, but looks like electrical manipulation is the more popular among the admin. To me, it looks like it's becoming almost standard to use the very broad "manipulation" on this wiki. I don't think that's a good practice, but I guess it's better than "-kinesis". Go figure.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        I remember we originally stayed away from "Electrokinesis" due to the "kinesis", but it IS what the writers called it, and it WOULD match with our Cryo and Pyro's.--Riddler 18:52, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        Though arguably they were just repeating the exact phrase that the person who asked the question used rather than actually naming it. Plus Hardvice points out that "electrokinesis" already means something very different so I think we're better off not using it. (Admin 18:57, 29 October 2007 (EDT))
        
        "Electrokinesis" is already a word and has nothing to do with superpowers. While neither "pyrokinesis" nor "cryokinesis" is probably the best word to describe the powers in question, they're pretty well established words--tons more hits than "electrokinesis" (and that's not even subtracting hits for its actual, real-world definition), articles on Wikipedia, use in comic books, films, etc.--Hardvice (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        
        I prefer "generation", too.--Hardvice (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        I just think we should keep to the way things were named prior. If you're gonna go with generation, Pyrokinesis should be Fire Generation, since that's what Meredith did; Cryokinesis would be Frost Manipulation (or something to that effect) since he is altering the temperatures of things downward, freezing them. But if you keep them kinesis, make Electrokinesis just that; words CAN have more than one meaning.--Riddler 19:08, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        Given the (false) choice between accepting "electrokinesis" and renaming "pyrokinesis" and "cryokinesis", I'd take the former over the latter. Fortunately, being forced to choose a bad name merely because other powers have a not-quite-as-bad similar name doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling argument. You could use the same to argue that Sanjog's power be called "oneirokinesis".--Hardvice (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        I generally don't understand the fascination with adding -kinesis to the end of Greek prefixes. Does it somehow make the power sound more legitimate? Do people think kinesis means "power" or something? There are some words that truly use the suffix (telekinesis means moving objects across a distance, not moving distance), and then there are just some that don't. A quick read through activatingevolution.org or our own fan powers affirms how ridiculous some things sound. "Electrokinesis" does not sound very ridiculous, but it is certainly not correct or a good name for this power.

Also, it IS common in comic books and the like... just do a quick google search on it. http://www.wyrdology.com/mind/psi/electrokinesis.html --Riddler 19:10, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Riddler has a point there. After further consideration, I change my opinion again to favor "electrokinesis". Since it is an established term, we need to go with what the producers call it, even if we don't like the terminology.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
- But I'm not convinced that the producers did use it, at least not of their own volition. They were merely repeating the question as asked. I'd hate to think of the conversation we'd be having if the querent had referred to it as "Elle's magic sparkly power".--Hardvice (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Hi there, I'd just like to point out I submitted that question to BTE specifically to clarify this page. Since the writers themselves seemed to like the word "electrokinesis" I suggest it be used. --PeterDawson 19:37, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
One site does not "common" usage make. Not only does a Google search turn up far fewer hits than other -kinesises (22k for Electro, 119k for pyro, 1.1M for tele), but many of them seem to be to the real-world definition. And the rest are mostly supernatural/psychic sites, not comic book sites. Apart from the page you link to, which says it's a common power in fiction, I can't find any comic book reference to it by that name. Now granted, we can take a name as easily from the psychic crowd as from comics. But I think claiming it's a "common" comic book usage is disingenuous.--Hardvice (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yeah, but since we already have telekinesis, pyrokinesis and cryokinesis, why not keep with the theme? --PeterDawson 19:43, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  - Following that logic, why not just rename everything somethingkinesis, whether or not the term has any history?--Hardvice
    - Electrokinesis is a term people understand- Most people when they see "Electromagentism" they think magnets, 'cause that's what it says in it. But if you go by the logic that everything is being called -kinesis, then you HAVE to rename Pyro and Cryokinesis, especially Cryokinesis. The word "kinesis" is to move something. They're not moving fire, they're creating it, like she's creating electricity. Cryokinesis isn't even making ice, it's manipulating cold. It's best to go on a combination of both consistency and what people understand.--Riddler 19:55, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
      - In retrospect, I wouldn't be opposed to changing cryokinesis in the slightest. It suffers all the same problems as "electrokinesis", in that the term is nowhere near as established as "pyrokinesis" or "telekinesis", But as an aside, he does seem to manipulate cold more than he generates ice. He froze Hiro's sword, James Walker's and the FBI agent's bodies, and when he wanted to make the snow globe effect, he needed to use water from the faucet. That power has been described fairly consistently as "freezing", not as "ice generation".--Hardvice (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
      - Kinesis actually isn't specifically movement, it just refers to cell stimulation which causes stuff to happen. While still not the best word in terms of technicially it still fits more than our existing word. Heck, just calling it electricity would be accurate. --PeterDawson 20:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        "-kinesis", the suffix, is from the Greek word "kinesis", which means "movement". As an English word, "kinesis" means "Movement or activity of an organism in response to a stimulus such as light." We can pretend it means something else, but it really doesn't.--Hardvice (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
        
