Talk:List of comic book superpowers/Archive 2

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.

Contents

shapeshifting

shapeshifting ad morphing are different.

Mystique,plastic man are shapehifters. man bat,beast boy are morphers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epaladin (talk • contribs)

Do you happen to have any source for this? Who says that Shapeshifting and 'Morphing' are different other than you? Meweight 16:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
There is also the "Animal-based powers" section which covers what was added. I've removed it...before re-adding, please discuss here. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Mystiwue shapeshifts,she alters her body appearance,even shape.She cannot alter her mass or superpowers. For eample,if she becomes a crow,she can fly because she has wings but if she becomes a wolf,he cannot smell or hear like the wolf. Wolfsbane can acquire the wolve's power when she morphs,so can beast boy who also gains the animals powers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Epaladin (talk • contribs)
Please sign your posts with --~~~~. In that case, then the description of shapeshifting needs to be altered...we don't need another whole power for that. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Mystique has been shown to alter her mass, and gain powers -- armor/damage resistance, chameleonic blending, claws, disease/poison resistance, extra limbs (she once sprouted two extr arms), mental resistance (shifting her brain around), nightvision, and regeneration.Dr Archeville 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Mutants and Masterminds RPG, Morphing is the power to change your appearance (and only your appearance), whereas Shapeshifting lets you change your appearance & gain the abilities of the thing you turn into. Using this definition, Mystique has Morph, and Beast Boy, Martian Manhunter, Plastic Man, and Warlock have Shapeshift. This is, of course, only one definition. Dr Archeville 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In real life,the mmic octopus shapeshifts but the caterpillar morphs into a butterfly. Thats how I put it,it may be the other way for you.

I'm really not going to respond to you unless you sign your posts. How many times do we have to request this? --Kickstart70-T-C 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the difference between Appearance powers and Physical ones? Couldn't Appearance powers be folded into the Physical category? Dr Archeville 19:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's so much duplication and pseudo-power listing that it can only be improved by consolidation. CovenantD 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding miscellaneous section

It seemed to me that "Animal oriented" and "Animal based" are so overlapping that I combined them . It also doesn't seem to me that either of those categories properly falls under "Appearance". For example, Peter Parker's abilities don't have anything to do with his appearance. He still looks like a nerd, he just jumps and climbs and spews web like a spider.

Any other second level categories that don't belong in their current top level categories?

Oh, and sorry my notes about the version were so incomplete -- I accidentally hit "enter" before I was ready. SnappingTurtle 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Should "Animal Based/Oriented" even really be considered a power? Aren't they just an array/suite of related/themed powers? Would it be better to, as seems to sorta be happening now with the latest revisions, class it as an Archetype, and then list other Archtypes (ex.: "Bricks frequently have both great strength and an impressive resistance to damage. Examples: Colossus, Hulk, Strong Guy, Thing.")? Dr Archeville 02:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Motion to remove "incomplete" notice

This list will never be complete, but it's pretty darn good, and a good sight better than most Wikipedia articles that aren't burdened with an incomplete notice. I motion that that we remove the "incomplete" thing. Second? SnappingTurtle 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Currently I think it's more important to tidy and merge some powers and reorganize the categories, than to add more. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

what on earth

ninja shifting? digging has no description propulsion needs combining with flight. trigon

Removed ninja shifting...that was ridiculous. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Vision intangibility

I might be mistaken by listing it, but isn't Vision of the Avengers capable of intangibility. If not, could someone erase what I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.79.72 (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't add it, if you don't know and can't verify it. And please add to the bottom of this page, and signed your posts with --~~~~ --Kickstart70-T-C 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Motion to archive this discussion

A lot of the discussion in this page is no longer relevent. For example, the page is no longer crying out for a few items in the list.

I'd like to archive everything in this page. Wikipedia's currently recommended archive technique seems silly to me, so I'd like to try something that a few other pedians have done: simply delete everything and link to the last page in history before the deletion.

Someone could then add a section to the discussion describing the currently prevaling rules for how to edit this page.

Opine. SnappingTurtle 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A fair chunk of the talk page is from the past 10 days...I'd be fine with archiving the previous stuff, but I have to admit I much prefer the recommended method. It's a heck of a lot easier to use in consensus arguments that inevitably come up with often-edited pages. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you mind doing the archiving, then? SnappingTurtle 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Done...in a day or a few I'll clean up the rest here. There's current responses on the ones listed above. Cheers, --Kickstart70-T-C 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I motion to do it again. General o Armies

Looks like we're getting a lot of...

examples not from the superhero genre. Should we start a cleanup and removal or rename this page to something like "List of superpowers in fiction" or "List of superhuman powers"?

