Talk:List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Luck based powers anyone?

Yep, Ithink that is missing and maybe many more...

Probablity manipulation. It's already there.David the Phantom 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fantastic

Trying to remember - I don't recall Reed ever completely deforming out of humanoid shape. IIRC, he always maintains at least vestigial head, arms and legs, however else he stretches. Am I wrong (I very well could be...)? Applejuicefool 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

He might not have but he doesnt have to have all of the examples. If you can find a better example though feel free to put it. It can only make the list more complete. Thefro552
I was thinking more along the lines of a minor edit to the power wording: "Elasticity: Ability to stretch, deform, expand and contract one's body into nearly (or almost) any form one can imagine." Applejuicefool 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont know a whole lot about plastic man so i cant say if he can deform out of his humanoid shape or not. If he can we might want to keep it like it is and find a better example for Marvel. I think I have seen pics of Plastic man in a ball and such. Thefro552
Just to weigh in,(it might be a bit late) but Plastic Man is a true shapeshifter and has been established in the pages of JLA as incredibly powerful (especially during Joe Kelly's run) . He's limited though in that he can't change his colour; so he can form any size/shape but he'll still have the same pink/red/yellow/black colour scheme. As for Mr Fantastic I also don't recall him changing shape per se, just extremely deforming his humanoid form. Palendrom 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Plastic Man is shown to be able to change his color in a JLA storyline involving his son, I believe. CovenantD 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok lets talk.

Ok, Jc usually im cool with most of your edits but this time i think you seriuosly should have discussed at least a little before going on the edit spree. First i would like to know why you felt that androids, aliens and techonlogy based powers should go. The indtroduction, that has been like that for as long as I can remember, says "characters with superhuman, supernatural or paranormal abilities".

Now I was fine when you took off the object based characters becuase yeah that didnt fit the description. But this is ridiculose(spelled wrong I know). Robot and alien beings are the main characters of both DC and Marvel Universes.

Also many of your new character examples are stubs that dont describe the power well. Isnt that the purpose of the example. Thats why the description is so little becuase we let the examples speak for themselves. Thefro552

Robots and aliens may be some of the characters of the universes, but that doesn't make them even the majority.

I removed robots/androids so that we can avoid the eventual arguement about whether they are objects or not. (This is a page of super powers, not one of metaphysical existence.) I think there are enough examples out there for powers that we don't "need" them. Vision under density control was my main regret, since I was/am having a hard time thinking of someone else as good an example, but on the other hand, it will end the constant reversion of Shadowcat. (Red Tornado under wind manipulation was similar.)

And I didn't remove all aliens, I just worked to minimise their usage. (There were actually very few, as I recall). Superman is still on the list, for example, as is Starfire. The only one I thought about adding back was Martian Manhunter to density control or telepathy, for obvious reasons. The use of aliens can detract from the clarity of the examples similar to how a character with 50 powers can cause ambiguity.

Oh and I also removed the Legion commented out sections. (I was surprised that you didn't even comment on it : ) - jc37 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Martian Manhunter to density. - jc37 14:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok i still dont agree with you. The androids such as Vision, Red Tornado, and Ultron have gained sentiance and are characters in there own right, not just some sort of mindless machine. That I think makes the point to object argumant which can be postponed for later.
I still have other problems. For one what is with the fusioncasting. There is only a handful of characters that use it and none of them are even used as examples for powers. I dont think it deserves its own category.
Also, if there is no known example from another company but one from the same the so be it. As Ive seen it we try to use different companies when possible but its not a rule. If its possible to provide two examples from the same company we should at least to give a better idea of the power.
And finally about the LSH, I had excepted that as an inevitablity. Plus it was kinda early in the morning and I was more focused on putting down the discussion. My only suprise is that you did it. Thefro552

1.) Red Tornado aside (since he's not "technically" an android), The trouble with Ultron and other robots is technically they could have any power or ability. Is a robot a single entity or multiple entities? Is it merely it's programming or it's body? There are issues here that "normally" we don't have to deal with when talking about non-robot characters. And are all these things new "powers"? or are they abilities which may be programmed/designed into a robot or other technology. I think that's the fine line. And it's partially why there has been confision about "technopathy". Should we consider technology "superhuman"? Then the ability to toast bread should be listed : )

Most abilities of a robot can be ascribed as a piece of hardware, potentially interchangable. Ultron, especially. Walking computers (sentient or not) like MODOK I, or Ultron, or Computo, should not be listed as examples, and really should have no need to be. Vision, on the other hand, his density control would seem to be an "inherent" trait, and not so easily interchanged with something else. Amazo's power asborbing ability would be another example.

