Talk:List of comic book superpowers/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Motion to Archive...Again

Several discussions have been resolved and a few are no longer relevant.

Neologisms

Why does this article use so many made-up words? Is there any source for them? I'm talking mainly about the -kinesis ones... It's kind of cute but against both WP:NOT (original thought) and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. They should be worded in plain English, not fake Greek.

  • Aerokinesis - Air manipulation
  • Atmokinesis - Weather manipulation
  • Biokinesis - Healing, Biological manipulation
  • Chlorokinesis (means "green manipulation" by the way) - Plant control
  • Chronokinesis - Time manipulation
  • Cryokinesis - Cold manipulation, Ice manipulation
  • Electrokinesis - Electricity manipulation
  • Gravitakinesis - Gravity manipulation
  • Geokinesis - Earth manipulation
  • Hydrokinesis - Water manipulation
  • Magnetokinesis - Magnetism
  • Molecukinesis - I don't even know what to call this
  • Photokinesis - Light manipulation
  • Sonokinesis - Sound manipulation
  • Umbrakinesis - Darkness manipulation

Pyrokinesis, psychokinesis and telekinesis are real words so I guess they can be left alone. I'm mostly bringing this up because of Lygokinesis and its associated category. Lyge- means twilight, and it's supposedly the power to make solid energy constructs. What? While most of these are valid Greek coinages, they're still neologisms and open up the potential for anyone to just tack stuff onto -kinesis and call it a superpower. -Kinesis also, by association with "psychokinesis" gives the impression that they're mentally based, while they may be magic or chemical or technology based (or whatever). It also implies they're "moving" things, which isn't always accurate. -HKMarks 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting all these and renaming their categories makes sense to me. Isn't manipulating molecules just telekinesis? I would re-add them as kinesises if you can find a comic citation, (e.g. If Doctor Polaris refers to possessing "Ferrokinesis" in Issue XYZ). Until the terms are used in print, they aren't real terms. However! The terms have gone unchecked so long and been mirrored and read so much it's sort of sadly already been ingrained into people's minds. Start a discussion anywhere and you'll find people will cite the -kinesis article. In sum, delete anything we can't source to anything, and keep pyro-, tele- and possibly cryo-. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll wait a couple of days before attacking the page, in case anyone has any concerns or suggestions for better names. It'd be nice if WP was as authoritative as people seem to think. -HKMarks 00:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
A large part of the -kinesis article is just an old version of a chunk of this one. It'll be altered at the same time. -HKMarks 02:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope you'll do google searches to discover if these words really do exist someplace other than Wikipedia. I'm all for removing the ones that don't exist in use elsewhere. CovenantD 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I just started that, actually... so far I've found a bunch of Wikipedia mirror sites and a few flaky psychic enthusiast sites. It's not looking promising. What I'd like to see is print examples, like role playing games or something. --HKMarks 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be ideal. Personally, I've long said that most of these are just specific forms of psychokinesis. You should check out the talk page archives - a lot of this has been discussed previously. CovenantD 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Just finished the google test. They're virtually all wiki mirrors or psychic/magic enthusiast sites. As soon as I saw "can anyone teach me hydrokinesis?" .... Seeing as some of these terms seem to have been picked up by those sites, I guess some could have a brief mention on the "-kinesis" article, but that really has no bearing on fictional superpowers. "Meditate and look at the sky, and imagine it filling with clouds... wait several hours and if there's a storm you've done it right..." Yes... okay... then I'm going to fill out my application to the Xavier Institute... -HKMarks 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, whether you believe them to be real or not, any word which is used by a magic site as a form of witchcraft means that some place other than wikipedia uses it. Plus, they are fictional abilities, made up by the comics. Marvel states many of them in use by their characters, so on this site it would be appropriate for them to remain. Plus, psychokinesis is a very broad subject, or are you saying that the psychokinetics listed as examples are able to do everything a character under them has listed. The made up names that no one can substantiate have actually been repetitively removed (like Lygokinesis) which is telling you something. Jacobshaven3 08:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I do see a problem. This article has done exactly what the Wikipedia guidelines work to prevent. It has created words which are now accepted and used by the general public. Other fansites such as the Marvel Database describe powers such as "atmokinesis". Gonna try find a source for cryokinesis, because I'm sure I see it around quite a bit, but maybe that stems from Wikipedia too. Maybe we should put a note on -kinesis that "in some fandoms of various fictions (e.g. X-Men, Charmed, the 4400) fans tend to coin their own -kinesis words (such as...) but these are strictly neologisms". ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I've also just added all the respective categories to CFR. You can append the proposals if you like, just make sure it states the appendage :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians din't make up those words, or people writing on it, people in "magickal" circles have been using the words for a long time. Pyrokinesis, Cryokinesis etc... have been used for a long time. How else should the super powers be placed, because without them kinesis powers there we are going to have to cull the list of almost al the most common abilities. Unless were going to change their names to "Fire Control" or ""Weather Control"? Jacobshaven3 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you type in "Chronokinesis" you get a bunch of websites explaining it which doesn't come from anyhting to do with wikipedia. The same with Atmokinesis and biokinesis. Just ebcause they are used by people for uses describing "Magic", doens't mean it's a false made up word. All words were neologisms at one point and some ofg these have been around for a while now. How long does a word have to be in use before it is considered a "real word"? Jacobshaven3 17:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And should we also remove all these words from all the other wikipedia articles using them, like the wictionary? Or do they classify as real there? Jacobshaven3 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems from the above comments that Zythe has gone too far in removing -kinesis words from this list. I was hoping to avoid that with the suggestion that they be googled first. I'm going to revert to a prior version until this is settled. CovenantD 18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Jacobshaven - a word is generally considered "real" when it has met the criteria for inclusion in a major dictionary. That usually means seeing print (not web -- the Internet is too fluid) from at least 3 reputable sources (see WP:RS). If an "authority" in the field of magic wrote a book on types of -kinesis, and then it was picked up by others, then it would be considered a real word. That would still not be enough to use the words in this article. This article is not about real-world magic/psychokinetic abilities. This article is about comic book superpowers, which--with very few exceptions--are never called anything-kinesis. And even if one character's power is called "atmokinesis," for instance, another character's similar power might not be.
The archives for this article's talk page mention how to invent -kinesis based names for superpowers. "Magic" websites talking about these abilities often list the exact same terms that were on this site, in the same order, with the same quirks and odd spellings. Reference sites also have ripped the definitions straight from Wikipedia (see WP:MIRROR). It seems they were invented by Wikipedians and then used elsewhere--which is bad news. Wikipedia is meant to inform readers with sourced, verifiable information. These words were invented by Wikipedians.
While a few of them may have predated this article and gained acceptance elsewhere, it'd be irresponsible for us to include them without sources. The "burden of proof" that something is true is on the submitter of the information per WP:V.
Even if the words are real and have printed sources, they belong in Wiktionary, Wikipedia's sister project, not here.
I'm working on a reorganized version of this page that should include all the powers without using -kinesis terms. It'll be a major rewrite and take a couple of days to complete. -HKMarks 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If possible, could you set up a /temp page for your work-in-progress? I think a few of us would be interested.... CovenantD 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I understand, and could you make that page /temp, I wouldn't mind looking at it or helping. Jacobshaven3 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried to make a temp page but for some reason my computer won't let me. See User:HelenKMarks/mockup#List of superhuman powers for a rough idea of the organization and terms. -HKMarks 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia explicitly says not to build articles around neologisms. What's the need for these words anyway? "Superheroes with weather-based powers" would make more sense and be more accurate than "Superheroes with atmokinesis." Those -kinesis terms, when used like psychokinesis, imply that all those powers are psychic in nature, which is debatable in many cases. The literal meaning of "kine" indicates movement, which is not always accurate. Having weeded through numerous articles linked to some of those terms, I'm really pleased to see KHMarks and others work on fixing that mess. Doczilla 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention. Psychokinesis is not a neologism, it is in several dicitonaries (see dictionary.com), the only other one that is a "real" word, is pyrokinesis (oh, and telekinesis), although several other sources use some of the others, they aren't in a dictionary yet. Also, HKMarks, I'd change it so that there's a "classic elements" section, for things like fire control (actually, since pyrokinesis is a real word, shouldn't that stay?) and earth control. And a different section for "forces" like sound, light, magnetism. Who agrees with me? Jacobshaven3 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep; a classical elements (though I'm a little concerned about that--other traditions have different sets of elements) and forces/energy section was exactly what I had in mind. And like you say, Pyro/tele/psychokinesis are all real, well known words. Most of the psychic terms are too, though some are a bit questionable ("telempathy?" Though I think that was deleted a couple of days ago.) -HKMarks 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Telempathy just sounded like someones attempt at splitting empathy into two different abilities. Also, the classical elements section should work, since it's not only "Western Classical Elements", which means we could include every "elemental" ability to the same list, from Western ones to the Eastern ones (which include lightning, ice) or others, like light and dark. (Although I'm not sure if they should be in the forces/energy section since it's about the emittance / absorbtion of light energy.)Jacobshaven3 13:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit of the history of this article - when I first started watching it, there were only a couple of other editors involved. One of them, General of Armies, had an explicitly stated goal of creating at least 100 different "superpowers." That was his only goal - to get to 100. Many of my early efforts to consolidate and cleanup were actively opposed. I have much greater hopes that this will be a more productive process now. CovenantD 19:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope so! : ) I don't think the list will be any shorter though... But that's good, that means the comic writers haven't run out of ideas : ) -HKMarks 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I've done this right. If not let me know- but I've made a /temp page so we can re edit the page together. (That way HKmarks won't be stuck with all the work). Heres the link, List of comic book superpowers/temp Jacobshaven3 11:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see so many ediotrs workign to remove the neologisms. I've been wondering about this for a while, but hadn't had enough inclination to follow up until recently. I'd suggest a bot programming to find and replace when the new lsit goes into effect? ThuranX 03:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see how it could be useful, but how would it work to differentiate between words which are in actual useage (like pyrokinesis) and words that aren't (like Molucukinesis). I've already actually renamed all the neologisms, It's just re ordering that needs finishing (unless people dislike my decisions for new names). Jacobshaven3 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

