Talk:List of comic book superpowers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of comic book superpowers article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This is the current Comics Collaboration of the Month! Please help improve it to featured article standard.

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
List	This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
More information:

Contents 1 Telekinesis and technopathy 2 Cyberpathy and Technopathy 3 Name 4 Categories as Examples 5 Motion to move 6 Just noting 7 Proposition 7.1 Smile 8 Powers 8.1 Survival in a Vacuum 8.2 Bone Manipulation 8.3 Ghost Powers 8.4 Bio-electricity 8.5 Electromagnetism 8.6 Dream Manipulation? 8.7 Cyberpathy 8.8 Undersea adaptation 9 DC know-it-all wanted 10 Topics to address 11 Invulnerability - no such animal 11.1 Power References 12 Neoligism idea 13 I haven't forgotten Cyberpathy! 14 Biological Manipulation 15 Light Manipulation 16 New power? 17 Guess what! New possible powers 17.1 Question 18 Officially coined? "Chronokinesis" 19 Kitty Pride ability 20 Photographic Reflexes 21 Biological Manipulation 22 Formatting 23 More coinage 24 New Idea 25 Solar Energy Absorption 26 Fun task for everyone 27 Example notes 28 Fictional character by superhuman power 29 Vamperiusm a super power? 30 WikiProject Comics Collaboration of the Month 31 Heroes tv series characters 32 TOC 33 Means and Methods sections 34 Why specifically comic books? 35 Proposed powers 35.1 Example of proposal list 36 Heat vision 37 Dust 38 Question 39 Separate Super-Powers page 40 Silver Surfer's board 41 Heading Level Format Structure 42 Mutation 43 Kinesis 44 Created or published 45 Proofreading the reference section 46 neologisms in List of comic book superpowers 47 Extreme wealth 48 Semi-protection 49 Superman not listed in examples 50 Swamp Thing's travel method? 51 Problem 52 Re-offer 53 Hydrokinesis 54 Format 55 Gestalt 56 Resurection 57 Page move 58 Apocalypse's Self-manipulation power 59 Where To Edit?

[edit] Telekinesis and technopathy

I don't think that telekinesis and technopathy are "methods". The method to use those powers would be "Psionic". Telekinesis should be under "Manipulate fundamental forces or reality" and technopathy and illusion should be under "Domination and mind control". Am I wrong? Please tell me if it is so. MasterOfAndromeda 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I've moved technopathy (And renamed it) but I was lazy to do so for telekinesis... Undead Herle King 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not right. Technopathy means using technology with your mind. It's a method that allows lots of different powers to be used. Plus, telekinesis is the way almost all people that manipulate anything use their powers, it's a method of flying, it's a method of shape shifting, and it's a method of controlling the weather. Jacobshaven3 07:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, why is technopathy been changed? It's a real word, whereas Supra- Natural Technology Manipulation has no source. Jacobshaven3 07:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, all forms of manipulation over substances are named neither **genesis nor **kinesis in the list, that is, there's "air manipulation" instead of "aerokinesis", "fire manipulation" instead of "pyrokinesis" or "pyrogenesis" (and both are gathered in the concept)... Thus it would be ""technology manipulation" which doesn't seems superhuman on itself; thus the adjective "superhuman" or "suprahuman". The corresponding term, "technopathy" and the term "cyberpathy", the former afecting hardware and the later software, are gathered in this term like "water manipulation" gathers "hydrokinesis" and "hydrogenesis"; two different but related superpowers... Likewise "time manipulation" includes "chronokinesis" and variants...

Now, it is true that one could use technopathy to a variety of goals, so is true for telekinesis... But, you could say the same of any superpower combined with proper creativity, knowledge and circumstance. A great pyrogenetic could use his powers to simultaneously burn all the virus and bacteria of a subject with flames so small they fail to substain themselves or maybe not, maybe I'm going bad with science there but... Cartoon physics have their counterpart in comic sciences... There it could be so, or else, a thermogenetic... Hey, even a being with bone manipulation could become a healer thanks to it; by manipulating his bones as a tool into the interior of the subject.