If we choose to include androids, fine, but we really should minimise their use as examples to when we have no other example, to reduce ambiguity and confusion. - jc37 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

2.) Fusionkasting was something I found while going through the various character pages. It's a valid method, even if it's limited to a single comics company's universe. All the powers that such characters have is derived from the method of fusionkasting. - jc37 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

3.) Well I did leave a couple company duplicates in place, but again, we should minimise such uses unless there are no other examples. - jc37 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

4.) My final decision about the LSH was because their timeline has become so screwy that it's becoming hard to "name" the characters anymore. Not to mention that there's the "Post-Zero Hour" mess that's be re-re-re-retconned. (Alternate timelines and such, do not make good examples. I would remove "Ultimate" examples for similar reasons.) (I also avoided them due to the fact that nearly every one of them is technically an "alien" from the future : ) - jc37 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok were finally getting somewhere. You make valid points about the androids. I think a guideline needs to be placed that part of there powers should have to come from somthing other than their technology.
I still think that Fusionkasting should be taken off unless you can name some valid examples. I would feel better with at least two. In my view it seems like just another comic book neologism that is just really silly.
Aliens should be fine examples since most of them are organic beings whos abilities are super in comparison to humans. Even though it might be normal to them, compared to normal baseline humans its superhuman. I think that we can agree thats what the "scale"(lack of a better word) should be based on.
Finally, I know your looking forward to it, I agree that same company examples should not be used if there are other possible, valid, options. But in the cases where ones cant be found then it should be fine. Thefro552 11:30, 15 Nov 2006
See: Nexus (comics)#Fusionkasting for an explanation of the power. See Nexus (comics)#The Nexus Universe for a list of characters who use that power, including several who have their own pages (Such as Judah Maccabee). [[- jc37 06:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ive visited that page and read through it a few times. There are examples yes but, most are just names with the small description. The one that has an actual page, Judah Maccabee, is nothing more than a stub. Nothing about the section gives a good enough character for an example. Thefro552

Ah and I believe that a revision of the introduction is in order. I noticed alot of rules we use, trying to use different companies, the androids if we agree, number of examples...., wouldnt be common knowledge to editers new to the page. I tried to tweak it before in regards to the examples but CovenentD cut that quick. Thefro552 11:36, 15 Nov 2006

Ok, done. Feel free to further clarify, obviously. - jc37 06:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I dont mean to keep getting technical but is there a better way to make it more obvious. Personally when I am going to change a particuler category I just go for the edit tab for that category. Im fairly sure thats what most users do also(I could be wrong obviously). I cant remember when I have hit the Powers edit tab to change something.

I dont think most users will see the guidlines. If they cant see them then they obviously wont follow them. The list is good, you did a good job but I just not sure if it will be usefull in its current, somewhat hidden state. Thefro552 12:30, 16 Nov 2006

I was already thinking the same thing. : ) - Check it out now. - jc37 06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Still the same problem. They would have to edit the whole page to see the page guidlines. Thefro552 12:37, 16 Nov 2006
I see, your concern is when someone may edit a section rather than the whole page. Not much we can do about that. - jc37 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yea it would be too much to just put on the main page. Do you know of anyway to make it pop up on all of the edit pages. Might be a bit cluttered but it would deffinetly get the point across. Thefro552 12:43, 16 Nov 2006
Too cluttered, and one reference on the page should be enough. If necessary, we can refer to it in discussions and edit summaries. ("See criteria at the top of the article while editing.") - jc37 06:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know the nights up for me, gotta sleep. So dont expect another comment till tommorow. Wouldnt want you waiting up for me now. Thefro552 12:49, 16 Nov 2006

Have a good night : ) - jc37 06:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


There are two tasks that I think those who watch this page would be directly interested in:

  • 1.) the -kinesis and -genesis neologisms are still extant (requiring removal) on the various articles, and especially in the various SHB.