-kinesis

Ok, this page doesnt seem to be as good as it was a couple days ago and I really liked it how it was, like for instance i think saying cyrokinesis it alot better than saying cold manipulation by saying cold manipulation you're implying that you are manipulating the cold when in fact you are dispeling heat molecules, because cold is defined as the absence of heat.

I think we should change this page back to the way it was and get all the -kinetic abilities back like these

  • Aerokinesis

Ability to control or generate air and wind.

  • Atmokinesis

Ability to control and mentally affect the weather.

  • Biokinesis

Ability to control biology. Biokinetics can heal, alter their body composition and other things relating to the living body.

  • Chlorokinesis

Ability to control or animate plant life.

  • Chronokinesis

Ability to affect the flow of time, slowing, accelerating or even stopping it.

  • Cryokinesis

Ability to reduce the kinetic energy of atoms and thus reduce temperature, often used to control, generate, or absorb ice.

  • Electrokinesis

Ability to control, generate, or absorb electrical fields.

  • Gravitakinesis

Also Gyrokinesis Ability to manipulate and/or generate gravitons and gravitational interactions.

  • Geokinesis

Ability to control the classic element of earth; sand, stone, rock, lava, and/or dirt.

  • Hydrokinesis

Ability to control, generate, and/or absorb water.

  • Magnetokinesis

Ability to control and/or generate magnetic fields.

  • Molecukinesis

Ability to mentally manipulate molecules and objects on a molecular level.

  • Photokinesis

Ability to control, generate, or absorb photons, (particles of light).

  • Pyrokinesis

Ability to control the kinetic energy of atoms to generate, control and/or absorb fire.

  • Sonokinesis

Ability to mentally manipulate sound waves.

  • Telekinesis

Ability to manipulate and control objects with the mind. An extremely powerful Telekinetic might be able to control individual atoms.

  • Umbrakinesis

Ability to mentally accesses a dimension of dark energy and manipulate it. May be able to create solid forms or travel via this dimension. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.84.165 (talk • contribs).

