Talk:The Company (Heroes)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for idle discussion of Heroes. Comments that do not pertain specifically to the improvement of the article "The Company (Heroes)" are subject to removal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Company (Heroes) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This page is within the scope of the Heroes WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Heroes. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


Archive Archives: June 5, 2007-November 10, 2007
|Archives: November 6,2007-December 28, 2007

[edit] Chart Powers

I have taken the liberty of placing unknown by the unknown powers since it has been said in-universe that they all have powers. Unless it says so else where. I will change it back, if someone can prove why NONE is better than UNKNOWN.--Spread The Word (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to prove that they all have or had powers, please specify your claim with a source...like the episode number and scene. otherwise, it is none known. there is no scene in the show where it states that all the founders had powers. if you have a reference that says they had powers, place it in the article. but as of right now, we have no verifiable source claiming that all the founders had powers.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd throw this out there. Mr. Petrelli was listed in Linda Tavara's Notebook in "War Buddies, Part 7" which in turn is shown to list those who are special in the "Bounty Hunter," so he may not be None, just Unspecified. Metatron (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
About 23 minutes into the first episode of season 2, Bob Bishop mentions tells Mohinder that the group was "formed 30 years ago with a group of like minded individuals, ordinary men and women who were gifted with extraordinary powers." So all of the founders did, in fact, have powers.
My God, thank you. I've been looking for that forever. I'll try and source it ASAP. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superhuman vision

Please stop changing "Superhuman vision" to "Telescopic vision". If you read the comic, her power is not limited to telescopic vision, as she can also see in the dark. Thus, "Telescopic vision" is not appropriate. Ophois (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read it and NBC says that she has telescopic vision, if you want a note then do so but you can't completely change it from the official source. It's against policy and is why people are skeptical of WIkipedia: People who edit based on their personal ideas. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
When did NBC say that she has telescopic vision? - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
He assignment tracker file. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about, "personal ideas"? The character states in the comic the different aspects of her vision. She has telescopic vision, in addition to microscopic and night vision. If the NBC people didn't bother to read the comic, that's not our fault. Ophois (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
So, Primatech listing "telescopic vision" as her "unique ability" counts as NBC saying she has telescopic vision, but Primatech listing "Can see clearly in darkness and magnify vision to various levels." as its detail, and the graphic novels also showing this, doesn't count as NBC saying there are other aspects to her ability? - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It means add a note, which Ophois doesn't seem to want to do. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Instead of Superhuman vision, I've changed it to Telescopic/Microscopic/Night vision to reflect those displayed in the comic.Ophois (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please just add a note. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop breaking the three revert rule. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a note makes absolutely no sense. What is the point of listing the power as "Telescopic vision" and then having a note that says that "Telescopic vision" is not her only ability? Ophois (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You say, "___ has the ability of ___ which allows ___ to do ___, ___ and ___". Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Donna has the ability of superhuman vision which allows nocturnal, microscopic, and telescopic vision. Ophois (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Telescopic vision cannot be used by itself. According to another official source, all three aspects are different abilities. Telescopic vision is "the ability to see far beyond the normal sight range of a human. This is accomplished when the mind of the user of the ability can psychically refract light, which makes objects appear closer than they actually are. This ability can be used to see over vast distances (up to miles away), but the actual radius is variable." Notice that it makes absolutely no reference to the other aspects of her ability. However, the site also lists abilities such as Microscopic vision and night vision, with the latter directly referencing that Donna has this ability. Ophois (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Activating Evolution is a wiki, though, not a source. Only these pages can be used: The Main Page, The Resources and Interviews Page and The Activating Evolution Introduction. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, Telescopic vision and nocturnal vision are unrelated. I suggest, going by your provided source: Enhanced visual cortex, allowing telescopic, microscopic, and nocturnal vision. Ophois (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
None of my sources say that. Only your sources do, unfortunately they are from a fan's OR point of view and not a reliable source. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as Donna doesn't need to be using her telescopic vision to use night vision, yes, they are unconnected and thus separate aspects. Ophois (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Primatechpaper.com is not a reliable source regarding the definition of words. If they use an inaccurate term, we should not repeat their mistakes; that's not encyclopedic. Fact is, telescopic vision is merely an aspect of Donna's power and cannot be listed as her complete power any more than Hiro's power can be listed as "teleportation". Donna's power could be listed as "telescopic, microscopic, and night vision", but that's a bit wordy. If a single term is used, it needs to be a generic term that covers all three of these abilities, such as "superhuman vision".

We are not Heroes Wiki. We have previously rejected supposedly official but inaccurate terms such as "alchemy", "induced radioactivity", "enhanced memory" (for a while, anyway), "lightning", and "talking to machines" in favor of the more accurate terms "transmutation", "radiation manipulation", "eidetic memory", "electric manipulation", and "technopathy". This is no different. Wanderer32 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Primatech is the highest canon we have. I don't see why a note won't work. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems kinda silly to use an inaccurate term with a note that essentially says, "This is an inaccurate term." Wanderer32 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
And enhanced memory and alchemy continue to be used. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A note such as "Superhuman vision which allows for telescopic, microscopic, and night vision" is pointless when you could merely list the three types by themselves.

And besides, Primatech is not the highest canon we have for it. The comic itself is. Ophois (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Though the comic does not give a name, only description. Putting all of those in that tiny column is extremely cluttered and a waste of space, why can't we just put a note at the bottom? Maybe even put "Enhanced vision" with the note saying all of that stuff down at the bottom, but Superhuman or a combination of all the names would be awful. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A note like that doesn't even belong in this article anyway, that information belongs in her entry on List of Heroes characters with special abilities. And what's wrong with "Superhuman"? That's what List of comic book superpowers uses. It means basically the same thing as "Enhanced". Wanderer32 (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple of things. The biggest of which is the ongoing argument of naming a person's power. But I'll tackle a couple of smaller issues first:

1) “Superhuman” is not the same as “Enhanced”. “Enhanced simply means that the ability was modified by other means. I have glasses so technically my vision is enhanced. Also, there is no human that can fly so that is a superhuman power, not an enhanced power.
2) The highest canon we have is the show. The comics come second in as much as they are depictions of the universes “reality”. Primatech is canon only in as much as it is not contradicted by a clear demonstration to the contrary.
3) The Primatech site presents itself as an in-universe cataloguing site and as such is subject to fallibility. They may think Donna only has telescopic vision when, in-universe, she has more than that.

Now we are forced to admit that we cannot “Name” a power, rather we are left to describe the power, and “Enhanced vision” is the most complete, accurate description we have at the moment. Vision being a human trait, hers has decidedly been enhanced. The comic has depicted her as being able to invoke multiple aspects of this enhancement. It comes down to Primatech simply not being aware of other aspects of her sight (this may, in fact, prove to be a plot device later). Padillah (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)