The first is just a request for help. Remove 'em when you find 'em : )

The second is a request for a discussion. Looking forward to your thoughts. - jc37 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Im game if you want my help. Ive thought that some of the pages need the the neologisms taken off too. Im right there with you Jc. Thefro552 9:55, 16 Nov 2006
OK I went through and got all the character examples changed, I may have missed some of the words that wernt highlighted in the the text. Im starting on the List of Marvel Comics characters. I going to just run down the list and change them as I see them. Thefro552 10:48, 16 Nov 2006


Then I have to ask are we going to leave that on the character pages or what. Even if it isnt technically a neoligism should it belong. I think that editors will become confused as to why that can stay while everything else cannot. Thefro552 12:45, 17 Nov 2006

No, I don't believe it should stay on character pages. However, the point about the rest was that they were neologisms which editors made up, rather than someone external to the encyclopedia.
Pyrokinesis, on the other hand, is an existing term. However, since we also agreed that Psychokinesis should not be used for our fictional uses (and just linked to), so too, I presume for Pyrokinesis. I happened to find a list of fictional uses, so I linked to it instead.
Hopefully that clarifies? - jc37 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
sorry to jump in here, but I disagree with this. Psychokinesis is not used because it is very similar to (most people percieve it as the same as) telekinesis, which is a much more established term for the ability in Fiction. However, Pyrokinesis is the correct term for fire control, it is not a neologism, so unless we are going to remove telekinesis as well, pyrokinesis should stay. Jacobshaven3 20:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well even if pyrokinesis is correct it doesnt mean it has to the name of the power. I guess the tab can stay but Fire manipulation works just fine. I also looks better. Thefro552 5:04, 17 Nov 2006
Fine with me. It also causes less likely-hood for a return of the neologisms by some zealous editor. - jc37 02:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur, for what it's worth. It's a real term, but best not used on this page. CovenantD 18:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been out voted so I'll leave this as my last. However, if we are going to change pyrokinesis to Fire Manipulation, simply because it goes with a simpler more obvious answer lacking the "kinesis" suffix (even though states it as the term for the super power), then fusionkasting should be changed to Solar Absorbtion, since that is what it really is (absorbing the energy from the core of stars), and Telekinesis should really be changed to "Psionic Control" since thats all that is really (using the mind to control something), and since it has that evil little Kinesis suffix.Jacobshaven3 01:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not "solar absorption", instead "telekinetic stellar-energy absorption" as it is the absorption of stellar energy through a wide theorically unlimited margin of space, its similiar but different from Superman's which requirs him to be in contact with the star's light or energy radiation and needs the star to be solar (propertieset al) GTB 5:16 am 21/11/2006 (Not UTC; GMT-5)

Control VS Create

(sorry to jump in)

I tried, but couldn't figure out this on the page:

some people can control fire but don't have the power to make it. Some people can create and control it. Some people and just create it; like snaping there fingers and a candle lights up, but can't control it once it's lit.

or am i looking at this page wrong? thanks Kelly-- FyiFoff 13:00 17 November 2006 (EST) FyiFoff 17:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, reserve comments on the talk page for issues about the article itself, not the subject. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
that's what i'm doing. I so a WHOLE VOID in the superhero power thing. Superheros have more then just powers, they have control levels and creating powers and the time needed to do so included on this page--

FyiFoff 15:25 17 November 2006 (EST)

Very, very, VERY bad idea. Sorry. "Control levels", and for that matter "Power strength", are intentionally vague in comics. If we start including that, we'd have various role-playing game references at best, and a HORDE of WP:OR at worst. Nice intention, but wouldn't work. - jc37 02:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Should it matter

Should it matter if a comic book character is alive or currently powered to be put on the list? Thefro552 10:28, 18 Nov 2006