        Electricity doesn't have cells. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
- I got that link from the google search. I'd say 22k Sites related to the word "Electrokinesis" when at least the whole first page relates to it as a super power (more specificall a "Psi" power) is enough to say it's a common term. Maybe not as popular as Pyro or Tele (nothing will topple tele) but still it would be what people search. At bare minimum, make "Electrokinesis" and "Electricity" re-direct here if not making the former the page itself- it's what people will search.--Riddler 19:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  - Right. But nothing from comic books. Just a bunch of spooky goth kids sitting around trying to fry bugs.--Hardvice (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
    - While in favour of Electric(al) Manipulation myself, I feel it is work noting that while The Fan Power's page has shown some of the horrible names you can make by added -kinesis the end, one should keep in mind that it is still a suitable ending for powers that it does work for. Really, one could go either way, to either A) go with the name the creators used, or B) go with a name that better fits what it truly does. For some A and B would be the same name, while it wouldn't be the same for other's. Lulu 19:57, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  - To Hardvice: Wether it was used in a comic or not, it's a known term, one that even the writers acknowledged (wether they were repeating or not, they nodded to it.) Not using it is like telling them they're wrong.--Riddler 19:58, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
    - I think: writers said, "electrokinesis." We use it.--Ice Vision 20:03, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
      - As Hardvice and I mentioned earlier, they repeated the exact phrase of the original poster. I'm not totally convinced they were endorsing the name rather than picking the closer of the two options presented by the person asking the question. That being said, I'm not opposed to any of the terms floating around I just wouldn't want to claim that the writers have definitely called it "electrokinesis" and have that be our reason for going with it. At the same time, Riddler makes a very valid point that if the name were totally off base then the writers probably wouldn't have acknowledged it. It's a tough call. (Admin 20:07, 29 October 2007 (EDT))
        Haha, you edited in while I was posting, but this is what I was gonna say: Wether it was repeating or not, they said it. If it WASN'T Electrokinesis, they wouldn't have said it, it woulda been lying. And in ANY case, they acknowledged it.--Riddler 20:09, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        
        Indeed, it does seem more accurate than electro-magnetism, in any event. We could easily use something like 'Electrical Manipulation' but electrokinesis is shorter and, as far as we know, is the same thing. --PeterDawson 20:12, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
        I agree that electromagnetism is somewhat obsolete now. The power name was chosen when there was only a future agent who exhibited the power. He was able to hover, so "electromagnetism" was an apt name for him. In the past month or so, three more people have exhibited the same power, but different aspects of it. The patient has no control, yet Elle has very good control, and is able to focus her electrical arcs in specific directions and with the intensity she desires. But since the "magnetism" part may or may not apply to everybody, it's best to leave it out and go with something more generic. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
I think Electromagnetism is a weird name because it's not really the name of a power, just a natural occurrence. Also any type of electricity can be used in a way to create an electromagnetic field, although it needs to be based around something. Electromagnetism is more of a side effect of electrical flow.
I vote for electrical generation. --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 20:10, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Would like to suggest that this power be renamed to Electrokinesis. There is no evidence of any magnetisim involved, "Yet". Eletrical control could posibly be done with out control of magnetisim. --DawnTreader 00:26, 30 October 2007 (EDT) (Note:Moved from article page, not signed)
- kinda interesting that this discussion was way beyond where i started. i think that electrical manipulation would better describe this if no one likes the electrokinesis thing. all we saw from elle was lightening from her hand. peters might have been a combination of ted's and elle's powers. until elle starts bending metal like magneto from the xmen series i dont think electromagnetism is the right word for her power. it seems that she generates the lightening from her body, so maybe she is just a big walking battery. --DawnTreader
  - I wasn't a fan of electrical manipulation because it sounds more like they're manipulating something that's already there. Kinesis has to do with reaction based on stimulus (most people tend to just refer to it as movement because kinetic energy is the energy of movement) which can effectively cover both generation and manipulation, much like the pyrokinesis we saw Maarten use in the latest comic. --PeterDawson 12:06, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
I take it as they were clarifying what they thought was asked, that her power has nothing to do with magnets, not that it is a different power or called "Electrokinesis". We don't know how Agent (electromagnetism) levitated, it may not have been magnetism, but the force of electricity. So I would say no to splitting. While "Electrokinesis" is already a word that has little to do with superpowers, so is liquefaction, which has absolutely nothing to do with superpowers, but I don't really like it, either of them. It might need to be renamed but I don't know what to. -Lөvөl 12:49, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
- While "Electrokinesis" is already a word that has little to do with superpowers, so is liquefaction - Tou-fricking-che. Excellent point. But your first sentence, like I've said, wether they were just repeating or not, they acknowledged the word.--Riddler 19:11, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
  - Indeed, the shoe fits with electrokinesis while its been specifically stated that it doesn't with electromagnetism, at least with Elle. Why not just make it noted as being Electrokinesis or something to that effect and just make a note about the apparent magnetism aspect that the agent demonstrated? --PeterDawson 01:28, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
    - Because "electrical manipulation" or "electrical generation" is a much better term for the power. Mark Sable called it "electrical absorption" more than once. Even that's a better term than "electrokinesis". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

