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:Portal:Abilities/Archive 1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
WARNING: Talk:Portal:Abilities/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Portal:Abilities. |
|
SO I was getting set to take Peter and Sylar off all the powers, and it just occurred to me that's gonna leave "cryokinesis" as "unknown" again, which seems wrong since there is a known user. Any ideas on how to make it clearer within the portal that we're listing only the original character? --Hardvice (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2007
- How about just a big disclaimer at the top that says "Only original holders of powers are listed. Those that have duplicated powers are not listed here." — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2007 (EST)
Engineer
- Any reason not to include the Engineer as an example of induced radioactivity even though he never actually aired? We do have articles on him plus the unaired episode is supposed to be included on the season one dvd set when it comes out. (Admin 12:47, 5 March 2007 (EST))
- Mostly to clean up the page. Every other power only lists one person per power. Plus, since he's a cut character, it's kind of an iffy judgment call. If you want to put him back, that's fine. I was just trying to streamline the page and follow suit with how he is now listed on induced radioactivity (in the notes). — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Superfluous space
Right now, only "Space-time manipulation" and "Electronic data transception" are taking up more than one line for the power name. It would look a lot more succinct, I think, if we shortened these two names and took out extra whitespace. We could change Hana's power (on this page only) to just "Data transception". I know it's not as descriptive, but it's just for this page, and it will link to the full description on Electronic data transception.... Hiro's power is a bit more tricky -- we could use one of his shorter power names ("teleportation" or "time travel" for instance). I know that's very limiting, but again, it's just for this page. We could also just put "Space-time", or "Bending space-time" might fit too.... Or we can just leave the big cells as they are. Thoughts? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)
- I like it as is. It doesn't really bother me that they take up two lines, and calling Hiro's power "Teleportation" or "Time Travel" even just on this page would be a lot worse in my opinion.--Hardvice (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2007 (EST)
- It kind of bugs me that there's so much space, but I'll deal. I agree, though, I can't think of a good solution for Hiro's power. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2007 (EST)
- Spacetime Control. and for Hana put Digital Transception.--DawnTreader 03:26, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
- It kind of bugs me that there's so much space, but I'll deal. I agree, though, I can't think of a good solution for Hiro's power. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Examples variable
Weird. I didn't think there was an examples variable anymore, but the examples link was just not showing up for me. I added it "examples=" and it showed up in the preview. When I took it off, the examples link was gone. It's showing up now, so it's kinda moot ... but weird, eh? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- Since the content of the page itself didn't change--just the results of one of the templates--it probably just showed you the cached page. It saw no edits to the page or its included templates and assumed that was correct.--Hardvice (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- ...but it went back after I took it off, which is the part that really gets me. ... Are you saying I just need to do a shift-F5 cache to see it? I'll try that next time. Thanks. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, yes, that is weird. Still, there's two separate caches going on; Mediawiki caches the generated pages (which I don't really know much about, except that it can create issues with randomized content) and your browser caches visited pages. I'd imagine it's just a combination of the two, though I'd be hard pressed to come up with an explanation.--Hardvice (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks ... I won't press you too hard. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, yes, that is weird. Still, there's two separate caches going on; Mediawiki caches the generated pages (which I don't really know much about, except that it can create issues with randomized content) and your browser caches visited pages. I'd imagine it's just a combination of the two, though I'd be hard pressed to come up with an explanation.--Hardvice (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- ...but it went back after I took it off, which is the part that really gets me. ... Are you saying I just need to do a shift-F5 cache to see it? I'll try that next time. Thanks. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Oneiromancy
Sorry if I'm bringing up something that has already been resolved. But shouldn't Peter's dreams be treated somewhere besides "Empathic Mimicry"? Even though they aren't perfect precognitions, they still seem to convey knowledge to him via extra-sensory means. In addition, it seems like Charles Devaux exhibited the same ability. And since that occurrence is the only canonical evidence of Devaux being an evolved human, there should be a place for it, especially since the groundwork is being laid for the audience to learn about his significance in earlier developments regarding evolved humans. The term "oneiromancy" applies more the ability to interpret dreams prophectically than the ability to have prophetic dreams. But I think it covers both. And it might be a good way to capture what Peter does and what Devaux did without causing confusion between that and Isaac's precognition.