For what it's worth, I think the cleanup is the better option, although it will require move work and more ongoing attention. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in two different places on this talk page. I for one believe that we should rename the article to List of Superpowers. Even if you clean up now the the old examples will keep coming back and so what. It's all from the same pile of superpowers anyway. It's obvious Gaara has Sand Contol and that Danny Phantom can turn invisible, even if they're not DC of Marvel characters. --General of Armies 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is much better to rename the article to "List of superpowers in fiction" or "list of powers" or whatever. Superpowers is NOT just used in comic books so restricting it to them is just silly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.10 (talk • contribs)

Probably List of Superpowers. I mean are there any superpowers not in fiction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.4.219 (talk • contribs) --General of Armies 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 'superpowers' means more than one thing. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.97.195 (talk • contribs) --General of Armies 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Like Superpower - "a state with the first rank in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale", and others (Superpower (disambiguation)) --Kickstart70-T-C

We don't have a List of Superpowers article so I say it'd be safe to change the title of this article.--General of Armies 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean that's a good choice. I offer the following alternatives for discussion:
  • List of superhuman powers (bad because people have added animals, aliens, demons, and non-human cartoon characters)
  • List of super-powers in fiction (hyphenated appeals to me to avoid conflict with the the various meanings of 'superpower'))
  • List of superhuman abilities (though any mention of 'human' is not very good because of the above)
  • List of extraordinary abilities in fiction

What do you folks think? --Kickstart70-T-C 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think List of Superpowers in Fiction is fine. I don't see any interest in a List of fictional countries that have first rank in a fictional international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a fictional worldwide scale. The hyphenated one you suggested just doesn't seem right. In no comic or show does a person say "What's their super-power?" and extraordinary abilities goes to far away from the original title. So, List of Superpowers in Fiction will do, I hope.

I agree, we should change the name to List of Superpowers in Fiction, because List of powers in superhero fiction just doesn't cut it with me and a lot of other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.34.167 (talk • contribs) --General of Armies 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the latter of my suggestions: "List of extraordinary abilities in fiction". Why cause naming confusion where none exists? --Kickstart70-T-C 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Like the guy up there said, there is no interest in making a list of any of the other superpowers. This is just like the Naruto title arguments. When someone types in List of Superpowers this will be what they expect to find and if not just post a link to the disambiguation page and everything should be fine.

I am not going to reply to you if you don't sign your posts and indent your replies. We're not here to do your formatting for you. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK here I am. --General of Armies 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)General_of_Armies

How about we change the name to "List of Special Powers in Fiction"? "Extraordinary abilities" sounds too normal, like something that can be achieved in real life (ex: someone has an extraordinary ability to sing) while 99% of the stuff in this list, uh, can't. heh heh. CKalhoon 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I got it List of Super Powers in Fiction. Who's with me? --General of Armies 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm amenable to that. "Super Powers" is different enough for me from "Superpowers". --Kickstart70-T-C 21:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I really prefer "Special Powers" instead of "Super Powers" because not every story uses the term "Superpowers". Most use "special powers" or their own show-specific name. CKalhoon 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Special Powers is better.
"Special", how? "Extraordinary" is a much better word for this, as it explains clearly that these abilities are above and beyond the average person/creature/whatever. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Special and Extraordinary are fine in and of themselves. But come on people "Super." It means everything that we want it to mean and is widely used. I don't see the problem with List of Super Powers in Fiction I mean come on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by General of Armies (talk • contribs)
The problem is, there is nothing 'Super' about a vast number of the examples being provided. They are ranging from 18th century literature to non-Super science fiction aliens. IMO, the examples are the biggest problem here, as this is a list of powers, not a list of brings with those powers, and that's causing the name change to be an issue. I'm not suggesting getting rid of all the examples, but I am suggesting that if they are going to be so free form (nothing Super about them) then lets at least have a name that reflects that. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Case in point...Super Mario has just been added to "Size Shifting". That's really quite ridiculous...should he also be added to "Super Jumping" and a new power for the ability to smash bricks with his head? --Kickstart70-T-C 20:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

One or two of the best know examples is all that should be here. Super Mario in particular shouldn't be included because the title of the article involves "superhero fiction" and video games are not of that genre. CovenantD 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Incredibles' "Supers Files"

The Incredibles DVD had a list of all the supers that were put into hiding and eventually killed by Syndrome. Should these supers be added to this article? For example, Splashdown had some sort of control over water, right? I think they should all be added to this list. dogman15 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Note, this is a list of powers, not a list of beings with those powers. The examples are getting way out of hand, and talked about above. Who wants to take on the task of cutting this down to (max) two examples per power? That's what it was originally until a formatting cleanup by Yours Truly made it easier to read if there was more. At this point I'm starting to think the original limit was better. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

YOURE WELCOME!