I wont change this any more, but I will let people judge... Just to round this up... The idea would be having cyberpathy and technopathy defined as subsets of "Superhuman technology manipulation". My arguments are given... Undead Herle King 08:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your perspective completely, and have held it in the past, but my reasoning for it as a Method over a type is that unlike Pyrokinesis, which has one main "way" of being used, Technopathy encompasses lots of regularly used abilities. Iron Man uses technopathy to control his suit (via nanotechnology), Blackbox uses technopathy to read all the information on the internet. Hank Henshaw uses it to change his shape and to control nearby machines. And thats before you include the less common uses for it, including Sage, who (via her glasses) is able to learn and remember everything online due to her powers. As for telekinesis, so many variants exist, some only able to lift themselves, others able to break down objects to their atomic structure. They could reproduce any of the "kinesis" abilities with proper control, and even some of the other powers. (they could theoretically affect peoples DNA to change their genetic structure, with enough knowledge they could bring things to life, and heal the sick. It's so versatile and it's the actual way lots of the powers exist (Fire Manipulation is Telekinesis limited to fire et al). Thats my opinion anyhow. Jacobshaven3 08:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, well, as it is now, cyberpathy is totally absent from the article, and by your description I would take Sage and Blackbox are cyberpaths, their powers involve the software alone, indeed technopathy and cyberpathy have a lot of ways of being used, but both are mere subsets to a more generic power... Now one could say about telekinesis, or more precisely, psychokinesis as the later trascends in field of action to the former ^{(a psychokinetic could move an invisible being by will alone, or else move people he's seeing live in the tv even if he ignores the direction the zone filmed, a telekinetic would never do the former and do the later only if she/he were well-informed of the direction and it conceded that in between his/her target and himself/erself there's the TV that shows them live)}, that it is merely a susbet of "reality alteration" or "mental control of reality"... That comes to be psionics and applies to cyberpathy and technopathy too... Psionics is like magic, but sourced on will alone, while magic is sourced in knowledge that links the magic-wielder to channel naturally magical energies around for their goals, or else, if not in knowledge, in an unnatural connection with these energies, indeed psionics can be easily equated to magic in the case of natural born magic users... But magic, as fiction presents it, is limited by areas where mightier magic dumpen it or negate it altogether if not, turn it ballistics, psionics instead is dampened by attacks upon the psionicist behind, even to the point of battling his mind... I would guess the debate has the problem of a lack of consistency of definitino in the media... But I really guess Psionics, as inately more generic, would go there better... I mean, a cyberpath controls software, a technopath controls machinery (even electric screwdrivers and such that lack software), a telekinetic moves substances/matter, a psionic "uses the mind", a spellcaster or magic user "uses magic" and so on... The direct definition tells of the first three what they do (not to which effect or how) and the next two of how they do it, not what they do or to which effect. I mean, Prue is a magical telekinetic, Jean Gray is a psionic telekinetic. Jean Gray is sci-fi, Prue is "modernized medieval fantasy"... In effect her telekinesis is recognized as an inheritance from earlier types, while Jean Gray's is the result of evolution. Prue has nothing to do with science when explaining her power, Jean Gray has; A scientifically-made clone from Prue would not necessarily be a telekinetic, a magicall-made clone of either both would be a telekinetic. I guess with more editors in here a consensus can be made...Undead Herle King 08:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberpathy and Technopathy

These terms used to be distinguished... What happened now? Undead Herle King 07:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

• What if we just kept the name of the page "List of comic book superpowers", but when we make the list include examples from other sources. Honestly this list is so wide and veried that the powers from any other sources can be attributed to something on this page. Thefro552 6:42, 28 Nov 2006

I don't think anyone (recently) suggested a change to the name of the page...

However, since you bring it up : )

Per several discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, there is now a naming convention for lists. (WP:NCC#Lists) Based on that We'll eventually have to disambiguate this page (and the associated categories - which is another reason why creating new ones now wouldn't be a good idea).

We should discuss picking one of the following:

• List of superhuman powers in comics-related media
• List of superhuman powers in comics and animation
• List of superhuman powers in comics
• List of superhuman powers in comic books

Note: "superhuman powers" was considered preferred over "superpowers" per several previous discussions.

If we follow what the page has been so far, we should pick the last one. However, the categories are more inclusive, and the name here should reflect the naming of the categories. I think "in comics" should be enough, for our purposes. (And as a matter of fact, there have been some recent discussions which suggest that "in comics" includes "and animation" by default, so the further disambiguation of "and animation" should only be used when absolutely necessary.) - jc37 13:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the last one. The page itself will still be about comic book powers its just he lists that would be more inclusive. This doesnt mean that we have to change the whole title. Thefro552 11:13, 28 Nov 2006

Well I think each should reflect the other... But I understand the hesitancy : ) - jc37 12:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories as Examples

To the anon or anons who keep reverting the category examples, please take some time to read this page (and it's archives), and feel free to join in on the discussion. I think we're all generally open-minded here, and would be happy to hear your good reasons for your edits. But until then, such edits would appear to be contrary to current consensus. Not to mention we're attempting to remove possible POV issues from the page. So please cease such disruptive activity. - jc37 12:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to move

To stick with the current consensus about not using characters with object bases powers as examples we should move the "Object based powers" to Miscellaneous section. Where it is now makes it seem to new user or the anon IPs that they can include characters with object based powers. Thefro552

Since we are not using examples any more, which powers are given solely by Objects? Jacobshaven3 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nearly any power could be manifested by an "object". Flight: A Legion flight ring; Manipulate cold: Captain Cold's ray gun; Manipulate weather: Weather Wizard's wand; Animal affinity: Vixen's Tantu Totem; etc etc etc. The reason that we decided to not use them on this page is that when a power isn't "inherent" somehow to the individual, then it can be "transferred", by simply giving the object to someone else, among many other problems of clarity and ambiguity. (Such as: does an airplane give one the superhuman power of flight? Obviously not.) Eventually, if we manage to come up with enough objects (it shouldn't be hard), we could logically create a set of categories for them as well: [[:Category:Fictional objects with the power to/of <x>]], etc. But before we do that, and create a bunch of under-populated categories, I would prefer if we started a list somewhere, first. (Expanding List of objects in the DC Universe might be a start.) - jc37 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow you guys spun this out of control. All I meant was that the characters that obviously use objects to gain there powers(Green Lantern or Iron Man). I didnt say anything about new categories. I was simply talking about the few powers that dont have enough for a category. Thefro552 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I mean is, since we aren't allowing examples of actual characters unless absolutely necessary. Why is there need for a move. It's the powers we are listing, not a list of hero sources. Jacobshaven3 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Touche. Thefro552 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just noting

Just to let everyone know my edit were purly to make the list look a bit more conformed. Some of them wernt easy to write and make it sound good so please change if you can make it sound better. Thefro552 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look bad to me : ) - jc37 07:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition

After quite a bit of searching and studing I think I might have some sort of solution to the Durability vs Invunerability depate, at least for this page. I believe we should split them apart.