--E rowe 18:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Don't be sorry, you have legitimate questions. Peter's visions are mentioned briefly on empathic mimicry--I personally don't think they should be there, but I'm not so objected to them there, so I haven't removed them. There hasn't really been much talk about it--this is all I could find. His dreams are dealt with in much more depth on the Peter's visions article. As for the part about Charles Deveaux, I would say it sounds very reasonable, but it's still a theory or a spoiler. Does that answer your question? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- My thoughts about oneiromancy--isn't that more of a practice that people actually use today, and less of a superpower? To me, it would be like saying somebody who can predict the future based on the stars has the power of "astrology". I'm not sure that oneiromancy is a power, but rather an actual system or study (no matter how dubious it may be). — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- You're right about oneiromancy. But the people who do it (or did it in cultures where it was valued) believe and act like it works. As far as they're concerned it's a supernatural ability. I would say the same about astrology. The fact that we may think it's all hokum in the real world shouldn't stop us from accepting it as a power in the world of heroes. There are people around who practice telekinesis (*cough* yeah right...fake), but that shouldn't stop us from naming the power in Heroes that, just because it really works in Heroes but it doesn't in real life. But with Devaux, it's not a spoiler is it? I mean his daughter said he dreamed of flying with Peter in an already aired episode. So I would view that as a canonical reference to his experiencing essentially the same kind of dream as Peter's on at least that occasion if no other.--E rowe 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Good points, though I'd still call it something like "dream interpretation" since "oneiromancy" isn't a well-known term, in my opinion. Regardless, we're talking about a hypothetical power. I don't think we're ready to say that just because Charles had a dream, that now he's an evolved human. He very well may be, but we'll need more confirmation. Afterall, we never said that was Peter's power, and Peter experienced dreams from the first episode. As for Deveaux, I think being portrayed by the man who once was "Shaft" is even more of a power, but that's just me... :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I just checked the OED, and it seems that oneiromancy is limited to prophetic dream interpretation rather than prophetic dreaming. Same for oneiroscopy. Unfortunately, even in the OED there isn't a whole lot on either term. So, I agree, those aren't ideal names here. But if others agree, I tend to think it should be a separately named power and that its canonical occurrences include that of Devaux as well as those of Peter. These occurrences are not a theory or spoiler; they are from canon sources. Something like suggesting that Peter got the power from Devaux via mimicry would be a mere theory. I'm still up in the air about the right name.--E rowe 18:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- The trouble is, there's too little we know about these dreams. It's possible Charles had a power, or it's possible Peter picked up the power from somebody else and used it with Charles the way Sanjog used his powers with Mohinder. We can't even be 100% sure it really is a separate power, and not merely an aspect of Peter's power (it's likely, but far from certain). For that matter, it may not even be a power ... it would require some really awful writing, but it's possible they're just dreams. I just can't see the advantage of locking in a name for a possible power we know next to nothing about, including the possessor, the effects, and the limitations. Even if the article itself isn't conjecture, everything of value we could say within it would be. I think Peter's visions is adequate for now: it details what we've seen without making any assumptions as to the cause, source, veracity, or meaning, all of which would be speculation.--Hardvice (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I just checked the OED, and it seems that oneiromancy is limited to prophetic dream interpretation rather than prophetic dreaming. Same for oneiroscopy. Unfortunately, even in the OED there isn't a whole lot on either term. So, I agree, those aren't ideal names here. But if others agree, I tend to think it should be a separately named power and that its canonical occurrences include that of Devaux as well as those of Peter. These occurrences are not a theory or spoiler; they are from canon sources. Something like suggesting that Peter got the power from Devaux via mimicry would be a mere theory. I'm still up in the air about the right name.--E rowe 18:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Good points, though I'd still call it something like "dream interpretation" since "oneiromancy" isn't a well-known term, in my opinion. Regardless, we're talking about a hypothetical power. I don't think we're ready to say that just because Charles had a dream, that now he's an evolved human. He very well may be, but we'll need more confirmation. Afterall, we never said that was Peter's power, and Peter experienced dreams from the first episode. As for Deveaux, I think being portrayed by the man who once was "Shaft" is even more of a power, but that's just me... :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- You're right about oneiromancy. But the people who do it (or did it in cultures where it was valued) believe and act like it works. As far as they're concerned it's a supernatural ability. I would say the same about astrology. The fact that we may think it's all hokum in the real world shouldn't stop us from accepting it as a power in the world of heroes. There are people around who practice telekinesis (*cough* yeah right...fake), but that shouldn't stop us from naming the power in Heroes that, just because it really works in Heroes but it doesn't in real life. But with Devaux, it's not a spoiler is it? I mean his daughter said he dreamed of flying with Peter in an already aired episode. So I would view that as a canonical reference to his experiencing essentially the same kind of dream as Peter's on at least that occasion if no other.--E rowe 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Teleportation,clairvoyance