After my cleanup, this page is OFFICIALLY COMICS-ONLY. Wanna add Games, Anime, Movies, whatever? Take 'em to another article! Good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.10 (talk • contribs)

Looking better, thanks. We did have guidelines in place for not listing powers where there wasn't at least two supers who had them, so I'm not sure about Illumination, but other than that it's good. I'm pretty certain that people will start making new additions, but we'll have to take care of that as it comes. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Super-Wishing

I've removed it since, once you take away outside sources like genies or fairy godparents, it's no different from Reality warping. CovenantD 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Illumination

Another redundant category - it's nothing more than photokinesis on a personal level, created to accomodate a single character from a movie. CovenantD 20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how are we going to keep this sane?

One day after the (excellent) cleanup work and already anonymous additions are made to include TV characters (Charmed) and anime/cartoons (Ben 10). Looks like none of those editors are noting the word "superhero", still. Suggestions on maintaining sanity here? Maybe we need a more blatant and expressive guideline box at the top? --Kickstart70-T-C 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, COMIC BOOK SUPERHERO might be a good start...  ;-) CovenantD 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. As well, all the links are now verified comic book characters, and pointing to the right pages (you would not believe how bad some of these were). My expectation is that if we can revert any bad changes for two weeks or so we'll regain some sanity on this list. Thanks in advance for any help! I'm a couple weeks from becoming a father for the first time, so I expect I won't have much editing availability for a bit. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Name of Article

Wouldn't "List of comic book superpowers" be more neutral than "List of comic book superhero powers"? With the title as-is, it seems to imply an omission of powers exhibited by supervillains, and that supervillains cannot be used as examples. Yes, it is unlikely there are that many superpowers possessed by supervillains and not superheroes, but being able to reference both supervillains & superheroes equally in the discussion would be helpful, I'd think. Dr Archeville 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

True, true. CovenantD 05:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I kind of agree, now that you mention it. Let's get some consensus (without waiting too long) before making another change though. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the name change sounds like a good idea. Jacobshaven3 07:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision

I've combined Appearance and Physical, moved Energy up so the major categories are in alphabetical order, moved all of the -kinetic based oned down to the Kinetic section (it seemed self-obvious), and moved Sonic Scream down to Physical. I'll make another pass tomorrow to put the rest in the most appropriate category, and possibly combine a few that are duplicitive. CovenantD 05:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Photokinesis/Umbrakinesis & Danger Sense/Clairvoyance

It seems that these are two different forms of the same power. Umbrakinesis (is that really a word?) is merely the ability to cause photons to leave an area, rather than "project darkness." In cases where this darkness has substance, it's usually described as accessing another dimension, which places it in energy or dimensional powers.

I've got some others I think should be combined also, like danger warning and clairvoyance, and I'm not sure how much should be discussed before or how bold I should be with them. Thoughts? CovenantD 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

i believe that clairvoyance is the ability to see other places around he world or events happening around the world and is nothing like a danger sense as that would be more of a sixth sense or a precognitive warning. also i would thing about putting extra dimensional powers on such as summoning living light and the abilities of summoning matter from the dark dimension cloak and dagger as this is more like projecting darkness/extradimensional materials and you could put it under matter creation or dimensional energies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.160.253 (talk • contribs)

I think they should stay separate because I wouldn't say that Dazzler and Shadow Lass have the same power. --General of Armies