Yes I realise it seems like a simple option but hear me out. After looking through alot of character pages the only two characters I could find that demonstrated Invunerability to (basically) the letter were Superman and Juggernaut, (in his prime). They both are/were impossible to physicaly harm. But are invunerable to magic.

So my idea is to make a definition for Invunerability something along the lines of, "Ability to be completly immune to physical harm". While, for durability, something like, "Ability to have resistance to physical harm above that of a normal human".

Again I realize it simple but, at least to me, it makes sense. In my opinion the argument between the two types will never be sufficantly solved so really, why cant we just have both?

Please tell me what you think. Thefro552 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Invulnerable means: "incapable of being wounded, hurt, or damaged." so like Superman. Whereas Durable means:able to resist wear, decay, etc., well; lasting; enduring.

So basically, Durable is above human natural resistance, and invulnerability is complete resistance to physical attacks.

As a side note, I think you mean Superman and Juggernaught are not invulnerable to magic. :p Jacobshaven3 02:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you think of another Marvel example that I may have missed? I dont think that I can use Juggernaut any more since he was drastically depowered. Thefro552 03:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Armageddon has partial Invulnerability, but his article is quite sparse. To be honest, Apocalypse would be a good example, but I'm not sure if, since he has so many powers, he's a bit vague. I'll carry on looking for you. Jacobshaven3 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate invunerability.:) Anyways I just remembered that I found a character not too long ago that was invunerable to everything but a magic sword but I cant remember who he was. Dang stupid brain cant remember anything. Thefro552 03:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't remember a character that was invulnerable other than to a magic sword, but I have found an invulnerable character, I think. Rage, he has super strength and Invulnerability according to his infobox, though since I've never read anything with him in I can't say for certain it is invulnerability. Jacobshaven3 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why I hate that word. The box says invunerability but his powers description just says "resistance to injury". Also the one link that is on his page describes his powers as "tremendous superhuman strength and durability". Thefro552 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think clarity is a good idea : )

That said, traditionally, we've made a point to give powers vague latitude, for ease of distinction. Invulnerability doesn't always mean invulnerable to all forms of attack (even all forms of physical attacks). There are those who are invulnerable to "blunt" damage (punches, clubs, and all sorts of general brawling), yet are quite vulnerable to a sword slash, or a spear stab. There is also somewhat of an overlap with regeneration and immortality. How it's defined depends quite a bit on the author. I'd also like to avoid the word "durable", both because of past issues with the word, and because it makes me think of automotive tires : )

How about:

• Superhuman physical resistance - Ability to resist one or more types of physical damage or injury.
• Invulnerability - Immune to one or more forms of physical damage or injury.

This will be good because it also includes those who are resistant to fire, or to poison, or whatever, but not generally "invulnerable". ("Superhuman" is a necessary qualifier to "physical resistance", since most people are at least somewhat resistant, due to our ability to heal, and our immune system, etc.)

Any thoughts? : ) - jc37 16:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its a fine resolution. My only issue with it is the amount of reediting of wuperheroe boxes im going to have to do. :) Also should we bring this up on the WikiProject Comics page first or just let it effect this page only? Thefro552 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

P.S. Since all editors on this article have been able to make the article a lot better, in my opinion, I thougt I'd give you all a Smile, and keep up the good work guys. :)

Thanks for the smile, I didnt even think you were still on. Thefro552 03:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Back home (and probably internetless) next monday. Until then though I've been scarce due to Uni. Jacobshaven3 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The smile was a nice thing to do : ) - jc37 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powers

[edit] Survival in a Vacuum

Could we put survival in a vacuum in this list? It's a power that's not listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.162.81.54 (talk • contribs)

Who has this power, and how do they have this power? I mean, if it's a forcefield allowing them too, then it's already mentioned, if the character is an alien, then it shouldn't be included as to discussions above. I can't think of any character that can survive in a vacuum that doesn't use technology to help them do it (other than ones that use other already mentioned means), and that's not a power.Jacobshaven3 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Any superhero who can fly in outer space must have survival in a vacuum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.162.81.54 (talk • contribs)

I understand that. Sadly enough though, you didn't answer my question. How do the characters do this? In any DC comic that I read, characters are either magickally resistant, Alien, or use technology. (for isntance, Wonder Woman wears a special breathing mask). Can you show me examples of characters that don't use an already established ability in order to survive in a vacuum?

