Talk:List of comic book superpowers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

We need some help expanding this article. Battrarules

I think it should be organized according to the type of power, rather than some vague notion of how "common" the powers are in fiction. Possible categories could include enhanced physical or mental abilities (the power to do something every human can do, only way better), energy manipulation, etc. I also wonder if it wouldn't be better to broaden the scope of the list and retitle it, so that it is a List of superhuman powers in fiction instead of focusing on just the superhero genre. Postdlf 29 June 2005 04:53 (UTC)

Lets leave that for when the list is longer than 15 powers. This articule needs to be expanded!!!

This article needs some quality control, honestly - we should either expand it so it provides some actual information or just delete it entirely. Why would anyone want a list of all the powers anyone can compile on powers in superhero fiction? What kind of information would they want? Is this even something that would go in an encyclopedia, even one like Wikipedia? If those questions can be answered then we'll have a place to start reworking. If not, perhaps this should be made a candidate for deletion. - Tinderblast 02:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is helpful. Many novelists and comic book writers assume the terms are understood. But such concepts change over time. Does telepathy include mind control or not? Could someone only be able to send their thoughts OR only hear others' thoughts, but not both, and, if so, is there a name for that, or do you just call it limited telepathy. Does telepathy include astral projection, or is that a different ability? Does it include reading only a person's surface thoughts? Or does it include probing into somebodies memories? And if so, can those memories be manipulated or erased, or is that a different power? Should those be different terms? Over time, it would be helpful if we are on the same page when discussing the concepts as they evolve.

Note: I edited clairvoyance (seeing current events that are far away) because seemed to have been confused with precognition (seeing future events).

Hoohah!!! We are now well over the HUNDRED mark. And to think, some of you wanted to delete this.

Should the powers have each word capitalized? I honestly preferred it earlier when each power had the first word capitalized and the rest not (for instance Animal-oriented powers instead of Animal-Oriented Powers). Anyone else want to voice their opinion? Meweight 08:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Mechanical abilities

An additional section is needed for mechnical abilities such as Iron Man's suit or Wolverine's adamantium skeleton and claws (I've removed him from the 'natural weapon' section...they aren't natural). This could also include the various giant robots, I suppose :) --Kickstart70 21:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, actually, Wolverine's claws ARE natural. The adamantium isn't, but when the adamantium is removed, Wolverine still wields claws made of bone. Besides, most mechanical abilities have been used by people who don't have mechanical powers (such as Iron Man's super strength or Wolverine's extremely durable skeleton). Meweight 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hrm...upon further review, you're correct. My apologies. I don't know why I was convinced they were part of the grafting process. I do think that the mechanicals should be added to superpowers...they are an addition not entirely unlike those added by non-mutation forces. Some of them, like Wolverine's skeleton, are not (easily) removable. Others are, but no one would say that Iron Man isn't a 'superhero'. On a related note, if super-intelligence is accepted, then super-mechanical ability could be. --Kickstart70 00:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Another one that could fit into 'mechanical', albeit rather strangely, would be Warlock --Kickstart70 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging/cleanup

Some more clearly defined rules need to be used for the categories. For example, why would shapeshifting be an Appearance power and not a Molecular one? Or invisibility or size-changing? Or why wouldn't elasticity be an Appearance power? Cleanup tag added. --Kickstart70 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pyrokinesis

I am neither the pyrokinesis poster, nor the one who reverted those edits initially. But if we're going to start posting such voluminous information, the page is going to get way out of control. I strongly suggest that this information not be included on this page. If the specific power warrants it (telekinesis might, for the real-world claims of its existence), then information like this belongs on its specific page. This page is named "List of powers..." for a good reason. --Kickstart70 18:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The two super rule

Thinking about the "two super rule" that currently prevales...while I agree that this list would get untenable with massive additions, perhaps the best method would be to cut down in a better way. I propose the following form:

==Animal-oriented Powers==
Some powers are oriented around one animal or a specific animal's appendages such as the wings of a bird, the claws of a cat or the skin of an
armadillo, or the fins and gills of a fish. 
Examples: Hawkman, Spider-Man, and Cheetah

Basically, individual superhero pages should go into details on the powers, and this should just be a 'list' above all else. The description should be short and clear. The superheroes should be example, no descriptions. Barring feedback in the near future with a better idea, I'll jump in and start making changes. --Kickstart70 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I also think that the examples should be primarily focused on comic book superheroes rather than cartoon characters and other types of characters, but then again, that's just my opinion. Meweight 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. What a major task. Hopefully this will allow a few more examples to satisfy the people who keep adding them, yet keeps the list to a more reasonable size and in 'list' format. --Kickstart70 07:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete

I vote for removing the INCOMPLETE notice at the beginning of the page. The list contains over a hundred powers and no one seems to be adding any more, just moving them around. Unlisted powers can be added normally now. There is no need for the Incomplete notice. I wouldn't remove it until someone agrees with this though.