As per several discussions, including a CfD discussion and a discussion on this very page, the -kinesis neologisms have been, and are to stay, removed. This has concensus from the several discussions (which also includes other CfDs, AfDs, WikiProject discussions, talk page discussions, etc.). - jc37 19:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely psychokinesis should stay? It seems to be widely used (even if not as much so as the older term; in several places, both are listed), and it's consistent with the fact that Wikipedia's article on the ability bears that title. CameoAppearance orate 09:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, yes. Psychokinesis is a synonym of Telekinesis. They're both used in comics, sometimes interchangeably, although Telekinesis is much more common. The rest should stay gone. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 13:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
As someone mentioned on the CfD, Telekinesis is the preferred term in fiction/comics. Psychokinesis is more the pseudo-scientific term. Though, as authors find the term, authors may use it at their whim : ) - jc37 15:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ReOrg

Merged with: List of comic book superpowers/temp, and sorted sections by general overview of effects.

I may have missed one of the updated links on this page, so please help double check for links/redirects.

Hope this helps - jc37 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring Reason

Ok, why are edits being reverted with no explanation? Storm is not a telekinetic and does not use telekinesis to fly, she uses the wind. Thus she flies using wind currents which already has an example in the page. Tele means "Distant", and Kinetic means "Movement", or Moving from a Distance. how is self propelled flight fitting into that criteria? The Telekinesis page is no longer existant. Psychokinesis is the correct term for it, since it means Mind Movement, or movement using the mind. In which case Rachel Summers is a perfect example. Also, removing most of the capital letters were a good idea, but many words have been removed which use a capital letter, Clairaudience as an example. I'll be editing these now, don't just revert my edits for no reason. If there is a reaosn, explain it in the edit! Jacobshaven3 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Every edit had an edit summary...
As for telekinetic, Storm is a telekinetic. (It states in the first sentence of her entry that her powers are psionic in nature.) She is using the power to fly/glide/levitate, etc. Rachel summers is already listed as an example under "telekinesis" at the top of the page, and the preference is to minimize duplicate examples.
Telekinesis is preferred over psychokinesis for fictional (comics) usage per discussion on CfD.
As per wikipedia's naming conventions, words such as clairvoyance which are not the first word, should not be capitalised.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask : ) - jc37 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Psionic doesn't mean that it's telekinetic in nature. It means that it's "pertaining to the telepathic, psychic, or paranormal" (Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English). A telekinetic (ok, I can see for the sake of ease to misuse telekinesis for it) using their powers lifts their self using solely the powers of thought, wheras Storm causes a wind to lift herself. My example (I did not reuse Rachel as per those reasons you above described) was a good example where the only ability they had was telekinesis. So why change it back to one that doesn't fit?
Plus, the edit summaries didn't include why they were changed, they just said what changed. That's not a summary. And which convention is it that says words like Clairvoyance shouldn't have the first letter used? Because it is a proper noun, and therefore surely should be capitalized? Jacobshaven3 09:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, I think Justice is a very good choice for example of telekinetic flight.
As for Storm, consider: How does she manipulate the air currents? If her powers are psionic in nature, she does so with her mind. Mental manipulation of matter is telekinesis. As noted, TK can be suggested as the method for power use for many characters.
With all the powers, consider that each has a method or methods, and each has an effect or effects. There are many variables: means, method, mode, catalyst, environmental modifiers, power source, effect, etc.
As for the edit summaries, please look again. While some were just a note to what section was changed (a quick note or "summary" so that an editor can see what was modified), several are also rather descriptive, to the point of being verbose : )
Clairvoyance is not a proper noun, any more than telekinesis is. Check how it is not capitalised in the clairvoyance article.
As before, any further questions, please feel free to ask. : ) - jc37 17:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I can see how her ability can be percieved as telekinesis, but telekinesis is the direct ability to control movement over a distance (or in this case in general) with your mind. I use my mind to make a mug move because I think about picking it up, and therefore do. Normal telekinesis in fiction skips out the hand movement, they just think and it happens. But Storm doesn't, she uses the wind as though it was an extra part of her body. We don't call me picking up the mug with my body telekinesis, so why should we call her using the wind telekinesis, they both are the same thing. There is a reason her power is wind manipulation rather than telekinesis, or are all psionics telekinetic in nature? (Telepathy is psionic, empathy is. Clairvoyance is. Why should Weather manipulation be classed as Telekinesis just because it's psionic, the others certainly aren't?) Jacobshaven3 22:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Telepathy, empathy are about non-verbal, non-physical perception/communication, whether thoughts, feelings, images, or whatever (hence: extra-sensory perception). While it can be psionic, that's not what we're talking about here when talking about telekinetics. ESP doesn't physically "move" anything.
Let's take a moment and play the WP:OR game, though just for a moment. How do you think that Ororo manipulates the winds? Does she reach out and touch them, and they move? Can one move the winds the same as when you pick up your mug? Obviously not. How does she do it? The sources tell us: Psionically. She moves the winds with the power of her mind. Irregardless of the original greek source of the word, telekinesis currently means to move "something" without physical means, using only one's mind; ie psionically. So, as I said, nearly every power on the page can be done through telekinetics.
Anyway, that all said, I think that it's been long resolved on the list article. Some anon IP (not me, at least) made an alternate suggestion for Storm's example, and though it's been edited, that's what we have, and it's fine with me, since it's true, even if it is derivative of TK. - jc37 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
You run into dangerous territory when you start trying to scientifically analyze a hero's powers. I can see both sides of this argument - Storm is not a general telekinetic, instead she is specifically a weather manipulator. Probably her weather manipulation is done through a combination of telekinesis and thermokinesis (there's those neologisms again!), but I bet I could come up with a couple of other pseudo-tech ideas for how she does it...perhaps she (perhaps unknowingly) psionically communicates with ancient weather spirits, who do her bidding. Perhaps she psionically opens micro black and white holes, just big enough to cause wind and either absorb or produce heat, altering weather patterns. In other words, I don't think it's safe to say that psionic weather manipulation is simply a form of telekinesis. Applejuicefool 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question LSH

(moved from Thefro552's talk page)

Im curious why you felt that you needed to add the legion of super heroes info into this page. Personaly it just looks more cluttered and doesnt really give anymore useful information. If it were anybody else i would believe that it was place in simply for personal bias. If we wanted a list of all the teams that had a member with this (insert here) power then maybe a seperate page needs to be written. I sure you have a good reason, just a curiosity. Thefro552