And please can you use the four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts. Jacobshaven3 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree here. Nothing on this page is valid if it doesnt have examples. I also dont know of any characters that can do that with out aid. The only other alternative I can think of is simply not needing to breath at all. Even that would be hard pressed to find examples for. Thefro552 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Superman? Captain Marvel? 24.162.81.54 23:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Captain Marvel is immortal for as long as his magic lasts, thus it's magic sustaining him, which is already on the list. As for Superman, he's an alien, and it's an inherent trait for all Kryptonian's. Only if a character has unnatural traits for the species or if theres a lack of examples are Aliens used. So, and if I'm wrong someone let me know, as far as I'm aware neither of those examples would be useable. Jacobshaven3 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification: All the powers listed are those which are considered "superhuman". Whether the power may be natural to an alien, doesn't make it any less "superhuman".

However, that said, good luck on finding examples of this. As for Superman, only the Silver age Superman family had such an ability. Most other versions of Superman (et al) have to breathe. - jc37 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

'Survival in a vacuum' strikes me more as a benefit of a power or inherent ability. For instance, ROM the Spaceknight can probably survive in a vacuum as he is, for all practical purposes, a machine; he could survive just as an electric motor could survive. Superman - well, not quite sure exactly how he does it (holding his super-breath in his super-lungs?). Others might well create forcefields around themselves to provide a suitable environment. Or they might be wearing some kind of battle armour. Or something. Just as flight might well be classed as an effect of a power (i.e., jet packs, control over some energy process which could provide thrust, etc.) --Jackytar 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Samandahl Rey from Crossgen: Sigil, maybe? It's been a quite a while since I read those, is anyone more familiar with that series? 172.183.244.25 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bone Manipulation

I've been thinking about new powers and just a curious question what do you think about Bone manipulation. The only reason I can think of as to it not being put on is that it can be considered apart of Biological manipulation. What do you think? Thefro552 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I've always seen biological manipulation as more genetics and healing though of course bone manipulation fits in, however bone manipulation is very different and has a fw examples. I think it would be good as a seperate power. Jacobshaven3 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How does "Ability to manipulate the bones in ones body.", sound? Thefro552 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it might sound a little too much like "physical abilities", like Wolverines claws compared with Marrows abilities etc... Jacobshaven3 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea but Wolverine doesnt manipulate bone, his are just his weapons. Marrow or Spike can generate new bone mass and shift there bones around. Come to think of it those facts should probably be apart of the description. Thefro552 12:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, if thats there than it will definately be set apart from biological manipulation (since I haven't seen a biological manipulator manipulate bones before) and also set it apart from physical abilities. That sounds good. :) Jacobshaven3 13:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then too bring round it off, do you know of any DC or other characters that would fit for examples? Thefro552 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Powers

I primarily refer to Danny Phantom, the comic book-esque TV superhero, but there are comic book heroes like Deadman who exhibited such powers first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.94.78.180 (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Ghost powers itself is too vague, what does it mean. Using your example of Deadman, that means invisibility, phasing and possesion. All of which are already on the list. Unless you know of something new to add, a power that isnt on the list, then feel free to add. Thefro552 08:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, "ghost powers" is an arbitrary grouping of powers (compare to "alien powers" or "mutant powers"), and is something we should be wary of. - jc37 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio-electricity

Should bio-electricity manipulation be added to the list of superpowers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfg (talk • contribs)

Bio-electricity manipulation is just a form of electricity manipulation. Thefro552 5:23, 28 Nov 2006

[edit] Electromagnetism

Should electromagnetism manipulation be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfg (talk • contribs)

Again no, look at the root words, electro(electricity manipulation)-magnetism(magnetism manipulation). Thefro552

Actually Electromagnetism is a fundamental force of nature and though connected to electricity and magnetism, it is a separate force and is therefor a separate power.

[edit] Dream Manipulation?

Is there an existing category that this power would fall under, or is it its own category? Sanjog Iyer from Heroes seemingly has this power. Is there anyone in a comic book that has this power? --Stabbey 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That power would fall somewhere between telepathy and mind control. Thefro552 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is distinct from both. It might fit into its own category, although since I don't know of any actual comic book examples I'm not going to add it without more discussion on the issue. --Stabbey 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Any addition needs comic book examples, and Dream Manipulation isn't different enough from Telepathy and Mind control to constitute as a different power. When adding examples here, a useful thing to compare the addition too is Super Strength and Super Jumping/Biting. Is it different enough, are there enough examples of characters that can do the addition but not the main example or vice versa. Since I can only recall one comic book example of a dream manipulator, Danielle Moonstar, has a variety of other talents as well and is better known as an empath. Jacobshaven3 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I would disagree. Especially since several stories involve characters entering a place called the "Dream Dimension". This reminds me of a previous discussion about the difference between manipulating darkness as an absence of light, and manipulating darkness as a substance, or even as something from another dimension. - jc37 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok. Can you name two comic book characters that can affect dreams but have not got telepathy or empathy lnking to it? If so, add it to the list, if not, don't. So many characters control solely darkness, as far as I'm aware, very few if none affect dreams solely.Jacobshaven3 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I can name two dream manipulators on is Doctor Destiny and Dream --Addude 03:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Though until very recently Dr. Destiny used an object (the materioptikon, and later a dream version of it) to manifest his abilities. As for other examples, the DC universe has several examples of how they use the "dream dimension" (Dream, as noted above, and other references to various Sandmen. There are also such places as the Zero Zone's Area of Madness (from Shade, the Changing Man). - jc37 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, urm, add the example then.Jacobshaven3 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberpathy

Should we add cyberpathy to the list?