I've got to disagree with you there. There are way more than a hundred different superpowers, we just haven't listed the more obscure ones yet. I don't really think you can remove an Incomplete notice from a list such as this one. Non-incomplete lists, to me at least, have always seemed to be ones that list like all the actors who starred in a TV show or a list of Greek gods or something. Those can actually be considered complete because there is a limit to them. Until we're absolutely sure that we've got every single superpower there is, I really don't think we should remove it. Of course, that's just my opinion, so we should probably see if anyone else has anything to say about it. -Meweight 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Meweight (for now)...it causes no harm and there are plenty of powers left to add (still trying to figure out how to add Warlock's (from the New Mutants) technovirus, for example). --Kickstart70 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Superhero fiction

We're getting too many people adding non-superhero/supervillain powers here )like T-1000 of Terminator 2: Judgment Day just added). Suggestions on keeping this from becoming a free-for-all? --Kickstart70·Talk 04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what the dividing line is exactly. Is it presence in a comic book? By most standards the T-1000 is a supervillain. JoshuaZ 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always assumed this article was meant for superpowers displayed by comic book characters. Perhaps, if this is agreed upon by others, this should be clearly mentioned on the page. -Meweight 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Superhero fiction. Sorry. I'll remove the Prince of Persia, since that is far from superhero stuff. I kinda like the idea of keeping the T-1000 in though. It might not be a supervillian, but it is definitely a villian, and it has super power in question. IChrisI 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should add non-superhero/supervillian powers her. Just because it isn't in a comic book doesn't mean it's not a superpower. Like Viewtiful Joe for instance.

Name Change

I think we should change the name of this article to simply List of Superpowers.General of Armies Who's with me?General of Armies

I disagree, because that's not what this article is supposed to be about. It is specifically designated for superhero fiction. Other articles can be created that list the powers of characters in anime, cartoons, and whatever else, but this article has always been meant for superhero fiction. -Meweight 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong preference either way, but we do need to reach a consensus on this. I would midly suggest changing it to a list of "common" superheros, defining a power as common if at least two heros from separate narratives posses the power (so for example super-strenth works because of Spiderman and He-Man even though He-Man isn't a comic book character, on the other hand, if a hero and the hero's child had the ability to telekinetically pick others peoples noses, that wouldn't get to go on since they are from the same narrative). This would allow a wide variety of abilities while preventing it from becoming too long and listcrufty as it might if all powers were allowed. JoshuaZ 02:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Superpowers aren't just used in superhero fiction, though. Anime, Cartoons, Video Games, and Movies all draw from the same pool of superpowers so this really does apply to all of them. - AnonymousGeneral of Armies

Does a "power" have to be built-in?

For something to be described as a "power", does it have to be something the character has built into his/her body, as opposed to some kind of device or technique that the character utilizes? For example, Scarecrow's main "power" is that he can induce fear. So we might call that empathy. However, he gets that power by splashing himself with a chemical that, when smelled, makes people very afraid. (BTW, I'm getting this information from the one comic book I ever read that had Scarecrow, and that was many years ago.) Iron Man wears a suit of armor. Mirror Master creates illusions with mirrors. But Scarecrow, Iron Man, and Mirror Master are all "normal" people who just have a technological edge of some kind. Do they have "powers"?

If so, where do we draw the line? One of Bruce Wayne's most powerful powers is that he's filthy stinkin' rich. In the real world, that's a real power. How about in comic book world?

If we don't count "add-ons", does the concept merit a separate page?

SnappingTurtle 20:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope...Iron Man's powers are all suit-contained (except perhaps his mechanical genius) but he should still be included. However, 'filthy stinkin' rich' probably doesn't qualify...that's a means to gain the powers, not the powers themselves (unless he has the ability to suffocate people with wads of cash). --Kickstart70·Talk 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hm, now that you mention it...perhaps there should be an article on means to gain powers? Like a "List of origins in superhero fiction" or something. I don't know, it was just the first thing that came to my mind when I read that. -Meweight 05:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rules for new powers

After 'vulgarkinesis' silliness, I suggest the following rules for whether a power should be included here:

  • A 'superhero/villain' with this power already has a Wikipedia page
  • More than 1 'superhero/villain' has this power

This means that a power -can- be added with only one hero/villain, as long as that h/v already has a page, and as long as he/she/it is not the only h/v with that power. How does that work for everyone else? --Kickstart70·Talk 17:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable standard. JoshuaZ 18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I can also agree with this. Meweight 23:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
So, I guess Skin's power would be out of the question, unless you count the fact Skinhunter of Generation Hex has the power too... - Kevingarcia 06:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the latter, but it sounds like this power qualifies just fine under these rules. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a way, Skin's power is just a flawed version of the Elasticity power Mr. Fantastic has -- Skin can stretch his skin, Reed can stretch his skin, bones, and everything in between. Is Skin's power different enough to be classed as a distinct power? Dr Archeville 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Radiokinesis

I'm changing Radiokinesis back to Radiation control. I googled it and it doesn't exist in the form the article describes. So unless someone can show that Radiokinesis means Radiation control it should mot be titled Radiokinesis.General of Armies

I'm pretty sure a good number of those powers don't actually exist but are labeled to match the '-kinesis' trend. Meweight 13:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
While were on that topic "Echokinesis" makes no sense given what "kinesis" means. JoshuaZ 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Molecukinesis = Reality Warping?

Molecukinesis is the manipulation of molecules and isn't that how Reality Warpers explain their power? It seems redundant to me to give them each their own listing. CKalhoon 20:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because, you're right. It is redundant.

Added it back, but gave it a better definition and examples.General of Armies

Isn't Molecukinesis the Molecule Man power? Also, as written, how is it different from Phasing? Dr Archeville 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

analysation

which person removed my piece on analysation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigon (talk • contribs)

That was me. If you look through the history, I said "Revert 'analysation' addition without required examples". As agreed upon for this page, you must include examples of being who have this power. Further, it was uncapitalized, as all the others are, and there were misspellings and bad punctation. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

look i know someone can do it but i forgot the name and i wrote it at midnight and why is your username highlighted?

Bio-electricity

Bio-electricity is NOT the ability of attractions and stuff. I looked under Jessica Drew and it says that her bio-electricity is equal to a low-level lightning bolt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfg (talk • contribs)