Oh. I thought I had explained in the introduction to the article. Clarifying: I noticed as I was going through checking all the examples that there were more than a fair number of LSH members used as examples. And it didn't take much to realize why. The Legion had a rule that every member had to have a different power, or set of powers. That makes that group, unlike any other in comicdom, uniquely suited to give examples from. And that way, we also should see more examples from "other" sources, especially non-DC or marvel sources. Make sense? - jc37 04:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I get it, and i love the idea of a group with that rule. Personally the amount people reusing the same power is staggering (i.e. flight and super strength). Also im all for the introduction of new powers and charecters from other sources. But the addition of the LSH doesnt make this any simpler of a job. Alot of the powers that you put the LSH tag on still have names from DC under the reguler examples. Also all of the LSH names are DC making two DC characters for the power. Introducing all this doesnt seem to promote the finding more non DC/marvel sources. Im sure as a community we can find a better way to get the average user to explore out of the norm and into new areas and find that new original. - Thefro552

Please feel free to find some more examples. Though some examples are so quintessential, they are usually the best examples. Hulk for strength, for example. - jc37 05:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh of course the hulk is but thats not what i meant. I have a tendency to ramble, sorry. I just meant super heroes in general with those powers and how to me it seems like a sort of fall back power for some writers when they dont care for a charecter. But currently im going to go through and try to flesh out some of the examples for the powers. But that still leaves the aspect of whether the LSH info needs to be there. Should it be that instead of just the standerd examples we should try and make a line for a company (i.e. Marvel: Hulk/DC: Superman/Dark Horse: Hellboy) or simply allow a third charecter for the examples. New powers are easy to simply place down and find charecters for. But to me as long as there are examples that sufficiently demonstrate an example of that power why does it matter that there has to even be a third example of another company if those charecters effectivly make the point. - Thefro552

Well, Part of what I was doing was attempting to make several opinions "happy". I noted that "other people" seem to prefer that each line only have 2 (maybe 3) examples, and preferrably examples from varied companies. (Though the most well-known examples are usually best.)

So, by moving the LSH examples off the "main" example line, I'm freeing up room for other examples, whether from DC, Marvel, or whatever other publisher.

(And by the way, not that it's that great a difference, but technically, the LSH era isn't a "direct" part of the DCU, since it's 1000 years in the future, and hinted that it's an alternate dimension, part of varied alternate timelines (ala Time Trapper/Glorith/Mordru), or even part of Supergirl's imagination. So at this point, it's comparable to Amalgam, Wildstorm, Ultimate, Milestone, or whatever.)

In any case, my initial reasoning still stands, it frees up the example line to have 2 varied examples. Does this answer your thoughts? - jc37 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please feel free to help add more LSH examples. I just went down the List of Legion of Super-Heroes members and added them, and a few of the additional links from the bottom of that page. Just let's not go crazy with examples, and stir up those who wish a minimum. Also, try to avoid characters who have a lot of non-related powers if possible. A kicthen sink of powers doesn't make the character as useful for example. (Superman's powers being the ultimate exception due to common knowledge.) - jc37 05:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Legion of SuperHeroes

Why on earth do these now have an ultra level importance over other themes? Changing the rules of this pages layout should not have occured without discussion. There was a reason for no more than two examples, why on earth is showing a LoS example necessary? All it does is show company bias towards DC. Plus, this page is not meant to be a list of super heroes with these powers. If a reason isn't given for them soon they will be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobshaven3 (talk • contribs).