Cyberpathy is anothe name for Technopathy which is already on the list. And again please sign your name, I see you made an attempt but you need to put four ~ marks. Thefro552 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't cyberpathy the ability to manipulate computer data? That's not exactly the same thing as technopathy. MasterOfAndromeda 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well can you present at a few examples that use cyberpathy but not in the same way as technopathy? Thefro552 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Black Box and Cable? David the Phantom 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ps my new name is no longer that other name, it is now David the Phantom.David the Phantom 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the main reason that I oppose this is that I remember it being listed before but removed. I beileve it was becuase of its simularity to technopathy. My only argument agianst it is really nothing more than a form of telepathy with computers. If you can make a credible definition and appropriate examples then feel free to place it on the list. My only request is that it be placed under the ESP category. Thefro552 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Cyberpathy. The abilities are too similar. Cyberpathy is to Technopathy what Super Biting is to Super Strength. Jacobshaven3 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

how about ability to manipulate computer data? David the Phantom 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agian that is Technopathy/Cyberpathy. Sorry Thefro552 03:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

how about ability to intercept computer data David the Phantom 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You really wont let this go will you. :) First, agian, its still close to technopathy but maybe far enough away. Second how is it done, who has the ability and is it a good example? Thefro552 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're avoiding all Technopathic-specific abilities on this page, and just grouping them under "Technopathy". However, I mightn't oppose something similar to how we're listing the varieties of Shapechanging. List Technopathy as the "main" power, while listing any specific types. The trouble is that Technopathy includes more than just physical or mental skills, and we might find ourselves duplicating many powers on this page. However, I do think there is a difference between a "hardware" technopath and a "software" technopath. Perhaps we should clarify that in the description of technopathy? - jc37 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Black Box, Drummer, and Cable?David the Phantom 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this seems like the same arguments made about super strength and super jumping etc... yes, there are lots of examples of cyberpaths. However, in the end, a cyberpath is merely a technopath with specific control of the (as JC37 put) "software" side of technology. This isn't a list of every known variation of a super power, if it was then the page would become too long regarding WP:LENGTH. If a comprehensive explanation of powers variation is necessary then it should be put in the abilities own page, not this one. An extra sentence or two in Technopathy's description should be enough. Jacobshaven3 12:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I went through and added a more specific example to the technopathy definition. I also removed cyberpathy. Thefro552 16:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyberpathy - the ability to read, intercept and interact with data from electronic technology

Technopathy - the ability to manipulate technology with the mind.

cyberpaths can do things technopaths can't so there not the same...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.84.165 (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2006

As it has been stated earlier, cyberpathy is simply an extension of technopathy. A technopath controls machinery by telepathic manipulation with the system.

P.S. Please sign your posts in the future. If you dont know how then all you have to do is place four ~ symboles at the end of your statement. Thefro552 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So, if your following the Heroes graphic novels then you know about the new character that was introduced, her power is basically cyberpathy, another character on the show, Micah, has the ability of technopathy. But these graphic novels and the show have clearly expressed that there 2 powers are not the same, and I know this is a comic book article, but that was just an example. Technopaths basically create/maintain/fix technology with there mind. Cyberpaths can interact with all electronic data: radio waves, cellphone networks, computer data, the possibilities are endless, but they cannot create technology and technopaths cannot interact with the data of there created technology like cyberpaths can.12.218.84.165 22:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

First thoughs are characters based on the TV show. Second how does the technopath create/maintain/fix the technology other than interfacing with the technology?

Do they use telekinesis to move the parts, do they have the superhuman intelligence to figure out how it works or do they inaitly know what to do? In the first two cases that is not technopathy and the third is similer to Forges powers which we have already established as not being that of a technopath. Thefro552 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Micah can communicate with electronics and machinery according to an interview with one of the writers. One of the cheif descriptions of a "Cyberpath" over a "Technopath". I have been thinking about it though, and although I believe they are too similar and interchangeable, It is somewhat similar to the differences between how a Telekinetic can move objects with their mind and an Aerokinetic (ok, Wind Manipulator) can move the wind with their mind. Both are similar abilities, and can seem very similar depending on who uses them, but both can also be vastly different. (Telekinetic forcefields for instance or using Wind Manipulation to starve someone from oxygen.) The same can be argued with Mind Reading and Astral Projection, although they both come hand in hand they can be completely different abilities too.