80.192.160.253, my American Heritage Dictionary defines clairvoyance as the power to perceive things that are out of the natural range of human senses, or an acute intuitive insight or perceptiveness. It gives no mention of range. I'd grudging go along with precognition because Danger Sense may be interpreted as seeing the future, but since it's so often an immediate threat I'd be reluctant to go that way.
I had Marvel characters in mind when I wrote about darkness with substance - I basically cribbed from the OHOTMU entries on Cloak, Darkstar and others about accessing another dimension.
General of Armies, I definitely agree that their powers are different, but that's because Dazzler is an Energy Converter. She takes vibrational energy and converts it into photons. Now if you were to compare Shadow Lass to Dr. Light, I would disagree with you. They both control light, one by producing and manipulating it, the other by manipulating and negating it. CovenantD 23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So, we agree to leave them apart then? And, I gotta agree with 80.192.160.253 on the whole Danger Sense/Clairvoyance. I just don't see any harm in leaving them apart. --General of Armies
No agreement. I maintain that there is no such thing as Umbrakinesis, that's it's just a specialized form of Photokinesis. Using the Darkforce, to use the Marvel word for it, is actually accessing another dimension. But let's hear from others before we make a decision. CovenantD 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just change Umbrakinesis into the "accessing another dimension, such as the Darkforce" power?
I really don't see the harm in leaving them separate. Some heroes/villains just specialize in darkness-type powers and others in light-type powers and have different names for both them. I say leave them as is. CKalhoon 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Most characters that can affect light intensity can either only create light or remove it. Linking them together would be the same as linking Thermokinesis and Cryokinesis, since they both involve the release or absorbtion of kinetic energy. Jacobshaven3 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Innate Powers vs. Device-Based Powers

I saw where someone recently removed Dr. Doom from the Electrokinesis section, and Green Lantern from the Force Field section. Do powers have to be something intrinsic to a character for them to be considered a good sample, or can characters who have a given power from some device (be it technological or mystical) be considered? Dr. Doom was at one point said to have some of the best Force Fields of any supervillain on Marvel Earth, and I don't see why a GL/GL ring couldn't be used as a sample for a Hard Light/Energy Construct power. And, couldn't "Power Armor" be added under the Miscellaneous section, since a suit of Power Armor is just a collectiono of Superpowers, not unlike "Animal-Oriented Powers"? Should "Power Armor" be refined from "Weapon-Based Powers"? Dr Archeville 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If there's a notable character who has that power innately, I think they should be used as the example. Likewise, the best example is one who is known primarily for that power. While Doom may have good shields, he's not primarily known for that. GL in particular is a good example of the all-around weapon-based power, since his ring's used for so much more than just shields. It's used for travel, to open space warps, as an energy detector, etc. In order to do GL justice he would have to be listed in lots of different categories, or just in the one that describes him best.
Animal-oriented powers should be incorporated into Physical. There's nothing in there that isn't a physiological power, be it shapeshifting or superstrength or enhanced senses. Hawkman's only notable "power" (for this list) is artificial flight. CovenantD 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, Animal-oriented powers should remain where they are in Misc. Putting it in physical would make it clash to much with Shapeshifting. Dr Archeville's got a good idea, I think Powered Armor is prominent enough to not just be considered a subgenre of Weapon based powers. I'll add it in as soon as I can make a good enough definition. General of Armies
Done. Anyone feel it shouldn't be there, cause I think I did a pretty good job? General of Armies
Other than the fact you're obviously a Marvel fan, it looks pretty good :-) I'd rather it be just Armor, and swap out three of the Marvel examples for one DC, and it's great. CovenantD 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay know it's done. General of Armies
The last example should probably go away since it's a redlink (and an example without a page isn't helpful). Otherwise, good. --Kickstart70-T-C
Animal won't clash because it should go away. The only thing it does it duplicate powers already there. There is nothing distinct about it. It's fancruft. CovenantD 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I gave it a shorter more comfortable definition. I think it's ok now. General of Armies

Back at a Hundred!!!

Congrats all around we're back at a hundred powers people!!! w00t!!!

Is that what this is? A goal number to be reached? Hardly criteria for an encyclopedia. CovenantD 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well that was my goal way back when. But oh well. 95. Gen. o Armies