I presume "well-known" or at least "well-explained power in article", both would be more of a concern? But all things being equal, an "ongoing" character should probably take precedence over a "dead" or "de-powered" one, I suppose. - jc37 16:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well also you have to take into account the tendency of characters reviving and getting repowered. Not to mention the times where there powers get changed. If we make so that ongoing characters take precendence then we will be changing it repededly to conform to the current canon. Thefro552 4:54, 18 Nov 2006
Except for the last sentence (which I somewhat disagree with), that was kinda what I was saying. Though I don't know if this is something we should "standardise". - jc37 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Neologisms, the Return

Check out Talk:-kinesis#fictional use. - jc37 15:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reversion

I apologise about the rereversion of the article: that was an accident on my behalf, I refreshed the page which had been produced after an edit instead of purging the cache.

But while we're on this topic, is there any way that the list can be reformatted so as to remove the bolding confusion caused in Transportation or travel and still keep within the Manual of Style? --JB Adder | Talk 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. Is there also any way we can include the -kinesis names into the article as well, as there used to be? It does make things a lot more understandable, especially since those names are used in the Superhero infoboxes. --JB Adder | Talk 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

In the case of the superhero boxes I am currently fixing that. Ive started on Marvel and Im up to H. Thefro552 10:03, 19 Nov 2006

No problem about the reversion, It's easy enough to fix : )

As for the MoS, I understand the concern, but as it stands now, the headers we have now are the current compromise. Though I personally would be happy to discuss possible alternatives.

s for the -kinesis names, please see Talk:List of comic book superpowers/Archive 4#Neologisms, for the discussion of why not.

As a quick summary: Right now, the only -kinesis words that are in discussion to be used are:

  • Psychokinesis/Telekinesis - By consensus, the former for pseudo-science uses, the latter for fictional uses.
  • Pyrokinesis (and possibly cryokinesis)

AFAIK, all the rest of the fictional -kinesis (and -genesis) compounds are to be removed as original researched neologisms.

I hope this clarifies : ) - jc37 06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for reformat

I've had a read of the article, and looked at the various powers described here, plus done a little research. As a result, I have outlined a complete revision of the article. Below is my proposed format:


Innate Means
Non-human physical feature
Object-based powers


Magical powers


Power manipulation
Power bestowal
Power mimcry or absorption
Power negation
Power sensing
Energy manipulation
Concussion beams
Darkness or shadow manipulation
Electrical manipulation
Energy blasts
Energy constructs
Energy conversion
Force fields
Light manipulation
Manipulation of magnetism
Radiation manipulation
Temperature manipulation ('thermokinesis'/'cryokinesis')
Classical elements
Air and wind manipulation
Earth manipulation
Elemental transmutation
Fire manipulation
Metal manipulation
Plant manipulation
Water manipulation
Manipulate fundamental forces or reality
Density control
Gravity manipulation
Mass manipulation
Molecular manipulation
Probability manipulation
Reality warping
Sound manipulation
Time manipulation
Weather manipulation
Transportation and travel
Dimensional transportation
Electrical transportation
Superhuman speed
Time travel
Personal physical powers
Accelerated healing
Acid generation
Animal mimicry
Berserker rage (?)
Biological manipulation
Body part substitution
Enhanced senses
Matter ingestion
Natural armour
Pheromone manipulation
Photographic reflexes
Reactive Adaption/Evolution
Self-detonation or explosion
Sonic scream
Superhuman reflexes
Superhuman strength
X-ray vision
Mental faculty and knowledge-based abilities
Super intelligence
Astral projection
Clairvoyance and clairaudience
Cross-dimensional awareness
Danger sense
Domination and mind-control
Astral trapping
Mind control
Psionic blast
Psychic weaponry

Now, I'll explain a few thing that I have done here:

  1. I decided to move Transportation and travel out into its own section, which will allow it to include Flight (since it is a mode of travel employed by superhumans).
  2. The Classical elements powers are based of the classical elements of Western and Eastern cultures (which is why Metal and Plant manipulation have been included there, but Weather and Electrical manipulation have not). As a result, also, Metal manipulation has been included as a power, since (as far as I know) some superhumans can manipulate metal, including metal which does not have a magnetic or electrical field.
  3. I have actually shifted many of the powers into other sections which are more appropriate (IMO):
    • Darkness or shadow manipulation, Electrical manipulation, Light manipulation, Manipulation of magnetism, Radiation manipulation and Temperature manipulation to Energy powers (since ark energy, heat, electricity and magnetism are specific forms of energy)
    • Elemental transmutation to Classical elements (for obvious reasons)
    • Weather manipulation to Manipulate fundamental forces and reality (The weather is a fundamental force of any planet)
    • Flight to Transportation and travel (explained above)
    • Shapeshifting to Personal physical powers (again for obvious reasons)
    • Illusion to Domination and mind-control (because it's making the mind see, hear etc things that are not real, a la schizophrenia)
  4. The Miscellaneous powers section has been removed
  5. Berserker rage has been added to Personal physical powers, however it has a question mark next to it because I don't know if it should be included

Working off the structure given, that would allow headings of Levels 2 to 4, removing the problem of the boldface Level 5 header, and keeping with the Manual of Style.

Anny thoughts? --JB Adder | Talk 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few : ) First, the headers issue isn't just the 5 level bolding issue. It also has to do with the "line" divider at the double equal sign level. As for the MOS concern, it isn't a concern in this case. If you read the guideline it explains why equal signs as headers should be used (instead of simple bolding) but it doesn't explain why one starts with two equal signs. (The answer being that when you use one, it gives the same size and bolding as the top of an article. Not a problem in our case, since "powers" (the only single equal sign) is not at the top of the page, and actually clarifies, rather than causes confusion.) Therefore, WP:IAR applies rather well in this instance. Clarity being important in a list that must intentionally be vague by it's very nature. : )

Some thoughts besides that:

  • Darkness isn't energy
  • Flight can be manifested by quite a few powers on this page, hence it's own section in misc.
  • Shapechange has quite a few variations (so it too is under misc)
  • Similarly, Illusion. (Is it of the mind, of matter, of energy, etc.)
  • Trans and travel is part of manipulate fundamental forces, because they involve things like dimensional travel. (And because the intro of MFF applies equally to T&T.)
  • Weather is closely related to wind (though not "quite" the same). Though I can understand placing it as a fundamental force, technically all the elemental powers are...
  • Magnetism isn't "just" electricity, so it isn't "just" energy, though it can be considered a fundamental "force".
  • Similar situation with Light and radiation (and sound, for that matter).
  • Berserker rage would be a mind control (though it could be self-hypnosis, I suppose), but I don't think it's "superhuman".

I'm sure I've missed some, but that should cover most of them, for now. - jc37 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well ive got some things too.

  • Elemental transmutation does not belong with the cleassical elements. Those are two different concepts of elements, nature vs science.
  • I would like to know what characters can control metal and do not use magnetism or telekinesis to do it.
  • There is nothing physical about plant manipulation. Plant manipulation has no effect on the users body a majority of the time.

Just some of my thoughts. Thefro552 7:40, 21 Nov 2006

What Constitutes as a Comic?

Ok, I've noticed lots of times Comic book characters have been removed because they are more well known for the television counter part. Heroes, the popular tv series for instance, has a graphic novel / comic book, which is released alongside the series. Do these characters constitute as comic book characters? When do things stop being applicable as comic book characters?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobshaven3 (talkcontribs)

Generally, I base it on their first appearance - Wonder Woman is comics, for example, but Godzilla is not. I'd personally consider Heroes as television since that is by far the leading characterization. The comic is just there to support the show, more or less. (I didn't even know there is a comic book.) CovenantD 04:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Im with D. There are many TV shows, games and movies that have had comics spawned off from them. To use some recent examples I have seen Dianna Troy from Star Trek and Reptile from Mortal Kombat. Although both of those series have spawned comics that the characters are in, it should be where the debuted. Thefro552 10:29, 23 Nov 2006