If you can give examples of Cyberpaths that can solely affect the "cyber" part of technology, and Technopaths that can solely affect "Techno" parts of technology, then I will not disagree with a seperation, however I'm sure there aren't that many examples of solely one or the other.Jacobshaven3 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ill agree with him. If you can provide sufficiant examples for the two seperate powers then I will fold. All I ask is that the characters have a reasonably good article to them. An article with one paragraph that just happens to have cyberpathy or technopathy under the power summary will not do. Thefro552 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

cyberpathy should be ADDED johnny's_pizza 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, David the Phantom, if you can find the evidence we've asked for, it will be. If there isn't that evidence, then it doesn't have a place on the list. Simple as. Jacobshaven3 17:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undersea adaptation

Does this need to be a separate power? If you have underwater breathing, resistance to cold, and resistance to pressure, then you have this power. Slavlin 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I might be reading it wrong but I don't understand the problem. It already is a seperate power. Do mean you want to split it up? Thefro552 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Superhuman physical resistance is already a power listed. Put Water Breathing, which has a stub of its own, on the list and take out Undersea Adaptation off and that takes out the "see Waterbreathing" statement. It is really just a shorthand way of saying waterbreathing + some specific resistances, unless you want to inclue the reduction in body hair which normally goes along with it. Slavlin 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see no problem with it. Go ahead and change it. Heck, you can even use the same examples. Thefro552 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DC know-it-all wanted

Can somebody please find a better DC example for Superhuman intelligence than Vril Drox. Im not that familer with DC but Im looking. If anyone knows one please change it. Thefro552 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with Vril Dox (or any member of the Dox family)? As for others, the problem is ascertaining at what point is the intelligence "superhuman". Ira Quimby comes to mind, for example. (The Thinker and Mento use helmets of a sort.) There's also the issue of a technopath "bonding" with a computer which gives greater computing power (Computo of the LSH, for example). Or how about the myriad scientists, mad or otherwise. (the original Lex Luthor, the Ultra-humanite, the Brain, TO Morrow, Ray Palmer, etc etc etc) Even Barry Allen was a police scientist... Does anyone remember that Jay Garrick got his powers in a chem lab? : ) - Oh, and the silver-age Superman had "super-intelligence"... - jc37 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with Drox is that its a stub and doesnt really represent a good example of superhuman intelligence. Thefro552 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topics to address

1. Clairaudiance
I motion for clairaudiance be taken off the list. First neither of the Captain Marvels possess it and second I dont remember what the example was when it was first put on.

2. Danger sense
Should this be placed as a category under precognition or taken off completly. The definition even says its a form of precognition.

3. Manipulation of fundamental forces or reality
Could this also be mentioned as a method for generating various powers?

4. Moleculer manipulation
Should this also be mentioned as a method of generating powers. Those with this power can concievably do anything.

Just want to know your thoughts. Thefro552 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree, unless we have actual examples it can't be used, and for the life of me I can only think about hearing the term in spiritualist circles.

2. To me, the difference has always been that precognition sees things in the distant or near distant future and is mentally based, or in a different place. Danger sense is more immediate and always around the target. Spider mans danger sense for instance is (if we are going by a real spiders danger sense) the ability to sense movements due to hyper sensitive hairs covering the body, so able to sense if someone's going to jump you or shoot at you.

3. Yeah that would be a good idea.

4. Thats true. I'm not sure on that one though. Jacobshaven3 13:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Ok removed.

2. Its agreed that danger sense is still a form of precognition. If we dont want to delete it then lets just move it down as a sub-category of precogntion.

3.My only issue with this is what would we name the whole category if we move it under methods. Are those powers just going to be displaced elsewhere?

4. I dont think that Moleculer manipulation would have the same issue. I think it should be moved up.
Thefro552 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1.) Clairaudience isn't mentioned much in comics, usually one reads of clairvoyance, since it's a visual medium (pardon the pun : )

2.) Danger sense = a type of precognition. Merge away : )

3.) I think what you're looking for is the "Warp Reality" power. : )

4.) Actually, many of the powers under the "fundamental forces of reality" section could qualify for "moving up". That's kind of the idea behind "fundamental". If one can change the building blocks, then look what they can do with those blocks... However, magic and TK explain how they are able to do so; methods of how said power is manifested, not what the power is.

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invulnerability - no such animal

Quite a few characters are listed as having this trait, which is technically not true as they can all be hurt in the right circumstances. "Extreme durability" would seem to be more accurate and appropriate for types such as the Hulk etc.