To Summarize the Above

I hate long discussions. Anyway, here's the summary of above:

Electrokinesis -
- + term used by writers, simple term, consistent with cryo- and pyrokinesis which do not involve movement
- - term was repeated from submitter by writers, -kinesis describes movement, is not a popular term regarding comics
Electric manipulation
- + more commonly used term in comics
Electric generation
- + accurately describes the ability of generating sparks.

General consensus is that the -magnetism part should probably not apply to the teenage patient and Elle. However, I would think personally that we rename this page, and on the future agent's limits, note that he can somehow levitate. As for electrokinesis being a common term, I'd have to disagree with this. If you go to common, regularly visited site like Wikipedia, when searching for comic book characters that generate electricity, you do not find this term, but Electric Manipulation is generally used. Now, this also goes with the fact that they can somehow use electricity from outlets and such versus generating their own bolts. However, it's nomenclature in comics. Thought I'd make it shorter. So, I'm for renaming the page to Electric Manip and noting the future agent's limit include he can levitate somehow.--Bob (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I haven't weighed in on this yet because I didn't feel like getting caught up in a discussion that has very good merits on both sides. You summed it up very well, Bob, thank you. I agree, the page name needs to be changed, and the limits explained in the body, not the title. I personally like "electrical manipulation", but also like "electrical generation" and don't have strong feelings about either one. I do have much stronger feelings against "electrokinesis". So, "electrical manipulation" gets a big + from me. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
- I noticed that "repeated" got a nice italic in the minus. So, I'll emphasize. Wether it was repeated or not, it was the term nodded at by the writers. NOT using it is like telling them they're wrong. Beyond that, Level made an incredible point about Liquefaction.--Riddler 01:57, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  - They're also very vague in their answers because they're coy, sarcastic, but most importantly, they like hiding details. That being said, they've repeated the terms used by the submitter on a few occasions, generally associated with the terminology the submitter used in regards to an ability. As for the liquefaction note, if you refer to the talk page, "liquification" was generally the popular one, but Hardvice noted "'liquefaction' is technically the correct word, since "liquification" is a relative newcomer mostly limited to industrial uses". Liquification is generally what's used in comics, but more towards something liquid man can do. In all honesty, I think that when it comes to naming a power (as stated before), keep it simple. People see some fancy word with greek prefixes and suffixes and don't know right off the bat what it does. The exception to this are powers that are used more, like telekinesis and pyrokinesis. But something like Dream Manipulation, you know the individual is messing with your dreams. That's why I stick with not using -kinesis.--Bob (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
    - Agree whole-heartedly on the simple names point. We have to remember that readers should be able to find a power easily, and without consulting a Greek/Latin dictionary. How cool a name sounds should be our very last consideration.--Hardvice (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  - The thing is, had the question been phrased as "just lightning" or "just sparks" or "just electricity", then those would have "gotten a nod" instead. It seems wrong to put words in their mouth and then laud the results as "the word of the producers". I actually sent in the same question, but was very careful to word it as neutrally as possible. I just asked whether magnetism was something Elle could eventually learn, too, or if it was a separate power. If it's vote time, I'm very much in favour of "electrical generation", and slightly less in favour of "electrical manipulation", and not at all in favour of "electrokinesis".--Hardvice (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
    - Agree. I appreciate the question asked and the answer given. But just because the words came out of a writer's mouth does not mean that it is the name of the power. Thank goodness Joe and Aron didn't make a typo, otherwise we might be having an argument about calling the power "electokinesis" or "livid lighting". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
One more for electrical generation. --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 11:25, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
My preference taking into consideration the prior discussion is "electrical generation" or "electricity generation" if the first verb is should be a noun instead. (Admin 13:51, 31 October 2007 (EDT))
In response to the "kinesis describing movement" comment, I think electrokinesis is a fairly acceptable term. "Electricity movement" is rather poetic and somewhat beautiful. It's like "fire dancing" sometimes describing pyrokinesis, the power to create and control fire using the power of the mind. Not only that, I don't like names that are too technical or too long.--Ice Vision 20:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Rename Template