- Shouldn't we have a section for Other about powers the Chandra mentioned. Jason Garrick 18:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hmm. I like that idea, except not much can really be said about them other than "Chandra mentions it in his journal". Heroe!(talk) 18:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Plus, it's not really clear if they're different powers or just different names for known powers. For that matter, since they're from the journal, which predates any of Chandra's contacts with confirmed evolved humans, it's not even clear if they exist.--Hardvice (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- That also goes for "Dynamic Camouflage" from the Genesis Files. I think mentioning them on their appropriate pages is enough since, well, that's all we know about them. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Plus, it's not really clear if they're different powers or just different names for known powers. For that matter, since they're from the journal, which predates any of Chandra's contacts with confirmed evolved humans, it's not even clear if they exist.--Hardvice (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hmm. I like that idea, except not much can really be said about them other than "Chandra mentions it in his journal". Heroe!(talk) 18:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Lead Images
I'm feeling torn regarding a few of the lead issues on this page. On the one hand, I'm glad to see that the lead images in the portals are matching the lead images in the power pages themselves. On the other hand, there's something that strikes me funny to see a power a person demonstrating a power, but their name is not listed in the cell. For instance, the image of Sylar performing telekinesis is beautiful. However, it seems odd to have a picture of Sylar in a cell that reads "Telekinesis (Brian Davis)". Same goes for electromagnetism. The agent and patient are correctly listed as original holders of the power, yet we don't see them on this page. Am I the only one who breaks a sweat thinking about such trivial matters? :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- I'm with you on the Sylar one ... it's a better image, but it doesn't match the cell too well. But I'll take Peter over the other two because it's an episodic shot. I'm weird like that. That said, I think overall I like the portal matching the pages.--Hardvice (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- One option one be to remove the link for the original holders. It's not really necessary information on this page, and it could make the cells a good deal smaller, which is not a bad idea since this page is a bit long for a portal. It would also be helpful with these multiple-holders powers (what do we do when we meet a football team who can all fly?)--Hardvice (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- Here's an example of what it would look like without holders. I vastly prefer it, myself.--Hardvice (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- To quote Jennifer Coolidge in Best in Show, "Yah, me too." -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- Here's an example of what it would look like without holders. I vastly prefer it, myself.--Hardvice (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- For my own part when I look at the page I focus on the images and don't even look at the names, so it never really occurred to me. On one hand it's a Powers portal so the holder of the power isn't as important; it's just supplemental information. On the other hand I can see how it might seem odd to show someone using a power who's not listed below it. Personally, since it's the powers portal I'd rather see the portal image match the image we have on the corresponding power page. It seems more consistent to me and makes it easier to pick which image belongs on the portal, but I can't say that I have a strong opinion one way or the other. (Admin 02:48, 17 October 2007 (EDT))
- I don't mind the difference, actually. I'm with you on that it shows Brian Davis' name (oh lord, singular possessive ah!) and Sylar's picture is there, it can cause confusion. But as for the lead of the power page itself, I think that whatever shows the best or most aesthetic demonstration of the ability should be the lead, such as Sylar with the glass. For invisibility, I think Peter has better demonstrations of actually turning invisible, whereas Claude has done it once or twice, but we just see him "visible" most of the time. So for me, I don't mind having different pictures, but I'm with you in that the pic on the portal should match the name.--Bob (Talk) 02:49, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for your candidness, boys. Removing the name would make this ever-growing portal a bit smaller, and would solve all problems. The name is not necessary to the concept of the portal. I'd remove it. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- I don't mind the difference, actually. I'm with you on that it shows Brian Davis' name (oh lord, singular possessive ah!) and Sylar's picture is there, it can cause confusion. But as for the lead of the power page itself, I think that whatever shows the best or most aesthetic demonstration of the ability should be the lead, such as Sylar with the glass. For invisibility, I think Peter has better demonstrations of actually turning invisible, whereas Claude has done it once or twice, but we just see him "visible" most of the time. So for me, I don't mind having different pictures, but I'm with you in that the pic on the portal should match the name.--Bob (Talk) 02:49, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Original Holders of Abilities?