Asgardian 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's a cute term, I'll grant you that. I'm in two minds, because it's quite easy to ascribe the term invulnerable to a character through a direct quote from the comics, whereas it would be hard to source a use of the term "extreme durability". I guess what I am saying is that it shouldn't be adopted wholesale, imported into every article regardless, but rather a discussion of the powers should be given. Something along the likes of Hulk has been described as invulnerable in Hulk #3654, although as can be seen in various issues, notably issue #3653, Hulk can be hurt by sticks and stones, although names will never hurt him. I think we're pushing Neutral Point of View and original research to introduce our own terms. I also think that there will simply be blanket reversions of these changes, since as I say, it's usually easy to source a description of the character's powers. It's generally the case that we source claim and counter claim, like I've suggested above. Hiding Talk 09:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• You may want to check out Talk:List of comic book superpowers, for a related discussion. - jc37 09:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Citation_needed_to_get_other_off_of_my_back , further up on this page. ~CS 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply use the term "superhuman durability"? It's accurate, simple, to the point, and leaves the level of a character's resistance to injury an open subject because it's typically set in stone. After all, it's a common occurance for writers to tinker with a character's resistance to injury in order to suit cetain situations they come up with, usually by jacking them to higher levels than they were originally created with. Odin's Beard 00:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The topic "Proposition" on the Talk:List of comic book superpowers is, agian, a very good read concerning this topic. We on the page opted for the use of the terms Invunerability and Superhuman physical resistance. Thefro552 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yikes. Look, I'm of the opinion that you've got to cite anything you add to Wikipedia. If you want to add terms which describe superpowers, then you've got to cite them somewhere. There's a book out recently, the Physics of Superheroes or something that should help, but really, we shouldn't be going around making up names that fit the powers. If The Hulk is described as invulnerable in the comics, that's a strong primary source. If you want to describe the powers as anything else, get a good source to do so. In this instance maybe we need to look at secret files and OHOTMU for sourcing blanket terms such as you are trying to do, although we should be careful how we use such sources and that we don't copy verbatim what they write. But we need to be very careful. If I were writing List of comic book superpowers I'd be looking to do it using section headers like Powers which affect sound, and then detailing Banshee's sonic wave, and Dazzler's ability to convert sound into light, and Lorelei's siren like mesmerising, and, um, who was it who was able to dampen sound. But that's the route I'd go. A brief overview of the powers available in each sort of section, citing reliable sources. Goulart's Comic Book Encyclopedia has got to be another good source, as could Evanier's Superheroes in My Pants and Mallory's Marvel: The Characters and Their Universe and Sanderson's Marvel Universe. I think there's enough good sources there to create a well sourced, well written article and ground some definitions and explanations. Hiding Talk 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Hiding's post directly above rather clearly lays out the rather dramatic deficiencies of this list page, that we've been discussing. Since I know that several contrinutors to this page aren't well versed in wiki markup (and I would presume that includes how to provide a reference or citation), I'll just suggest that if ANYONE finds some references to ANY powers (specifically by name), that they go ahead and post the links (and explanations of them) in the section following. If it's something you've read in a comic book, please give name of book, issue number, and preferrably, page number. I know we've all been trying somewhat, and that's been great, but this page is just too widely disseminated/linked to throughout the project for the current state of affairs to continue. My next step is to nominate it for the January Collaboration of the month. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collaboration to offer your preference for this or any other article. - jc37 08:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with the entire invulnerability/durability issue is that certain characters have been described as invulnerable, but only shown as such in certain circumstances. For example, Superman has been referred to as invulnerable, but the accompanying context makes clear that it's in reference to bullets or some other story element. CovenantD 03:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's part of the reason that I don't agree with using the term invulnerable to describe a character's resistance to physical injury. Invulnerable, by definition, refers to being completely impervious to harm. Being "invulnerable" should mean that there aren't any certain circumstances. However, there are even concerning the most durable comic book characters. Superman, the Hulk, Darkseid, Doomsday Thanos, Galactus, the Celestials, etc. are all characters to which the term has been applied to on numerous occassions and are among the most durable characters in both the DC and Marvel Universes. All of them have been been injured, some even fatally. Invulnerable is a descriptive term that gets tossed around in comic books a lot, much like omnipotence. Lots of characters have been written as laying claim to one or the other, sometimes both, but then a certain circumstance happens to injure said character or another character comes along that's even closer to "omnipotence" than said character. Odin's Beard 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completly. I also believe that Superhuman durability it a much better term. On this page we simply came to a consensus to have both becuase I think that the fact that some people have some form of invunerability is worth noting.

One of the things that I thought was funny is that quite a few times I have seen people write that "Durability" sounds like a term for tires. After a bit of thought I realized that it does describe tires, why, becuase they are very tough and can take alot of punishment. This is exactly what the word represents. Thefro552 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What I think Hiding is asking for is actual references to these terms being used. This comes back to the discussion about WP:OR that we've already been having here. This page should be setting a good example for all the powers-related sections of other articles as to how powers should be explained and referenced, not held up as a poster child of a list with zero references, and opinion based inclusion... - jc37 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been almost 2 weeks, and still no references. Is anyone working on this besides me? - jc37 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be playing the Devil's Advocate here or anything, but I really don't think *every* superhero with a certain superpower needs to be cited as having that power. I think that it is common knowledge that The Flash, for instance, has super speed, or that The Hulk has superhuman strength. Even assuming that someone does not know these things, the superheroes on this page seem to be linked to their main articles. This means that it would be quite easy for anyone reading the page to check if a certain superhero has a certain superpower just by visiting the superhero's article. Finally, the guideline on citing sources states that you must cite when 3.1 material is likely to be challenged (understandable in the cases of certain superheroes, like with the invulnerability mentioned above, but no one is going to challenge the fact that Spiderman can crawl up walls), 3.2 when quoting someone (irrelevant), 3.3 when editing material to the biography of a living person (also irrelevant), 3.4 when checking content added by others (this only seems to apply if you have already edited pre-existing content and have a source at hand), and 3.5 when uploading an image (very irrelevant). I propose that the unecessary ^{[citation needed]}s be removed from the page - such as the ones on the previously-mentioned superheroes as well as others like Empath (he's called *Empath* for Pete's sake), Mr. Immortal (ditto), Wolverine, etcetera. I'm all for citing, but the amount of ^{[citation needed]}s this page has is just excessive. 206.116.172.166 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree wholeheartedly that these "citation needed" references are wholly unneeded, if not downright silly. The "examples" links point to the pages detailing the superhero with the power in question, which should reasonably be citation enough in itself. I'd argue that if proof of a fictional character's superpower is required, it should be cited on the hero's page. Taking a step back, the Tool page references hammer as an example of a tool. No citation should be required, if you're in doubt of the "toolness" of "hammer", read the hammer page.