Should we tag this article with the rename template since it looks like the discussion is going to be continuing for a while?--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Probably. It looks like we're about at a vote.--Hardvice (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Then let's get the vote down.

Sign your vote.

Electromagnetism: keep the same.

Bioelectricity: Used by Marvel comics and accurately describes the power.

--Ted C 13:34, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Electrokinesis: Follows other names, name nodded at by writers.

--Riddler 19:53, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--DocM 19:58, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--Matt 2108 20:33, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--Paronine 21:20, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--42Strangelove 01:59, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
--DawnTreader 13:19, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
--LightPhoenix 12:44, 6 November 2007 (EST)
--HiroDynoSlayer 08:52, 9 November 2007 (EST)
--Thrashmeister 20:27, 9 November 2007 (EST)
--PeterDawson 23:04, 11 November 2007 (EST)
--The Empath 22:36, 12 November 2007 (EST)
--Free Willy 22:41, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Electric(ity)(al) manipulation: Commonly used comic book name.

Jason Garrick 18:18, 10 November 2007 (EST) Is this the same thing as below? I like manipulate better than generation. Because generation is to create. And the teenage patient absorbed eletricty and manipulated it. He did not generate it.

Electric(ity)(al) generation: Describes what the power is.

--Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 20:08, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--Admin 20:09, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--Hardvice (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
-- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) (voting for "electricity generation")
-- Lulu 20:37, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--Ice Vision 20:39, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--Bob (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2007 (EDT) (Until Elle can control arcs from an electric socket, this one)
--Modestoddesy 12:38, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
--E rowe 13:03, 2 November 2007 (EDT), I'm changing my vote. This is now my 1st choice. But it has to be "electricity generation". If it's "electrical generation" that's just as bad of a misnomer as "electrokinesis".
--Felixdakat 02:16, 3 November 2007 (EDT) (until we find out more)
--Random guy 13:58, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
--Ehsteve23 12:37, 6 November 2007 (EST) (so far they have generated plenty of electricity, but not a huge amount of control besides the general direction,)
-- 05:25, 7 November 2007 (EST)
-- Lost Soul talk contribs 08:50, 9 November 2007 (EST) I think Electricity induction would be good - see below - but as this is similar (induction and generation is the same thing) it suits me fine.
--User:Ciaran 12:40, 9 November 2007 (EST)
--Looky 20:32, 9 November 2007 (EST)
-- eXplicit _{(talk/contribs) 12 July 2025 - 13:38 EDT}

Other (list your suggestion):

--Electrogenesis (this is now my 2nd choice)--E rowe 21:55, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
--Electricity -Lөv ө l 03:59, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
--Electric Power --DawnTreader 13:19, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
--Electron Control --DawnTreader 13:19, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Consensus