Lygokinesis

What is your source for this word? I can only find 6 distinct hits on Google, and all of them are either wikis or forum boards. CovenantD 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it came from pullitoutofyourassopedia ;-) Seriously, the making up of words sucks and doesn't need to happen. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh man. Back at 99. General
Lygokinesis. I can't find the translation for the prefix anywhere, but the Yahoo hits all report it to mean the manipulation of raw energy. The word is Greek anyway, making the proper term 'Energiakinesis', which could represent a lot of certain anime powers. As for the worry of 'making up words' from above, people make up words daily to describe new things, and using Greek prefixes and suffixes is handy to reach the word you're looking for. I like it when we have a professional-sounding word for superpowers, it neatens things up and starts teaching the basics of Greek too. I think you might start getting worried if some people went to the Phobia List ( http://www.phobialist.com/reverse.html ) and started putting -kinesis in the place of the -phobia, making words like medorthokinesis...now that would be scary.
On another note, I've just noticed on the same page that 'Lygophobia' is a fear of darkness...some translation problem here. Lady BlahDeBlah 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a list of comic book powers, the name of the power should come from the comic books themselves. As far as the Yahoo hits, all of the ones I looked at in detail fail for the same reason that the Google ones do - they all refer back to a user forum or a wiki, if not Wikipedia itself. CovenantD 22:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bastardised word

I switched the Terrakinesis to Geokinesis and added an explanation. Strictly speaking from a ex-Classical student's point of view, 'Terrakinesis' is a bastardised word, and with the other -kinesis terms all in proper Greek it seems weird to have the manipulation of earth in with a Latin prefix. We don't have 'Aquakinesis' in place of hydrokinesis, for example. Lady BlahDeBlah 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to correct others that are like that.... CovenantD 00:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Information of Marvel Heroes Classic Roleplaying Game

Hello! Thx for reverting my "wrong modification" on the page for comic book superhero powers. And I found a webpage that is talking about Marvel Heroes Classic Roleplaying Game, which contain large amount of information on mutant powers. The link is [1] Thx for the amazing working on this page! Unistardust 12:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Healing = Biokinesis

Since healing is already listed and described under Biokinesis, I'm removing it. CovenantD 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the examples, Healing ain't Biokinesis. I'm thinking of making it Healing/Repair or something like that, give me a minute. General of Armies
That's because your examples are wrong. The definition of biokinesis is manipulation of biology. It's not some absorbing power, which is who you have listed now. CovenantD 05:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the difference between Biokinesis and Vitakinesis? Jacobshaven3 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The way people have been defining it here, nothing. CovenantD 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
According to what I can discern, Biokinesis is the manipulation of biology, which can go from conscious elongation of the self to literally ripping apart your opponent's internal organs. Vitakinesis would be the healing, as you can tell from the prefix; it exists in words like 'vitality'. Lady BlahDeBlah 16:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is looking like a list, finally

Nice work, editors! --Kickstart70-T-C 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But only 85 powers long. General of Armies
That's because it's not about the numbers, it's about the powers. CovenantD 00:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Molecukinesis and Biokinesis

I don't see much of a difference here except biokinesis being limited to biological molecules. And wasn't this vitakinesis, or was that one of the barstadised words? Also, I don't know why Clorokinesis is classed as a specialized form of biokinesis, neither of the biokinetic examples can manipulate plant life in any form, and the "A specialized form of biokinesis" note should be removed. I mean, I see no connection here other than them being a kinesis power.