Natural armor

Just to be nitpicky, I don't think that either Colossus or Ferro Lad are valid examples of "Natural armor" because they transform their entire body to metal, not just their outer skin. As such, they fall into the "Elemental transmutation" category. CovenantD 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Other than a few examples that I can think of who teleport external armour over themselves, I can't think of any at all. Perhaps the whole definition needs a re-write? And should it just be merged into invulnerability? - jc37 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
What about Ben Grimm? The Thing's rocky hide seems to fit. CovenantD 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
How is he any different than Blok or Ferro Lad? He has more than just rock skin, I presume? - jc37 16:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The things armor is actually "natural". Unlike Collosus or Ferro lad he cant control it, its a part of him. Thefro552 10:55, 23 Nov 2006
If by "control it" you mean remove it, he actually "could" for awhile. But besides that, are we differentiating armour which is "all the time" vs "appears on command/wish"? If so, why? - jc37 17:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I always took it as armor that was on all the time. I was actually meaning to do the edit on this power earlier but my project on the Marvel characters page took my attention.

Armor that can come on command seems to me to be more along the lines of shape changing. Can you honestly say having armor plates spread across there body as natural. Thefro552 11:14, 23 Nov 2006

Ask a Triceratops : ) - jc37 17:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That aside, I would agree that "growing" such defenses (which is what this is) could be considered a part of shapechanging, irregardless if it's instantaneous or occurs over time. However, what of aliens, or other examples where the "ability" is "permanent"? What is the "power" in this case? To be able to gain/activate the defense? Or to merely have it. - jc37 17:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, yea i worded that wrong. I meant having them spread on command.
This was one of my issues when I was thinking about editing. What is the difference between Natural Armor and Enhanced duribility. In both cases the skin is exra durable, they are very resistant to harm. In most cases of durability its permanent. Also what is the deffereenc between this and Invunerability.
Honestly I think it might need to be removed since it is basically a form on invunerability. Maybe we can break Invunerability into a few seperate categories like those whos armor is controllable(Collosus), those whos armor is constant/natural(Ben Grimm), or those with just really tough skin(Luke Cage). Thefro552 11:41, 23 Nov 2006
Let's broaden the definition of invulnerability. (So that it would include Luke Cage.) And add a clarification to shapechange and possibly elemental transformation. - jc37 17:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. See this is the type of pointless arguing that gets results. :) Thefro552 2:20, 23 Nov 2006
The main reason I brought it up :), although this solution highlights the problems with Invulnerability. In most cases, Superhuman durability is more accurate since even the most "invulnerable" heroes (Superman, Hulk, etc) are subject to injury. But getting back to Natural armor, I see the difference mainly in where the durability is centered. While the Thing's internal structures are certainly enhanced, it's his skin that provides most of the protection. Contrast that with Colossus or Superman, where the entire cellular structure is "invulnerable." Another example of natural armor could be Marrow, whose bones rise to the surface to act as armor. CovenantD 22:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So how are we going to do this? Are we going to just take away natural armor and rewrite invunerability or make durability like flight and give some variations on how its done? Thefro552 4:32, 23 Nov 2006

"Invunerability-adjective: Incapable of being wounded, hurt, or damaged."

As CovenantD pointed out even Superheroes like Superman and the Hulk, who are notoriously hard to injure, can still be injured. Invunerability is the wrong word, Superhuman durability is a far more accurate name. Thefro552 5:26, 25 Nov 2006


I recently changed the methods section to solely Magical Powers and Psionic. Even though my revert was reverted I fail to see how I'm wrong. In order to prevent a revert war happening etc.. I'll just put my points down here.

1) All super powers must have a method, otherwise the method section is lacking.

2) Nothing is higher than magical powers, as in, that magic doesn't have a method in turn above it, however fusionkasting, technopathy and telekinesis are all psionic in nature, and therefor the method is just Psionic Powers.

3) Some abilities are neither magical, telekinetic or technopathic, for instance telepathy. It ust have a method of use, and Psionic prevents methods becoming cluttered.

I would also like to include Physical Means, to include super powers that include Wolverine's Claws and Poison Ivy's poison secretion.

Thus making Method's appear like:

Magical powers

Ability to use supernatural forces to varying degrees. Often used to simulate other powers, such as mind control and elemental attacks. Note that not all "magical" superpowers are actually supernatural (Mxyzptlk's abilities, for instance, rely on a set of physics different from our dimension's), but are still so beyond our understanding of science as to be completely unexplainable.