OK, cleary we have a consensus on the name. Shall we close the voting? --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 20:47, 9 November 2007 (EST)

A majority is not a consensus. And all the vote determines is a consensus. I wouldn't be opposed to putting this to rest, but it would be wrong to call a 16-10 vote "consensus".--Hardvice (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2007 (EST)
At this point I say we wait until November 13th, since the 8th episode will have aired and another BTE will of been covered, at which point we'll hopefully have something new. If not we should set a deadline for the vote and then when it comes make the move. I'm still surprised this became a vote when the writers could of corrected the use of the world electrokinesis as well in the interview but chose not to. But that's just me I guess. --PeterDawson 23:11, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Note, Events & Archival

(Just remember that a "vote" really has no influence here except for attempting to measure whether there's currently consensus) (Admin 20:13, 1 November 2007 (EDT))
- Just the same, I think we should add the "vote" to current events.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
(Also if you're going to "vote" here make sure you contribute(d) to the discussion above since decisions aren't based on the number of votes but rather the merits of each argument. Votes by people who've not tried to make their case for their recommendation essentially have 0 weight) (Admin 21:22, 1 November 2007 (EDT))
- I didn't make any comments to the recent set of discussions. I preferred, in this case, to read what others had to say and take a more passive part in voting--I feel I am sometimes too aggressive in pushing my opinion, and I didn't want to do that this time. Plus, my professional life is a bit stressful right now, so I didn't want to aggravate my stress any more. I will add my argument above now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
- I re-added the name discussion section to Current events. Another thought I had is that we should consider archiving the original name discussion (first three sections) of this page, so people can read through the relevant portions easier.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Electrogenesis

In favor of my addition "electrogenesis", it sounds as good as "electrokinesis", but means the same thing as "electrical generation", which is an accurate description of the power. The suffix -kinesis should only be used when the power involves moving something. So it's fine for the powers we call pyrokinesis and telekinesis, but not for cryokinesis or electrokinesis.--E rowe 22:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
- I agree completely, and I think "electrogenesis" is a great choice if we want a name that sounds cool and is accurate. However, I still think simple "electrical/electricity generation" has the plain language advantage that makes it much easier for readers to find and understand. Any of the three is leaps and bounds better than "electrokinesis", which is both hermetic and inaccurate.--Hardvice (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
- I'd take Electrogenesis over Generation/Manipulation... but if Kinesis loses, Pyro and Cryo should change as well, since Pyrokinesis is Meredith creating fire and Cryokinesis is Sylar lowering the temperature of things to frozen.--Riddler 22:24, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  - I definitely think cryo- should change because it suffers all the problems of electrokinesis. However, "pyrokinesis" has the decided advantage of being a widely recognized word, with a much larger number of appearances in comics, books, films, tv shows, encyclopedias, and the like.--Hardvice (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  - In the case of pyrokinesis, the latest GN does seem to show the wielder of this power moving streams of flame through space. So the motion aspect of the suffix -kinesis works at least there. But pyrogenesis wouldn't be bad if you want to press that point.--E rowe 22:40, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
    - "Electrogenesis" isn't that bad a term, but I'd still prefer "electricity generation" as my second choice ("electrokinesis" is still my first) because it's more clear. Anyways, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere (neither side is able to convince the other to change positions). I'm hoping that this is clarified by the next CBR. If it isn't then I think the admin need to hold their own vote to see if there is a consensus as to whether a power name given by the producers should be used no matter how silly or wrong they think it is. That's basically how I see the issue. On a side note, this seems kind of ironic to me, as in the "Bliss and Horror" discussion I was all about not using what the producers had given us in the graphic novel. Now I'm arguing the other side. LOL.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
      - If I thought it was a power name given by the producers, I wouldn't be arguing against it. It's not. It's a power name given to the producers.--Hardvice (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
        Which wasn't refuted.--Riddler 00:39, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
        Much like they don't correct people who spell "Niki" with two k's. I think people are ascribing significance to mere repetition. I have to believe that they'd have repeated "sparks" or "lightning" had the questioner called it "sparks". Failing to correct someone, particularly when they are intentionally vague about the names of most powers, doesn't strike me as particularly significant. Now, had the question said "electorkinesis" and the answer said "lightning", that would be another story--they'd be intentionally side-stepping the name given. But mere parroting does not the Word of The Gods make.--Hardvice (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
        