The way I see it, they're all specialized forms of psychokinesis in that they all deal with manipulating objects solely through the power of the mind. I combined bio- and vita- kinesis because the only distinction was to increase the number of powers. I didn't combine bio- and chloro- kinesis because chlorokinesis is very definitely limited to plant life, whereas biokinesis refers to all life. I'll take of the note. CovenantD 23:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
'Molecukinesis?' WTF?...I said it above, there's a difference here.
Biokinesis = warping of biology, i.e. the body. Warping self's limbs etc at will (Mr. Fantastic?) to causing one's opponent's internal organs to blow chunks.
Vitakinesis = this is proper healing. It's a sub of biokinesis, but can only repair, not elongate or destroy. Just heal.
Chlorokinesis = warping of plants. Getting that oak tree to stand up and thump itself into the middle of the road. I'd reckon it's very distinct from biokinesis other than it is manipulating living things.
And I just get confused with the telekinesis-psychokinesis argument. Psychokinesis (mind-movement) sounds to me to be stuff like mental blocks and mind-reading, while telekinesis (far-movement) fits the bill fine...I'm not getting into it, I don't know what exists in real life, but I use both of them simultaneously when I write about them for fiction to both mean separate things. Oh well, that's my two-penneth-worth. Lady BlahDeBlah 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to put Vitakinesis back, big suprise there. If it's ok with you CovenantD. Vitakinesis does appear to be a prominent enough sub of Biokinesis. General o Armies 67.150.14.16 03:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, actually, I just managed to find a decent translator, and Vit (for vitality) is Latin, not Greek, so vitakinesis is a barstadised word, and thus not a useable word. Also, telekinesis (the ability to move objects from a distance) and psychokinesis (the ability to move objects with your mind) are basically the same thing, although I always took psychokinesis as having less control, I don't know why. Although telekinesis could cover aerokinesis, clorokinesis, most of the kinesis powers really, since they are moving a specific object (or type of object) from a distance. Also Biokinesis should be the ability to control life, Since that is what bio means. Molecukinesis should be the ability to control molecules, I just think those are too similar, Elixir would clearly have biokinesis I guess, but Metamorpho's ability is more like Elemental Transformation then Biokinesis. Sorry, I think I started rambling then. Jacobshaven3 09:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, don't stop yourself. This is how we figure this stuff out. I agree with Metamorpho being in Elemental Transformation. So who should replace him as a really good example of Biokinesis? CovenantD 13:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Elixir's the only Hero that I can think of which uses Biokinesis, any other character that can control life on a molecular level can also control it in other forms, and is therefore uses moleculkinesis. I guess people that could self heal (like wolverine or sabertooth) have a form of self biokinesis as do shapeshifters, but Elixir's the only one I can recall which can use it on other people. Is there a character that can change other peoples shapes at all? I only know about Marvel characters and the main DC ones, so I might be glossing over some characters.Jacobshaven3 14:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there was that Morlock, Masque (comics), but she's kind of obscure. Healing factor already has a listing, and it's really more of a physical power than a kinetic one. CovenantD 16:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
She may be a bit obscure but she is still a good second example, her ability is only biokinesis, and Elixir is predominant enough to show it as a real, used ability.Jacobshaven3

Jumping and Biting

I think Super Jumping and Super Biting should stay seperate categories rather than just be "a part of Super Strength" because characters like Matter Eater Lad and Toad certainly aren't super strong. Their area of expertise is in Biting and Jumping respectively and not much else. CKalhoon 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Which means they have superstrength in their jaw or their legs. CovenantD 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Either could act like a mousetrap...lots of potential energy wound up. It's like the difference between lifting and carrying a cannonball 100 feet or shooting one out of a cannon. I'm afraid I may have to lean toward keeping them separate. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep them seperate man. No harm, no foul, and it makes sense. General of Armies
You lost all credibility when you revealed that your goal for this page was to reach 100 powers. But I'll bow to everyone else's wishes on this one and leave them in. CovenantD 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Covenant and General man, you guys just balance the out the universe. One adds powers the other takes them away. If General were alone there'd be about 200 vague and useless powers. If CovenantD were alone no one would ever add anything new. I'm just feeling the love on this talk page right now.207.62.88.11 17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've conceded several times when others feel they should be listed. I just refuse to let this be about the number of powers. It's about verifiability; if it's not mentioned in a comic book or some other source, it shouldn't be here. CovenantD 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel the love.207.62.88.11 17:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Not funny.--General of Armies 03:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Covenant, I don't think that they should be kept separate, as these powers really are just super strength focused in a certain area of the body. Meweight 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Kickstart70, I understand what you're saying, but I still contend that release of potential energy needs that extra strength to make it meaningful. To use your mousetrap analogy, the bigger the spring (stronger the legs), the more powerful the trap (the longer the leap). Why is the Hulk able to leap so far? Why was Superman able to leap buildings in a single bound? Because of their superstrength. CovenantD 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
How does that account for characters like Toad and while the Hulk can leap incredible distances few other Super Strong beings (The Thing, Juggernaut, Blob, Strong Guy, etc.) can leap as far. The rest (Superman, Captain Marvel,) can fly, Hulk can't.General of Armies
i think powers shudn't be generalised but split into different catagories i dnt believe x-ray vision is a part of supersenses but more and optical ability also if we delete powers like psy blasts by catorgarizing it as something else we shud add it on to the power we put it under like psy blasts was deleted but not added to telekinesis u shud create headings and have subheading powers associated like telekinetic forcefields, flight, forceblasts, fine motor control, reality bending, combat telekinesis and tactile telekinesis say no to generalising and yes to dividing or catorgarizing.
Ok I don't get half of what's written up there but I like the idea. Subcategorizing would allow for greater flexibility when adding powers. Should we start the reformating now, later, or never. --General of Armies 22:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
A Super Sense is any ability that enhances the senses. Being able to look throguh walls is an enhanced sense. I think some generalization is necessary in some case, otherwise you end up with an incredibly long, very untidy list which, even if organised, is a bit difficult to read, especially if you add sub folders etc/ Jacobshaven3 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, to add to that, I think that a power should only be kept seperate if the ability has a clear seperation, so although that means that Super Biting may come seperate to Super Strength (although a specialization note should be added) X ray vision should be kept the same as heat vision and other Super Sense powers, since it's basically the same with a slight difference.
Ditto on not creating subcategories. It's just a way of bumping up the number and creating useless divisions based on how a power is used. CovenantD 15:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Examples