Psionic Abilities

Ability to use the mind to create an effect, varying from affecting others thoughts to controlling objects of differing degrees. Although these abilities originate in the mind of the yielder, they may require physical "commands" in order to enable them, for example, many Telekinetics need to point at an object to move it.

Physical Abilities

Ability to use a power that originates in the body. This varies from physically releasing bones from the body to being elasticated or having an increased body mass. These abilities, although may require thought to activate, are linked to the body, rather than the mind.

I can understand if people disagree with this, but what do peoples think? Jacobshaven3 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think thats fine, but I dont think we should incude examples. The reason being because they describe themselves.
I personally dont like the splitting of means and method, its somewhat confusing. I think the means should be taken out completly. Thefro552 7:35, 24 Nov 2006
I never did like the restructuring that created Means and Methods. Much of it seems arbitrary and duplicative. I'd rather see them eliminated entirely, or failing that, move Magical to Means and get rid of Methods. CovenantD 05:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Physical Abilities is already described in its section. Though I think we could merge that introduction to it.

"Psionic" - I Don't think that we should merge telepathy and telekinesis. Also, such abilities do not necessarily require a "hand movement".

"Technopathy" - a "catch-all" for technologically symbiotic powers. Whether: mentally "sensing" technology; Merging with technology; Transforming technology; Transforming into technology; Psionically utilising technology (such as "scanning" ala Scanners); "touch the computer and control its programming"; Seeing "inside" technology as a virtual reality; etc etc etc. This is obviously different than just having cyborg/technological additions. If someone would rather see this built as a section (compare to ESP), that would be fine with me.

Personally, I'd be all for removing "means", and only keeping "methods". The main reason "object" exists is to clarify object-based powers. However, if we were to create a separate page of objects with powers, we could point to that instead. (Something similar to List of objects in the DC Universe.) List objects, and then list the objects' associated powers (referencing this page). - jc37 05:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only reason I uncluded physical means (which is not like the current physical powers section, physical abilities includes anything which involves the body, which may include personal physical powers and non human physical abilities but surpasses that), and psionic was because the section was there and it seemed unfitting. Since I thought it would be better there than not (it's a good thing to show the different ways an ability can be used), but if people want to remove the section or merge it with means (to create a "Means and Methods" section), then I like the idea. Jacobshaven3 08:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


"Fusionkasting" is retarded. It should be removed from the list. Name 2 superheroes who have "fusionkasting," and then I'll be satisfied.

Nexus and Plexus. Done and done. -- 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but tell me how it suits the article. Should we include "Solar Absorbtion" for how Superman, Supergirl and Superboy (among others) get their powers? Should we include every single other way a character gains it's power. Magical has a major reason behind it. Lot's of different comics and characters use that source. Fusionkasting is used in only one comic and doesn't further the article at all. Unless I get a reasonable response (other than "these people use it"), I'll remove it after 24 hours of posting this message. Jacobshaven3 02:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ive brought this up before. I dont think it belongs either. It should either be taken off or changed. Thefro552


Personally, I didn't know about the power (or rather power source) until I discovered it here on Wikipedia. However, that said, I think we should be careful that this is a list of superhuman powers in comics, not a list of whatever powers we feel that should be on the page.

Keep fusionkasting or not, I won't oppose at the moment, but I do suggest that some thought be given to this page. We come rather too close to WP:OR. (Yes, I said "we".)

I'm already concerned about the near POV edit warring over examples.

I sincerely think we should start considering some splits. It's rather obvious that the goal of this page is to show "mainstream" superpowers, especially from DC and Marvel, while tolerating independants. (As I said, it's skating rather close to POV.)