Agreed. It places way too much emphasis on one team. Perspective, people, perspective! CovenantD 08:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please take a moment to read the introduction? - jc37 15:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Read the previous articles in the discussion forum and even the rules for the page placed in the edit screen. The introduction says it is a list of powers, not heroes with the powers. I would recomend you heed your own advice. Jacobshaven3 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand/stood. Which is understandable. Read the discussion above. (Placed earlier than this discussion, since I presume it predates this discussion.) - jc37 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I did understand you, and now I see where you are coming from. However, the reason the page has a two character limit is because it was becomimg too cluttered when we allowed any number of examples. Adding LSH as a seperate section is just asking for other groups to be included. It would be better if only the two examples were used. If there is a good DC link used, then thats a good idea. But trying to explain that using LSH as a seperate section ives more space for independant comics is fruitless. We already give independant comics preferance over more common ones. The only thing that adding LSH characters brings is an increased amount of DC characters, and a more clogged up group. The change to include different strengths of powers is good, it makes it a more comprehensive list of powers and defenitions. However adding more haracters takes some of the pages strength away. It is not a page about super heroes who have a specific power. It is about the powers themselves which should always be the primary focus. Jacobshaven3 01:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"It is about the powers themselves which should always be the primary focus.", yes, however the examples tend to describe the power(s) better than the descriptions. And if you can think of a group so uniquely suited for use as an example, I'm all ears! : ) This wasn't about over-exposing DC as examples, it was because the LSH are so unique that they can show examples of every power. We could actually remove all examples, and just show LSH examples, and still be just as clear. I understand that 20 examples would be "clutter"... but 3? I would think clarity would be what we want. No matter what choice is decided about the LSH, I don't see why we don't have a standard of minimums such as: 1 DC; 1 Marvel; 1 other publisher; 1 other media (film/television).
One final note while that's being thought about. Irregardless of however this discussion resolves (and my heart isn't set on any of it, I just think that it's a good idea), please take a moment and note the tone in which Thefro552 and I discussed this. Now take a moment and look over the tone of the initial comments by: Jacobshaven3 and CovenantD. Can you see the distinct difference? I know that things may get stressful for editors at times (and I am sure we all have expressed less than calm "tone" in discussions), but please think about that the next time some newbie claims that one of us is being unfair and/or dismissive. While not always, often what tone we choose to use to respond with can really set the tone for the continued discussion. I think it's likely worth the effort, (and in the spirit of civility and wiki-love : ) - jc37 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I can understand your reasoning, and I apologise for my tone at points. I agree that LSH are a good idea as examples, but they do give company bias. Also, if we make powers have a larger minimum than there currently is (a minimum of two characters with te ability), then there will be problems. I'd also like to note that this page used to be about non comic book fiction, but after discussion was changed to comic book fiction, so unless we wish to bring that discussion up again, there wouldn't be need for examples from other media.
I propose that 3 examples be used. One from Marvel, One DC, and One Independant when possible, with each one a different Strength (so in Telekinesis you could have Tellus (LSH/DC and normal example), Jean Grey(Marvel and potent example)) and Threshold (From the independant company Wildstorm]] showing a middle level of telekinesis)). Instead of using LSH as an extra example, just change the current DC example to an LSH example. Also, can we leave a notice in the top of the actual page stating no more than 3 examples should be used, because currently people don't check the discussion threads or the notes in the edit screen and just add all these extra non comic based characters. Jacobshaven3 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I second the notion of three examples from the different sources. We just need to make sure that the top explicitly says that only three at most can be used and we have to try and make them from the different sources. Two qustions first, i have to bring up that a few categorys have 2 examples from the same company becuase the others dont have an example or one hasnt been found so what to we do about those? Also are we going to say on the introduction that it "has" to be a marvel, DC, and third party character? Thefro552
I think this should be a "loose" rule, if we impose it. For one thing, There are different ways in which a power may be exhibited. An excellent example is Electrical transportation. Air-wave and the Atom both do it, but each does it in a different way (while utilising other powers in conjunction - a very common thing in comics). I think both examples are noteworthy. How do you think such things shoould be handled? As I mentioned, I think more is better, with many being worse. I still think the Legion is uniquely suited for examples, but in utilising them, I don't think we should restrict the usage of other DC examples which may clarify the power in a "different way". - jc37 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the best way to do it is to try and have a consensus on what examples best exemplify the definition of the power. A bad example of this is the Atom page. I read the page a few times and i didnt find anything about his powers that could be considered electrical transportation.A good example is earlier Jacobshaven3 corrected the fire manipulation power by putting a character who better adhered to the power definition. If we can do this we can find the best charecter from each source to use. Oh and i could be wrong about the Atom thing, possibly missed somthing, so please correct me if you know. Thefro552
As great as the LSH is, it is still just a group of Super Heroes in the DC world. Just like the X Men are in Marvel. The rule that no character can have the same ability as another is good and means that a lot of examples can be gained from there, but I don't see why they should be given priority. The only priority should be examples of powers. Now if there is a good example of Time Manipulation in both DC and DC's LSH, but none in Marvel / an Independant company, then I can understand, but I don't see why we should give LSH special treatment. If there are characters from Marvel/Independant companies, that are just as good as the DC / LSH examples, then why should DC/LSH be given priority? I think a layout like:
Examples:
Minor Example:
Average Example:
Potent Example:
Similar to the layout for flight's examples, with each different way of using flight having a different example.Jacobshaven3 09:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I like were its going but i think that might just start an entirly different war over who deserves top notch. I can see people changing the (for example)elasticity power by constantly debating who is better, Mr. Fantastic or Plastic Man. It has the potential to become a popularity contest, more so than it is, and i dont think any of us want that. I always thought that one of the reasons why there were examples was becuase the character themselves helped describe different methods of using/cause the powers. If we go with describing the variety of different ways to demonstrate the different abilities then it will just clutter up the page and leave it in need of another clean up. Thefro552

<unindent>I have to agree with Thefro552 on this one. A ranking system like that proposed is subject to POV interpretation. I can see lots of arguments about whether so-and-so is an Average Example or a Potent Example. CovenantD 04:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly, except stated much better. Its possible that we can make the examples up to three but no more. Then we can have the introduction state something along the lines that the examples should try to be from different sources but still be good examples of the power. If there arn't examples that can be found from the other sources then try and show the best examples on hand. Thefro552
  • "If there are characters from Marvel/Independant companies, that are just as good as the DC / LSH examples, then why should DC/LSH be given priority?"

I think that maybe you misunderstood/misunderstand the purpose. It's not to give any example "priority". It's to give better, more organised examples. As I said, the LSH is unique in all comicdom. If anyone can think of any other examples, I'm all ears. The only thing I can think of that even comes close is maybe Marvel's mutant population during X-men's height in the 80s. The problem with that though, is that most mutants have now been depowered. But even ignoring that, nearly everyone in the marvel universe is a mutant (even Bruce Banner). This is different than the comparison of a group of individuals from a future timeline, who have had little interaction with the "mainstream" DCU (primarily with the time-travelling Superman Family), that may or may not even be a part of the DCU main timeline. The characters just make great examples. I don't want to see only those examples, though. Because it would be helpful to see examples from other universes, to make the powers "clearer". The other reason is that the way this page works right now, whoever is the most active pretty much decides the examples. Elemental powers change fairly often. I was/am hoping that by removing the LSH examples to an additional line, that such constant change may slow down a bit. 3 examples, + the LSH should leave enough room for examples to make everyone happy, and we may see a bit more stability. - jc37 08:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry Jc but i disagree. I understand your cuase and how great of an idea the LSH are but if they are to get there own category then why not other teams that have a majority of the powers of the list. I see that the team doesnt have any real ties to the "mainstream" DCU but they still are part of the DCU multiverse. This by defualt makes them DC property. I not trying to compartmentalize (did i spell that write?) all the characters. Unfortunetly it needs to be done. Also having four examples is just kind of rediculous. We all have different views here on what the page should look like but thats why we need to come to a consensus. I think its time to start coming of with a list of changes and voting on them or something similier or we are really going to talk about this forever. Thefro552
I agree with Thefro, no matter how great an example they are, LSh is still property of DC comics. We need to come up with a list of changes and actually vote. I agree that my previous idea was very close to POV, and I was thinking that instead of amount of power, that we have 3 examples, each example showing a different range or use of the power. This way we could condence Super Biting, Leaping and Strength etc together by just using Super Strength and having the other abilities as examples of Super Strength.E.G.
Fire Manipulation:-
Pyrokinesis: Pyro
Fire Creation: Hot Spot
Fire Control: Fahrenheit (comics)
The idea here being that, all three show different ways pyrokinesis is used, and all three are from different companies. What do people think? And if you disagree, what should we do instead? Jacobshaven3 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea but we need to watch for people that will no doubt come up with completly stupid uses of the ability (i.e. Fire Manipulation - Cooking toast). For the super strength i am particulerly interested becuase on the super strength link it states almost a dozen feats that can be attributed to super strength. The one worry i have though is that the page might get extremly long and/or look alot more cluttered. We would need to make sure that the structure of the page is maintained. Thefro552