I've begun to notice that lots of people are adding more than two examples under certain characters, I think that, unless the power can be used in very different ways, no more than two examples should be necessary. If people agree with me, can someone go through and remove any unnecessary examples.Jacobshaven3 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave up on limiting the examples to two, but I do draw the line at three. :-) CovenantD 15:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If people don't like my change, they can revert it, but I'm removing excess examplkes. Some of them are just unnessary and make it look untidy. If every example has two, then it prevents people adding a third, and makes it easier to rectify it when people do. Jacobshaven3 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't want to start a revert war here, but I see no reason why Raven should be placed at every single power she has. This is not a list of Super Heroes by their power, and therefore should [b]not[/b] have any more than two examples for each ability. Am I being unreasonable with this? Jacobshaven3 03:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Raven is listed too often in this list, and often in places of dubious merit. Feel free to substitute her with other, more precise characters. Remember, the power should be a defining one, Like Masque and biokinesis.
Yeah, I also tried to make sure that examples from different companies or areas was used, to prevent bias toawrds a specific group. (Say using One Marvel character and one DC when the choice was between 2 marvel and a DC) if you get what I mean. I'm starting to get irritated by people that add extra examples and obviously don't read about the Maximum of two examples limit. does this really happen as often as it has been happening? Jacobshaven3 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes. What's even more annoying is when they don't even bother to make them comic book examples. I don't know how many times I've had to revert Charmed televsion characters. CovenantD 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I, ahem, apologise for my outburt in the title of my edit. but people just get on my nerves when they don't read the whole no more than two examples rule. Jacobshaven3 14:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Elemental Control

Is there any point in including this power? Couldn't one just say that a character with this power (Crystal being the only example so far anyway) has aerokinesis, hydrokinesis, pyrokinesis, and geokinesis? Meweight 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. CovenantD 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I suggest to keep the list of kitetic abilities in one place, for ease of maintenance. People add new information at random here or there, so both lists (in -kinesis and in List of comic book superpowers), while being basically the same, contain in some places very different text. `'mikka (t) 20:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not One has real-world, scientific definitions and the other is pure fantasy. It's not like comparing apples and oranges, but more like apples and whales. CovenantD 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree! the kinesises are widely beileived as a real thing, not merging them with comic books!! thats rediculus. scientists are doing reasearch on this stuff, and you just think its okay to merge it with comic books just because your a skeptic.
  • What a silly idea. We aren't even talking about the same thing. Speedy remove this tag, please. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No way, even though I accept that kinesises are fictional, I do believe that they are separate from the wide variety of comic book powers in that they have their own suffix, and share a common element. Also, fiction should include TV etc. not just comics. Remove the tag. Zythe 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How/whether to list this?

Swamp Thing has the ability to travel through "The Green", which is similar to wormholes, with the requirement that he travels from any plant to any other plant. In some ways it's also similar to those characters who travel from one shadow to another. Should this be listed, and if so, how? --Kickstart70-T-C 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless another character can also use this I'd leave it be, but thats just my opinion. Jacobshaven3 (Forgot to sign it)

I actually think of it as a form of astral projection/possession. He's an elemental, so he basically is the Green. All he does is project his consciousness into plants that he controls. CovenantD 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat closer, yeah. I remember reading one issue where he travelled through the Green to another planet and his form dramatically changed to the native flora. It's a combination of long-range possession, shape-shifting, and teleportation (since he doesn't leave a body behind). --Kickstart70-T-C 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

hey what happened?