Sorry for being a little obvious but i noticed that the original holders of the abilities were removed from the box. I was just curious on why they were removed and I thought that they should be placed back there. They didn't seem to bother anyone so i see no harm in someone bringing them back.
- The portal was getting really huge. Removing them saved space and also saved the trouble we're running into from some powers having lots of "original" holders and some having only one. It's not really necessary information on the portal itself, which is really just a list of links to articles when you get down to it.--Hardvice (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
- i have a suggestion for the problem of space on this page. although it would make it one step more difficult to find a single power, why not classify powers into groups. at this point i think that peter and monica can be grouped into a classification of mimicry. i think that Matt, His dad, The Haitian, Charlie, Betty (aka Candice), and Charles can be grouped into mental manipulation. elemental manipulation would be Elle, Sylar (the Freezing power), Meredith, and Maarten. Electronic Manipulation would be Hana and Micah. Body manipulation would be Claire, and Nikki (or Jessica depending on who you think has the super strength). having the powers grouped like that would allow for a smaller portal page with a article page for the group that would have links down to the articles for the individual powers. just a thought i had while discussing some other stuff elsewhere.--DawnTreader 03:39, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
Whoah
I didn't think we needed to make a global move from "powers" to "abilities". I think it's probably OK, but does anybody want to weigh in on this?--Hardvice (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I'll start: my biggest concern with "abilities" is that it doesn't convey that these are superhuman abilities. I have lots of abilities. I'm able to bake a pretty decent pie, for example. I wouldn't want "piekinesis" included on this portal, though.--Hardvice (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I'm glad you said that. I almost feel badly for exerting my opinion on the word. Both words have been used in canon sources, and really can be used interchangably. I personally prefer "Ability", but that's just me. There's no reason to change everything on the site, I agree. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I agree, this was being discussed on "Talk:List of abilities". It was originally just powers, then a couple people chimed in about changing it to "Lists of..." and pointed out that "abilities" was better for the case of evolved abilities that people don't want, which they didn't think should be called powers. I kind of disagree, and noted that...then I saw that the change was going global. Oh well. My opinion is that for consistancy it should be one or the other. Since I appear to be outvoted, I'm assisting in the changeover.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Sorry guys... I thought as we changed one, it would be silly to have "Powers" in some part of the site, and "Abilities" in another....-- Lost Soul talk contribs 16:07, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- True, any chance an admin or two can revert the edits and change it to "List of powers", etc., for consistency?--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- There are some contexts in which it just makes more sense to leave it "powers", like on the character pages. If the section is just labeled "abilities", or the infobox labeled "Known abilities:", then we're going to get things like "watching porn" on Ando. Really, it depends on whether the context makes it clear that we're talking about superhuman abilities. Also, I just noticed that some of the character pages are labeled "Ability" and some are labeled "Abilities". We should choose one or the other and stick with it, if we do decide to change them.--Hardvice (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I think if we're calling them abilities we should make the change consistently and rename it on the character pages. If calling them "abilities" isn't a clear enough term then we shouldn't use it. Perhaps call it "Special abilities" or "Evolved abilities", but I do feel the term "ability" should be used over "power" if it's being changed elsewhere. If it's not good enough to be used everywhere then we'd be better off falling back to "power" which was good enough to be used everywhere (though I personally feel "ability" or variations of it could be used everywhere as well) (Admin 18:15, 19 November 2007 (EST))
- I agree. I updated the character pages which were changed to refer to them as "evolved human abilities", which is clearer. Now, depending on what we decide, we can either change everything back to power or proceed with changes to ability, but in the meantime everything is at least accurate.--Hardvice (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Though I generally prefer "abilities" over "powers", there are definitely instances in which one is better than the other, and neither is superior than the other. I don't think that there needs to be consistency in using one word or the other in this case. On the show, both terms (and their variants, like "superpowers" and "extraordinary abilities") have been used interchangeably. I have no problem using them interchangeably, too. Of course, there are times we need to be consistent--like if the top of the bar on template:power points to Portal:Abilities, then it should read "Abilities" not "Powers". Also, the titles of articles should be consistent (Maya's ability and Alejandro's ability, or Maya's power and Alejandro's power, but not Maya's ability and Alejandro's power). But generally, I don't see a problem using both terms somewhat interchangeably, particularly in summaries and descriptions. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I think we're pretty much on the same page here. We don't need to change it in summaries and descriptions, however in places where it's used as a term (i.e. infoboxes, navigation at the bottom of pages, section titles) we should be consistent. As far as summaries and descriptions I agree it doesn't really matter as much. (Admin 18:50, 19 November 2007 (EST))