(starting indent over, once again)

I think the the comment about length is well taken. I think we should discuss ways in which this list can be split. Flight is an obvious one that probbaly could use it's own page. Same with classical elemnets, as well as with ESPer/Mind control powers. I especially like splitting the element ones to their own page, since it splits up the powers, and should reduce the (hopefully) well-meaning -kinesis editors. - jc37 21:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you clarify the comment about Atom and Air-wave? - jc37 21:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression the census was not to have LSH examples seperate? I was hoping my idea would lessen the clutter and amount of powers, rather than lengthening it. For example lessening the amount of Super Strength examples. If we limit every power to 3 examples, no matter how many different ways a power can be used, then it shouldn't become large. I mean, I can't think of any power with more than three different forms, except Flight which is already utilised in a good way. I'll make a temp page and change it all, so people can vote on the change or not. It'll only take a small time. Jacobshaven3 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think keeping the list almost the way it is put creating the links would be a good idea. We can keep the definitions and the two examples but create links for more indepth views into the powers. This can will also include the different ways that the powers a manifest/used with seperate examples for each use. The main problems is that we actually have to go create those pages and we have to think of a way to make it easy more people to donate new uses to different categories that we havn't created pages for yet.

And the Atom thing I figured out Jc. Thefro552

Also why are the LSH examples back on? I too thought the majority of us voted agianst that. Thefro552

Against separating out Legion members for their own set of examples, yes. Using them as examples, no. CovenantD 15:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats what we mean Covenant, or at least what I mean. They are all there, in the edit screen, hidden as though just waiting to put them out as specific examples.Jacobshaven3 17:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that was what I meant too. I am going to take thoughs LSH categories off unless somebody has an argument. Thefro552

I restored them, but commented them out, since it's currently 3:1 on their usage as a separate example line. What this does, since this discussion is still "ongoing", is it keeps them as a future resource depending on what was decided in the discussion, but hides them from the general reader. I think we should finish deciding on the examples, and page length, and clutter, etc., before we refactor the page. - jc37 18:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I think its time for a final vote on this subject. For a seperate LSH example line I vote no. Sorry Jc. Once everybody votes then we can start a new thread for deciding of examples, page length, etc... Thefro552

I hadn't realised it until now, but this is an interesting example of what is being discussed at the Village pump concerning consensus.

By the way, by leaving them on the page commented out, does not mean that "someday" they get their own line. It means that we have several refactoring discussions underway, and why should we remove the work of the typed-in examples, when there is a possibility that we may be able to use them? Arbitrarily removing them, especially since they aren't even displayed on the page, doesn't seem helpful. - jc37 19:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Radiation Manipulation

Isn't this just a subset of Energy manipulation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBalance (talk • contribs) 11:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Phasing and Kitty Pryde

For those of you who don't know how her powers work, here's a quick primer. It's been explicitly stated that her density doesn't change. Instead, she is able to overcome the minute electrical charges that exist between molecules, allowing her to slip her own molecules between them. A side effect of this power is that she disrupts electrical components when she "phases" through them. As for what it's called, well, since the comics refer to it as phasing that seems to be the best word we can use for it. To create a definition of "phasing" that specifically leaves her out seems contrary to what an encyclopedia is about - providing accurate information. CovenantD 15:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think density control is? YOu suggest that she "slides" between ionic and covalent bonds of molecules? Ok, then by doing so, her molecules, for that instant as "less dense" in cluster/bonding. - jc37 19:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Density is simply mass/volume. Neither her mass nor her volume changes, therefore her density doesn't change. Dizzy D 00:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposals

I think we should decide on:

  • Do we want to include example from the TV series Heroes?
  • Which example format do we prefer?
    • strength of power
    • manifestation of power
    • solely 2 (or3) examples
    • examples by publisher only
  • Should we split the page?
    • If so, what sections should be split? Suggestions so far:
      • ESP/mind control powers
      • Classic elemental powers
      • Flight
      • Shapeshifting.

Please add more if I've missed any. - jc37 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No examples from other media, or we'll need to change the name of the article (again). It was specifically moved here in order to limit the examples to comic book characters.
  • Format:
    • Several of us have already said strength of power is a bad idea because of the POV interpretations.
    • Not sure what you mean by "manifestation of power."
    • Two or three examples, from various publishers, is the current format, and it's been fairly stable since that was implemented (barring some anon IP occasionally including Anime or Heroes examples which are quickly reverted).
  • Splitting the page will probably cause more problems than it could solve, because many of the people who want to change examples won't understand whatever new structure is in place and add powers and examples to the wrong article. And it's not as though this one is over the 32K limit now anyway. CovenantD 23:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Flight

Bat wings are not avian. They are chiropteran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.104.139 (talk • contribs) 17 October 2006.

True enough - wikt:avian. - jc37 06:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Liquification

It's not a form of shapeshifting. Please return it to a more appropriate listing. CovenantD 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking about Zan, New Wave, Fluidman, and even one of the Super-Harlem Globetrotters... How is this not changing your shape? - jc37 06:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Because it's not just the shape that changes, it's the entire molecular structure. It's closer to Metamorpho than Mystique. CovenantD 06:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Which doesn't change the fact that it's shapechange. On a semi-related note, do you think we change the name to liqufaction? - jc37 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Means and Methods

I am concerned about the "Means" section at the beginning of this article. It is woefully disorganized and incomplete. For one thing, it should be divided into something on the order of "Inherent Abilities", "Learned Abilities", and "Object-Based Abilities". Inherent Abilities would include things like: Mutant powers, Alien powers, naturally occurring Magical powers, abilities gained from Accidents, etc. Learned abilities would include Magical talent, martial arts, Johnny Quick's speed formula, etc. Object-based powers would be anything deriving from an object, such as Spider-man's (original) webs, or Green Lantern's powers.