Duplication Ability to create physical Doppelgängers.???

im not a D&D fan but isnt it a Doppelganger an evil copy of a person or animal??

so why you put an Doppelganger? intead of a "duplo", "clone", I mean not necesary all copies are gonna be evil... or simply just is the ability of selfcopy by mental methods... is more practical for me

A Doppelgänger is an exact look alike to the original. FOr the use in fiction, many Doppelgängers are an "evil twin" but the name refers to many people that look identical in every way. Although the term is also used for look alikes in the real world, so I think the term should be changed to clone just for accuracies sake. Or even "duplicates". Jacobshaven3 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Clone" would be more apt than "Doppelgänger" and I tried to change it, but Covenant seems to feel that doppelgänger works just fine. It probably does so I wouldn't worry about it.CKalhoon 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
A clone is the result of a specific labratory process involving genetic manipulation, usually resulting in a genetic duplicate that has no other connection to the original. Clones don't get absorbed back into the "prime" body. A doppelgänger, on the other hand, doesn't imply any kind of origin. It was a good idea, but not really applicable in this case. CovenantD 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Cure for the Craziness

People seem bent on adding their favourites and describing powers in detail so I was wondering if anyone is interested in giving some of the more common powers their own articles. These articles could cover the entire spectrum of literature and entertainment and the uses of these abilities so people could take all their unnecessary-for-this-page additions and put them on there. I've created one for Superhuman Strength and received some help already. I'm willing to do one for speed and pyrokinesis, too, but I'm obviously not going to cover all of the powers here (partly because not every power needs an article and partly because I don't have the time). I think this might cut back on some of the craziness. If nobody minds, I'd like to link the super strength page under...well, you know...Super Strength. CKalhoon 17:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. One, many of the kinesis powers have been tried as separate articles but so much unverified crap was loaded onto them that they were immediately redirected back to the basic article. I'm afraid the same might happen here. Two, we have a pretty good handle on things here right now. Sure, it takes some effort, but not as much as trying to monitor who-knows-how-many separate articles. Three, many of them will end up being stubs, and doesn't Wikipedia have enough of those already? There's only so much you can say about atmokinesis without getting redundant, and most of that would be original reseach anyway. I'm not going to say don't, but I really don't see the need to give the kids a place to play. That's what the sandbox is for.
If you do proceed anyway, I'd strongly suggest that you put (comics) on the end of each of them or you're going to be swamped with TV and anime and cartoon and every other form of media you can imagine. And that's just an unholy mess. CovenantD 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
well i my own opinion, is great the idea, but, in some cases is not rally necesary to create a new topic about an specific power, because well for example, when we search for hercules, or super-man or the incredible Hulk, they describe the superhuman-Strength they posses so, well maybe for some kind of super-powers its fine
Well, like I said, doing one for every power isn't necessary, just the more common and versatile ones that everyone and their grandmother keep adding stuff for. Things like Duplication wouldn't need one as there isn't much you can say about it other than "create instant clones", but others like Air manipulation might warrant articles detailing the full use of them and the characters that use them. I dunno, it's just something I'm throwing out there. CKalhoon 13:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's some examples of past attempts;
  1. Aerokinesis[2]
  2. Geokinesis[3]
Needless to say, they didn't last long, but this is the kind of thing that might happen. CovenantD 13:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yikes. I see what you mean. Perhaps an emphasis on it being fictional would help, but calling an article "Aerokinesis in fiction" seems redundant to me. Well, let's just see what happens. CKalhoon 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sonic scream... U are missing something

hello again, hey i was reading.. the last versions of this fantastic article, and i notice something you put here in this newest version sonic scream and is ok, but what about the sonic wave?... i mean its a similiar attack but whit diferent methods.. well you see the thing and the incredible hulk can make a "gigantic" Clap and make an sonic wave, this can be also whit feeth but well my point is where did you put the sonic wave or? where did you included well have a nice day ;)

also i was thinking... isnt Super biting a specific Super Strength for well.. biting almost everything through even the toughest of solid objects?

Because of the Hu8lks super strength, I'd say his ability to clap his hands loudly in such a fashoin is just a part of his super strength, being able to create waves of energy, and therefore not another power but an off shoot of his strength. Also, the Super biting comment has already been made, theres a section about it above you :) Jacobshaven3 07:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

well and the point of this

hello there, well my dear friends, i think this list is getting better and better, more realistic and complete, ( actualliy y think this will never be complete )jaja well i mas wandering i mean you know pretty well what a super-power is and what can it do... so a was asking to my-self... which super power is the best, of course you will your favorite, but which one could it be?... simply curiosity well for my own opinion i think that the duplication power is the best!! it rules!!, if you can control it, this power can have alot of potencial >;)