- Though I generally prefer "abilities" over "powers", there are definitely instances in which one is better than the other, and neither is superior than the other. I don't think that there needs to be consistency in using one word or the other in this case. On the show, both terms (and their variants, like "superpowers" and "extraordinary abilities") have been used interchangeably. I have no problem using them interchangeably, too. Of course, there are times we need to be consistent--like if the top of the bar on template:power points to Portal:Abilities, then it should read "Abilities" not "Powers". Also, the titles of articles should be consistent (Maya's ability and Alejandro's ability, or Maya's power and Alejandro's power, but not Maya's ability and Alejandro's power). But generally, I don't see a problem using both terms somewhat interchangeably, particularly in summaries and descriptions. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I agree. I updated the character pages which were changed to refer to them as "evolved human abilities", which is clearer. Now, depending on what we decide, we can either change everything back to power or proceed with changes to ability, but in the meantime everything is at least accurate.--Hardvice (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Revert all my changes then, it's cool. My bad. I just thought that as an admin decided, that was the decision. It's cool, I get a bit over-eager sometimes... :o :) Sorry, again.-- Lost Soul talk contribs 16:11, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I don't think we need to revert everything just yet. I think we just need to make up our minds before we proceed one way or the other. I agree that "ability" is less loaded than "power", but I remain worried that it's too mundane to convey in all contexts that we're talking extraordinary abilities. My suggestion would be to use "ability", but where necessary, refer to them as "evolved human abilities", which makes it clearer that we aren't talking about being good at Tetris.--Hardvice (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- See what you mean. In that case, maybe "power" is better.... I'd best go to bed. :D-- Lost Soul talk contribs 16:18, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Actually, I do prefer "ability" to "power", which sounds kind of hokey and Pokemonesque whenever somebody actually says it out loud. But we need to make sure we're clear what we mean when we say "ability".--Hardvice (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Right, we should make up our minds before proceeding to change. However, this change is incomplete. We need to rollback to powers for now. The longer we wait, the harder it is to undo. I prefer "powers" and a global change like this should be voted on. Powers just makes more sense to me.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Kind of ironic that this is coming up now when the volume 2 finale is called "Powerless". Heh, so why isn't anyone replying?--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I just don't see the advantage in undoing a bunch of changes which we'll probably end up redoing anyway. The universe is not going to collapse if some articles say "powers" and others say "abilities". That said, I updated many of the changes to "abilities" so that in the interim, they will at least be clearly referring to superhuman abilities.--Hardvice (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- See what you mean. In that case, maybe "power" is better.... I'd best go to bed. :D-- Lost Soul talk contribs 16:18, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I don't think we need to revert everything just yet. I think we just need to make up our minds before we proceed one way or the other. I agree that "ability" is less loaded than "power", but I remain worried that it's too mundane to convey in all contexts that we're talking extraordinary abilities. My suggestion would be to use "ability", but where necessary, refer to them as "evolved human abilities", which makes it clearer that we aren't talking about being good at Tetris.--Hardvice (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I think if we're calling them abilities we should make the change consistently and rename it on the character pages. If calling them "abilities" isn't a clear enough term then we shouldn't use it. Perhaps call it "Special abilities" or "Evolved abilities", but I do feel the term "ability" should be used over "power" if it's being changed elsewhere. If it's not good enough to be used everywhere then we'd be better off falling back to "power" which was good enough to be used everywhere (though I personally feel "ability" or variations of it could be used everywhere as well) (Admin 18:15, 19 November 2007 (EST))