The point is, there's a difference between what a superpower is and where it comes from. "Telekinesis" should not be a top-level category in the "Means" section, it's a power that could be inherent, learned, or object-based. Applejuicefool 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Means are either: innate ability, or external ability. All powers on this page are considered by default to be innate abilities (powers of the character, rather than powers of an item they carry), with the single exception of "object-based", which remains in order to defer "object-based" examples. I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of an "object-based" page, I suppose. See also List of objects in the DC Universe.
All the "inherent" (and several of the "learned") examples you listed above are potential sources of innate abilities. If you feel that all such innate abilities need to be listed, I won't oppose, except to say this: they are innumerable.
Also, remember that this is about "superhuman" powers. Most non-telekinetic martial arts abilities are not superhuman. (Batman or Green Arrow for example.)
And speaking of TK, while it semantically may merely be used to describe the moving of an object across the room, it also is the "method" for nearly all the abilities on the page. Maybe to clarify we should find out if there is a name (besides TK/PK) for object moving. Poltergeists, for example.
Personally, I've been trying to decide if "auras" such as Halo or Looker (of the Outsiders) use should have a separate method listing, or should just be presumed under TK. - jc37 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, from what you're saying, all the powers listed here need to be powers that are possessed innately by characters in comic books. Well, you've got a whole spectrum of these kind of powers. Where do these fit?: Accidental powers (Incredible Hulk, Flash)(i.e. these are not naturally inherent to the character), Powers gained by consuming a food or drug (Mighty Mouse, Bane), Cybernetic powers, Powers granted by other entities (Captain Marvel (Shazam)), Powers of robotic entities (Brainiac, Metallo)(i.e., are these equipment-based, or innate?), Powers originating from substances (Silver-Age Atom)? What about something like Captain Universe? Applejuicefool 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Rather than focus on how the character got the power, we're focusing on the powers themselves. "Methods" are how one generates the powers (such as TK, or magic, or possibly the generation of auras). AFAIK, however the person obtains the power (deific granting, consuming a super-soldier formula, bitten by a radioactive spider, or whatever) is immaterial to this article. The Atom is an interesting example, since he gains his power from white dwarf radiation, and so in that case it would be considered innate, but on the other hand, he requires a device to control his power, once so irradiated. I think that devices that allow one to control their powers are just that, and doesn't mean that the person in question doesn't have such-n-such power innately, just that they don't have an innate way to control said power. - jc37 02:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two possible exceptions, or at least confusions, when listing examples:
  • Possession - When Deadman or Jericho possess someone, it is the possessor, not the one being possessed, who is considered to have the powers in question. (This is only necessary to clarify for what examples should be used.) However, if once the possession is over, the person gains powers due to the period of "habitation", then the person obviously now has them, and could be an example of them. (Violet Harper gained powers this way. Prior to the Aurakle leaving her body, we would have correctly said that Halo - the Aurakle - had the powers, and was merely in the body of Violet Harper.)
  • Power absorption - Amazo can absorb the powers of Superman, but that doesn't mean he is a good example of Superman's powers. And Rogue is an excellent example of this. For quite some time, she had "absorbed" Miss Marvel's powers, but again, that doesn't mean that she should be listed as an example of superhuman strength or flight. - jc37 02:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but IMO telekinesis is a power, not "how one generates" a power. Sure, I understand what you're saying. A character can shoot lasers out of his hands? He's just using telekinesis to cause photons to move from one place to another. Another can fly? She's using telekinesis to propel herself through the air. But telekinesis is a psionic ability. Many superheroes possess the ability to cause various things to move from one place to another, but they don't have the "flavor" of psionic ability. Calling these powers telekinetically based is wrong. One example that has been discussed here is Storm's ability to control wind. One might say that she uses telekinesis to mentally push the air from one place to another, but that doesn't capture the flavor of what she does. Here's an analogy: If the wind were a car, she would be the steering wheel and accelerator, not the engine. She controls the wind, she doesn't power it. Applejuicefool 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going by the numerous examples in comics. "She controls the wind"? How do you think she does that? Or a better question, how have the comics said she does that? - I seem to recall Professor X calling her a powerful telekinetic, back when he first found her through Cerebro. As for your comment that an ability is not necessarily a psionic ability... Hence my thought about auras, above. And as for the rest, just because TK is listed at the top as a method, it doesn't mean it's the only method. - jc37 20:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you may be right about Storm's abilities being telekinetic. They've just never seemed that way to me; I could be wrong. Anyway, for "Methods" right now, listed are: Magical Powers, Mutation, Non-Human Physical Feature, Technopathy, and Telekinesis. Are these the only Methods out there? "Non-Human Physical Feature" seems too broad and too narrow at the same time. "Non-Human" could be anything; aliens, androids, deities, animals, etc. etc. etc. And yet, "Physical Feature" seems way too limiting. So "Non-Human Physical Feature" could range anything from Superman's strength to Gleek the Space Monkey's tail, and yet it wouldn't include Martian Manhunter's telepathy (which, incidentally, wouldn't be covered by any of the listed methods). Applejuicefool 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You got it exactly right, a power may manifest in many ways. The methods are intentionally not any more specific than they need to be, and I think you summarised Non-human physical feature well. - jc37 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
As for "mutation", it's not a method, but one of many "potential sources of innate abilities". You were considering listing more of them, but I suggested that they are innumerable. A mutation may cause a method to be possible (giving magic powers, giving a non-human phyiscal feature, giving ESP powers, giving TK powers, etc.), but that doesn't make it a method. Let's use magic for ease of explanation. A magic-user casts a spell. The spell generates an effect. The casting is a method. It isn't how the person was enabled to manipulate magic in the first place, it's how they generate an "effect". All the powers on this page are technically individual "effects" (either passive, active, or even possibly both). Does that help clarify? - jc37 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Forge

Why has forge been excluded from Technopathy?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totallycharged (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 November 2006.

Nothing in Forges powers say that he is a technopath. He simply builds the machines. He doesnt control them or mentally access machinery or computers. Its possible he could be but there are better established characters with the ability, like those listed. And for future reference please sign you posts. Thefro552
I'm not saying Forge should be included as an example of Technopathy, but if he doesn't have some sort of superhuman ability, why is he a member of a mutant team? Perhaps his amazing tech savvy is genetically based? Would that qualify him as a technopath? Just askin'... Applejuicefool 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well his power is kinda wierd. Basically anything he can imagine he can build. Like his page says, when most normal people build somthing they would have to understand how it works and the way it works but Forge doesnt when he builds somthing to use it works and thats it. He doesnt have to understand the machine he just knows it subconciously and can build it or m modify it.

