Theory talk:Abilities by classical element

General discussion of the project

couldn't have revised the intro better myself, nice work (although I'd still have had wind rather than air)!--SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (EST)

• Thanks, now the unanswered question is should I convert the lists to portal elements like I have done for Dr. Suresh's category, or should I add tables so users can add arguments yes/no as to whether a certain ability belongs to a certain element category? I'm starting to lean towards the latter, but what do you think?--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (EST)
  • I'd say the latter would be the best fit, but with a picture of the ability and link to the page (the latter if it wouldnt be there already)--SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)
    • Yeah, both could be feasible. I'm going to sleep on it and continue work on it tommorrow.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)
      • Feel free to refine the wording on my arguments and add your own after I have put the initial ones in. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)
        • I plan to. But as soon as you finish this page, I think we can move them to the main and theory namespaces, accordingly, since technically they are going to the theory namespace and not fan creations. Correct?--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
          • Right! :)--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (EST)
• All arguments are done and Ready for the big time and any augmentations you want to make.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)
  • Terrific! If no one else comments that we should wait and no one else moves them first, I'll likely move them tommorrow afternoon.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
• I never really felt comfortable with categorizing abilities because it's just speculation. Until there's a canon source categorizing them, I just don't think it's necessary to draw any lines among them. I think this should remain as a subpage.--Bob (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2007 (EST)
  • Well, that's the whole idea of having theory section. The idea *is* to speculate. Am I missing something?--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2007 (EST)
    • I dont think so. This was just a passing thought, an egg, on thursday that's growing into a well fleshed out theory. Right now it's in the cocoon, waiting to come out as a beautiful monarch butterfly. This is nowhere near as half baked as way better baked than red, imho. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)
    • I think that it's a bit misleading in its present format. I think the beginning of the theory page should be slightly reordered to show that the page isn't merely navigation for the ability theory pages, but is itself a theory on how the abilities exist. That's my problem with it, because when reading it, it feels like it's just organizing theory pages based on some organization. --Bob (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2007 (EST)
      • You mean that the introduction should be reworded? I'm not getting what you mean by re-ordered, but I'll take a stab at clarifying it some more.--MiamiVolts (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2007 (EST)
        • Ok, I reworded both pages to make it more obvious that the pages themselves are theories. I also fixed the italics. Is it okay now, Bob?--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)
          • looks good!--SacValleyDweller (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)
          • Great, and what does Bob think?--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)
            • Much clearer, thanks. I'd take off the ability template at the bottom for the see also section, but that's just me. But good job.--Bob (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (EST)
              • Good catch, I swapped them to use the Theorybar template instead of the portal back template. I'll move them over now.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)
                • Dont forget the door to this and your "by dr. suresh" project in the portal.SacValleyDweller (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)
                  • Already got it. I purposedly copied the portal last so, in case anyone was using it, they wouldn't see the redlinks. The move is done now. Woohoo! ;)--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Wind vs. Air

If we switch to the Japanese classical elements, we can use Wind, but then we have to add another category called Void. We can do that as a seperate page.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2007 (EST)

• Four genes doesnt fit well with five elements (unless Mohinder discovers more genes that regulate abilities). The only things I could think of for void would be the mimicry or a dumping ground for the unknowns. it would make another neat page project, though.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Unclear cases

• I think since we are doing this as an open theory page that we should eliminate the unclear cases section and move those abilities to the appropriate sections. Anyways, unlike Chandra's theory, this theory permits overlap. In fact, that means we can get rid of the 'All elements' case too. Opinions?--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2007 (EST)
  • that works, we'll just note how multiple-element abilites fit with their respective elements, and note ther two unclear with "may involve Air, not water" or something to that effect in the tables.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)
    • Ok, I'm adding the tables. I think you should be the one to add the arguments for this theory since it was your idea, after all.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (EST)
      • ok, I'll add them at my leisure.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Page size

Just thought I'd note that in the case that these classification pages get too large, that since they are already split into subpages, it shouldn't be difficult to convert the main pages into portals.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)