- Sorry guys... I thought as we changed one, it would be silly to have "Powers" in some part of the site, and "Abilities" in another....-- Lost Soul talk contribs 16:07, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I agree, this was being discussed on "Talk:List of abilities". It was originally just powers, then a couple people chimed in about changing it to "Lists of..." and pointed out that "abilities" was better for the case of evolved abilities that people don't want, which they didn't think should be called powers. I kind of disagree, and noted that...then I saw that the change was going global. Oh well. My opinion is that for consistancy it should be one or the other. Since I appear to be outvoted, I'm assisting in the changeover.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I'm glad you said that. I almost feel badly for exerting my opinion on the word. Both words have been used in canon sources, and really can be used interchangably. I personally prefer "Ability", but that's just me. There's no reason to change everything on the site, I agree. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- As far as article naming is concerned I think we've always referred to them a powers. To use both power and ability interchangably in article names is confusing. So, yes, article names should use the term "power" unless there's consensus on a global change from power to ability (specifically in article naming). In terms of the text of an article I'd agree that power and ability are fairly interchangable, but we should be consistent in article naming. Powers or abilities both sound ok to me as terms, but they really should be consistent. Since we've used Powers in the past I suspect there'd be a lot of work involved to change it globally and probably not much payoff, though if all references to "power" are updated to "ability" quickly then I wouldn't mind personally since I just want to see whichever term is preferred used consistently. (Admin 17:51, 19 November 2007 (EST))
- How about "Portal:Gifts" or "Portal:Private Freak Shows" or "Portal:Godsends" or "Portal:Curses" or "Portal:Blessings"... (I prefer power to ability) --DocM 17:55, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Also I just checked around and it looks like most of the references to "Power" have already been updated to "Ability"... so I may have overestimated the amount of work required to change it. In any event whether they're called powers or abilities doesn't make much difference to me, as long as we're consistent when it comes to article naming. (Admin 18:05, 19 November 2007 (EST))
Powers v. Abilities in Article Titles
On further examination of the transcripts, I'm leaning towards "abilities" more heavily. The Company (except for Claude, who uses both), Chandra, and Mohinder always call them abilities. The only people to consistently refer to them as "powers" are Hiro and Micah. Most everybody else uses them fairly interchangeably, including Peter and Sylar, who are the ones who talk about powers the most.--Hardvice (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I mentioned it before, but I like either name. As long as whichever name is preferred is used consistently in all places (though not necessarily within in-world summary sections) I can go for either term. (Admin 18:17, 19 November 2007 (EST))
- Assuming we do update to "abilities", then, here's what still would need to happen:
- Finish the pages in Category:Evolved Humans (the bot can actually do this).
- Rename Power extension, Power heredity, and Power theft.
- Assuming we do update to "abilities", then, here's what still would need to happen:
- Most of the category:powers articles already refer to them as abilities, so at this point it's really six of one, half-dozen of the other. It makes more sense to come to a decision and proceed one way or the other rather than reverting everything now and potentially end up redoing half of it.--Hardvice (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Ok, bot has renamed them all now. (Admin 18:51, 19 November 2007 (EST))
- Any chance you could have it go through Category:Evolved Humans and change ==[[****|Abilities]]== to ==[[Evolved human]] [[****|abilities]]==? I did that to the first batch already.--Hardvice (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Ok, bot has renamed them all now. (Admin 18:51, 19 November 2007 (EST))
Abilities cat
- As a side note, the real work is to change over the powers to a new Category:Abilities or Category:Evolved Human Abilities, as the text of this portal now says. Since you don't want to do the revert, I ask that you please run the cat-changing bot so it is consistent.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- I'll wait a little bit just to make sure no one has a change of heart, but recategorizing the power articles will be pretty easy. (Admin 18:23, 19 November 2007 (EST))
- Ok, the powers have been re-categorized now as Category:Abilities. Can always be renamed again if necessary. (Admin 18:51, 19 November 2007 (EST))
Umbrakenesis & Lumokinesis
NBC's Heroes wiki has a page for abilities and it lists Umbrakenesis & Lumokinesis as abilities. --Snow Leapord 20:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)
- Ah, the wiki. Much like our wiki, anybody can add content. Much of theirs is fan speculation, and a fair amount is vandalism and just plain silly. I wouldn't put too much stock in what you find there, though I'm sure it's a pretty entertaining read. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2007 (EST)
- Yeah, both of NBC's wikis aren't maintained, have incorrect information, and are heavily vandalized. The only two wikis with accurate Heroes information are this wiki and Wikipedia...and ours has more information since it's focused on Heroes rather than being a general-purpose encyclopedia. (Admin 21:19, 30 November 2007 (EST))