Thefro552

I don't know enough about Forge (comics) to be certain, but based on what you're describing, (except for one small detail) he sounds like a perfect example of Technopathy. It doesn't matter if his power is due to genetics, being a mutant, being a mutate, being an alien, being irradiated, or whatever. However, that "one small detail" is whether his ability may be considered to be "superhuman", or if it's just an exceptional human ability. From what I read in his article, I would say: No, he's not superhuman in that way (his mystical abilities, may be another matter, however). - jc37 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it probably is superhuman. Do you know any human who can literally build a supercomputer or laser rifle, etc., without training or even understanding of electronics, optics, etc.? The only similarity to anything human I can see is that it resembles certain savant abilities, but I've never heard of a savant talent manifesting anything as useful as advanced technology. And the question remains - if it's not superhuman, then why is he included in X-Factor? Applejuicefool 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes one wonder why The Justice League bothers with Batman or Green Arrow as well. : )
Actually, I might agree with you, since, as I said, I don't know enough about the character to know the extent of the technopathy. If consensus is that it's a superhuman power, then of course he would be eligible as an example of technopathy. - jc37 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not technopathy becuase hes not interacting with the machinery. Technopathy would be like plugging yourself into the electronic device and controlling it. Or being able to mentally access a computer system and interpret the data. All Forge does is build the machines. He might be able to physically use them as any normal person would, but thats the extent of it. Thats why he is not a technopath. Plus even if he was his abilitys in that case are ill defined while the current examples blatently say they are technopaths. Thefro552
As explained on Forge's page, he has the ability to subconsiously know how to create anything technologically, even though he may not consiously know how to make things. It is a superhuman power and he's definately a mutant. However, he is not a technopath, as said above, because his power is not technopathy, which is the ability to affect technology with the mind. If he could just look at peices of an object and move them around, or if he touched technology and got mental images of it showing him how they could fit together, then he would be. But the innate knowledge to build anything, and the ability to enter a computer with your mind, are quite different things. Jacobshaven3 11:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is technopathy, according to several fictional sources, including Anakin Skywalker in The Corellian trilogy, and Young Jedi Knights. Technopathy can be anything from the intuitive use of technology, to actually forming a "bond" with such technology, whether mental or physical. So yes, if you all say that Forge's ability is superhuman, then I presume that he qualifies as an example. - jc37 12:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How is he building a bond? All he does is build it. His powers allow him to just know how to build it. Also he would know how to use the machine but he would not know the best way to use it. The only thing that comes to him intuitivly is building it, after that his powers are useless except for fixing it or improving it. Thefro552 8:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"...the intuitive use of technology..." - jc37 15:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the Marvel Comics website here [1], "Forge can intuitively create almost any device imaginable using his mutant ability - an uncanny and almost empathic ability to understand machines and to perceive "mechanical energy." He has created fantastic futuristic devices including cybernetic systems (to replace his lost hand and leg), sophisticated holograms, and elaborate computer and fiberoptic systems." The bit about perceiving mechanical energy sounds technopathic to me. Applejuicefool 15:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Quote from Technopathy:

"Technopathy also known as Cyberpathy is the super power to control technology, generally electronic although not limited by this, with one's mind."

Forge does not control technology. He just instinctively knows how to build and manipulate it, physically. He doesn't use it with his mind. If he could control the technology and make it build itself using his thoughts, then he'd be a technopath. But he's not. Jacobshaven3 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Read the next line where they use the character from Sky High as an example : )
This is one of many reasons why we shouldn't use solely Wikipedia as a reference. (See also: Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Schools' FAQ#Is Wikipedia accurate and reliable?)
I think at this point, it's time to request citations/references. - jc37 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I did, and Gwen Grayson is a very good example of this power, she uses her mind to control and affect technology. I'll search for non wikipedia sources as citations, though since we already have a great Marvel example of the power, and see no reason why Forge (regardless of whether he's a technopath or not) would make a better example, I do somewhat fail to see the point of it. Jacobshaven3 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Im with Jacob. There is no reason to debate his entry, weather or not he is a technopath, when we already have a prime example. This is a subject that needs to be debated on the Forge page discussion not here. Thefro552 22:55, 3 November (UTC)
Ok, I'm not debating Forge's entry with a mind toward including him as an example of Technopathy, but more towards deciding how to classify his power. Is "Uncanny Technical Skill" something that needs to be added? It's not really the same as Super Intelligence, regardless of what that entry says about inventing "incredibly advanced technology." Applejuicefool 16:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vision powers

I have currently been on the hunt for new powers to put on the list. After reading god knows how many articles from the various comic book companys something occured to me. Why arn't things like X-ray vision or Night Vision included as seperate powers.

Now Night Vision could be listed as an off shoot of enhanced senses, but not X-ray vision. No matter how inhanced your vision can, get seeing through solid objects is completly different.

I looked through the archives and couldnt find anything that related to this question. I thought before I went and created the power I might bring it up here first. Thefro552

I have no problem with adding vision powers. Check out Powers and abilities of Superman for some examples. - jc37 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, several previous editors (not me mind you) felt that more and more powers should be grouped together, for instance Super Biting, Super Jumping and all the "Super Strength" types combined. This also meant others, for instance X Ray vision, to be combined with other vision powers, because they affect the characters levels of vision. Personally, I think it should be added, though I also don't want it to cause another "Race to 100 powers." Jacobshaven3 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well unfortuntly I was one of those editors. In my defence it made sense for those to be strength. Plus I am not aiming for a certain number, my goal is to make the list as complete as possible.

One problem I am having though (maybe you guys can help) is that I cant find examples for some of the vision abilities. X-ray vision I can find but I need help with Telescopic vision, Microscopic vision, Night vision and Ability to see the electromagnetic spectrum.

Also feel free to comment if you dont think one or more of those ability dont work, this is a group effort. Thefro552

Whoever Thefro552 is, dfg says its alright because i am an obsessed superhero freak who is only a teenager who made those characters up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfg (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_comic_book_superpowers_Archive_4_6fa3.html"