        Though it's not mere repitition, since they DID turn down a name for it at the same exact time. They stated (through their repitition) that it's Electrokinesis, NOT Electromagnetism.--Riddler 00:46, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
        In context, they were rejecting that Elle's power has magnetic aspects, not choosing one name over another. It's not so much that her power isn't called Electromagnetism--it's that it isn't Electromagnetism because that's a different power. That much was very clear through their analogies to Magneto and Living Lightning.--Hardvice (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
        
        Well said, Hardvice. That's my really my issue too. (The crazy theories about Peter weren't refuted either.) By the way, I'd like to let this sit and stew for at least a few more days before a decision is made. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Despite my change of vote, I'd like to suggest as an option for consideration, "enhanced electrogenesis" rather than "electrogenesis". This has the advantage of fitting the pattern of other power names like "enhanced strength", "enhanced hearing", "enhanced speed", etc. And it actually does so quite perfectly, since "electrogenesis" is already the word which refers to the making of electrical current by organic tissue. It's actually an ability possessed and used by all people at all times, so for someone like Elle, her ability is a kind of "enhanced electrogenesis".--E rowe 15:46, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- I doubt most people even know about electrogenesis, so "enhanced electrogenesis" would strike them as odd. --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 20:23, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
In an online interview, Writers/producers Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite used the term electrokinesis to describe Elle's ability. In the sci-fi universe, the term -kinesis is much more recognizable and more widely understood than -genesis. 42Strangelove 01:58, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
- See the above discussion. The producers did not "call" the power electrokinesis. They repeated that name after it was used of the power by somebody else who doesn't know what -kinesis means. The reason we shouldn't use that suffix is because it doesn't mean what this power entails, the cumulative presumed knowledge of sci-fi fans notwithstanding.--E rowe 19:19, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
  - I know I'm coming into this really late, but how about Electricity induction? After all, that is what they are doing, inducing (creating) electricity. Just a thought.-- Lost Soul talk contribs 11:32, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Bliss and Horror All Over Again

D: And it told me to split this into smaller pages, but I dunno how. >_> --AnotherNella 12:44, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- I have suggested that the first three non-relevant topics be archived, but I have gotten no feedback yes or no as to whether that would be okay.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2007 (EST)

If which ever side wins, WINS

I personally would not like to have another Gore/Bush voting. There isn't really an electoral college last time I checked on this site. Can any sysop say that they will keep to the winner? Jason Garrick 20:26, 9 November 2007 (EST)
- It doesn't matter which side of the users gets more votes. If there is not a consensus of the users, it falls to be a consensus of the administrators. So you need to convince the administrators. In this case, the administrators appear to have all sided with "electricity generation" so looks like that is going to be the end result for now. However, I would wait for an administrator to do the actual move just to be sure.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2007 (EST)
  - If anything I like the word manipulation better. But still. Do we want to split the article? Like electromagnetism and electrical generation? Jason Garrick 18:15, 10 November 2007 (EST)
    - We can also just differentiate that different users have different abilities, like we do with other shared abilities. If it becomes too cumbersome or confusing, then we could consider splitting either the agent or the patient (or both) off from Elle and Peter. Personally, the powers seem quite different to me, but then again Matt's power and Maury's seemed quite different at first, too. Since powers can evolve/change so drastically, it might be best to just note that each different user is capable of different effects.--Hardvice (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2007 (EST)
      - Thus the problem remains what should the main article name be? Electromagnetism (which seems to be right out at this point), Electrokinesis, Electricity Manipulation, etc. --PeterDawson 23:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Electromagnetism/Archive 1

Contents

Name

Re: Ted's power

The dying patient.

Split?

To Summarize the Above

Rename Template

Then let's get the vote down.

Consensus

Note, Events & Archival

Electrogenesis

Bliss and Horror All Over Again

If which ever side wins, WINS

Navigation menu

Talk:Electromagnetism/Archive 1

Name

Re: Ted's power

The dying patient.

Split?

To Summarize the Above

Rename Template

Then let's get the vote down.

Consensus

Note, Events & Archival

Electrogenesis

Bliss and Horror All Over Again

If which ever side wins, WINS

Navigation menu

Search