Also, for a page which is referenced by nearly every comic book character page, it's amazing that this page has NO documentation. If we don't start sorting these things out, there may be an AfD in the future. - jc37 08:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's quite true isn't it... Hadn't thought about that to be honest until now. Well, we need to get rid of everything that's "nearly"POV, and stop being subjective over what constitutes as a power. I think an idea would be that instead of adding an example at the end, we add a link to the category lists, so we could link every example, removing a POV. For any powers without a category list, one could be made, or if there are so few examples that a category list is not required, then add examples to the page, or omit the power. What does this sound like to people?Jacobshaven3 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a rather large project, but if your want my help i'm in. Just one issue though. You guys might have caught on that ive been tweaking the power descriptions in the superhero boxes, just cleaning them up and everything. My issue is that some cases powers can be interpreted in different ways.
Should anyone who could fly be on the flight page? Should anyone who can fire energy blasts be on the page? Will this matter how they got there powers? I know how we dont include people with object based powers on the list, will they get there own?
P.S. I think this is a great idea and I cant figure out why someone didnt think of this sooner. Thefro552
I don't mind help. My semester is finishing in a fortninght and I'll have no internet until early January, so any help will be very much appreciated.
As for what should be on each category page, I think anyone with flight capabilities should be on the page for flight. It shouldn't matter if a character is on several category pages, since it's just showing how diverse a character is / isn't, and choosing to omit one is just being subjective. the only reason a limit for examples was put here was because it cluttered the page, wheras it wouldn't matter if every example under the sun was on the category pages.
I have another suggestion. Change the title of this page to omit the term "comic book", for the simple fact that, if we are linking to category pages, either we will be removing any non comic book fictional example, or making brand new comic book only pages when they aren't necessary. I understand why keeping this page as comic book only was decided, and it was a good idea, but if we are going to make this change then I see keeping it comic book only as making it more problematic, not less (a reason for it previously).
I'll begin making a temp for it and add the link here when I have a chance.Jacobshaven3 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good idea. I believe we have a template specific to categories for that, I'll see if I can find it. - jc37 09:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Oh, just realised you can't add Categories in the middle of a page... so I'm not sure what to do now... I'm not the most wkikliterate, is there another way you can add them, without making them automatically go to the bottom of the page?Jacobshaven3 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that keeping it simply too comics will be that big of an issue. A majority of the powers are quite common. And the ones that arnt, the few examples can be fit on the page.

About he categories, when I have an issue with the editing I always ask Jc. Thefro552 9:32, 27 Nov 2006

You keep that up, you'll have me blushing : )
[[:Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power]]
Note the initial colon, that's what allows it to be a link and not add the page as part of the category. SO essentially, link as you normally would, but make sure there is a colon at the start, right after the second bracket. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 09:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jc... now all thats left is the actual work :p
Thefro, what I mean is, if I'm using the ready made categories, e.g. Category:Fictional characters with the power of accelerated healing, then our comic book only article wil be linking to all forms of fiction, and if I make a new category, for instance, Category:Fictional comic book characters with the power of accelerated healing, then we will have very similar categories and a high chance of people wanting to merge them together.
Many thanks,Jacobshaven3 10:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please - Before creating any new categories, list the suggested ones here, so that we can discuss the final name. As someone who frequents Categories for Discussion, I can tell you that it would be less work for our helpful admins and bot owners if we don't have to repeatedly rename and merge (since it's not as easy to do so with a category as it is for other pages).
As for the current categories under: Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power, their current names are a result of consensus, so we should probably discuss them at the very least before artbitrarily renaming them : ) - jc37 11:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Jc, I wasn't just going to do it all without discussion. At the moment there is a temp page here which I am currently changing all the examples I can to the current categories. When I've gone over it twice, checking I've not missed any, we can discuss additional categories. I don't want to do all this myself, so if others wish to help, by all means do so. :-D Jacobshaven3 12:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I added all the category examples, and a note at the top of the page explaining usage. - jc37 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Category names

I think it would be in order to tweak the category names. "Category:Fictional characters with the power of accelerated healing", doesnt roll off the tongue very well. Something shorter like "Characters with Accelerated healing" sounds a bit better. Thoughts? Thefro552

I'll go to changing them. (Not literally the category, but I mean [[Category:Fictional characters with the power of accelerated healing|Examples of Characters with Accelerated Healing]]). Just so things get a bit clearer on this page. Jacobshaven3 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a bad idea, though I'm not certain if we should "hide" the word "Category". We're somewhere in the middle of being a list and a disambiguation page, I think, so both sets of rules may somewhat apply. - jc37 12:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well ive already went through and edited all the categories, oops:> I think they look good and still get the point across that if you click on them it will take you to a list. Thefro552