[edit] Power References

As requested above, this section is for any references to any of the powers listed on this list, or any others which may not be. Please type an asterisk (*) before each one. - jc37 08:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoligism idea

Lately I have been trying to think of ways to stop the anon users from constantly replacing the power titles with the -kinesis neoligisms. I have finally come up with an idea.

Just like we have done with the rules regarding the types of heroes that can be placed on the page, we could write under he powers the sameway so that the only appear when you begin to edit the power. What I mean is that under, say Water manipulation, we can write that the the alternate neologism title like Hydrokinesis is not valid and the title should not be changed to it.

Thoughts? Thefro552 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS : ) - jc37 13:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well theres got to be something we can do. I would atleast like to curb the amount of neologism edits. Thefro552 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The best way I can think of is to just find every example of them in the various articles and remove them. Do a search for all those listed at Talk:List of comic book superpowers/Archive 4#Neologisms, and eventually they will all be removed. - jc37 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: On that page some one mentions ferrokinesis. Ferro means iron which would be the ability to affect iron with the mind and seeing as that was mentioned in a comic book and has a source, would that make it a true power name? I personally like the "neoligisms" but if you don't want them on here thats ok too.--Dil 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. I too have seen it used but it is still a mage up word. Also I have already gone through the List of Marvel characters and got rid of most of the neologisms. Thefro552 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I googled some of these neologisms and got alot of hits on Aerokinesis, Cryokinesis and Electrokinesis.--Dil 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I too googled them and all that came up were sites paranormal sites claming to be able to do it. Those are not reputable sight to claim source from. Thefro552 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to the many mirrors of Wikipedia, and due to innumerable blogs and such other fan pages, we shouldn't estimate notability by number of google hits. See also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. - jc37 09:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The word Ferrokinesis was used to describe the powers of the character Iron Butterfly of the Shadow Cabinet (comics) series from Milestone Comics. The term, I think, comes from issue # 1. I know of no other comic book usage of this word. ---- Noclevername 06:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ferrokinesis is still a made up word. The word is there for a neologism. Sorry :( 74.134.155.232 17:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if Ferrokinesis is used in the comic book article itself, it is acceptable to use it. The only reason the other neologisms aren't allowed is because they don't have any original basis in the medium. An example is "Healing Factor" which is a made up term in the Marvel publications. Jacobshaven3 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont have any proof but Im sure at one point or another most of them have been used somewhere in comics. But even so, if it is true I say stick with what we got. I think the titles we have now work great and if we add one -kinesis name to the list we will get alot more users editing the page to put the rest on. Thefro552 23:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all words, at one point or another, neologisms? IF the word fits, use it, if not in the main entry then as an "also known as" addendum. --Dr Archeville 13:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NEO states that they should only be used if necessary. They aren't necessary. Wikipedia is a place to record what is verifiable, it is not a publisher of original thought. Jacobshaven3 07:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I haven't forgotten Cyberpathy!

If we can call bone manipulation (which is obviously a form of biology manipulation, seeing as it's part of the biological makeup) a separate power than biology manipulation, than cyberpathy, which is sort of a form of technopathy should be allowed as a separate power.David the Phantom 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see that you really believe in this and this really isnt going anywhere on this page. So I propose that you start a topic on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics page.

Personally if I were in your situation with this I would feel alittle ganged up on. This way there will be plenty of other point of views and you will probably find some allies.

I cant speak for the others but I promise to agree with what ever the majority rules on the issue. I really hope that this helps. :) Thefro552 05:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we then call bone manipulation 'osteopathy'? :-D --Jackytar 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No sorry, same reason as Electrokinesis, it's a neologism. :-) Jacobshaven3 20:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Osteopathy is actually a medical term, with its own long-established definition. Using it to refer to a fictional super power might be confusing. As for cyber/techno/whatever manipulation, there are several terms for it used in a variety of fictional settings; no one name or definition is universally recognized, but technopath seems relatively self-explanatory. -- Noclevername 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biological Manipulation

I move that the definition be changed. The first line of the def. says the manipulation of biology- Biology is the study of living things so are the manipulating the study of living things? NO!! the suffix -ology means the study of. I'm not sure what to say though any suggestions? 12.218.84.165 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Go ahead and change the title to Biological. Thefro552 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone Changed my new definition back to the old incorrect one, can that person explain to me what "the ability to control biology" is cause it makes NO sense, refer to my previous post for explanation 12.218.84.165 19:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my bad. I reverted the page back to the wrong date to get rid of some bad examples. Sorry. Thefro552 21:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's ok I changed it back and I'll place the definition here aswell Ability to control all aspects of a living creature's biological make-up. This includes, but is not limited to, genetic alterations, physical distortion/augmentations, healing, disease, and biological functions. 12.218.84.165 07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Light Manipulation

The definition should be changed, for one light manipulation has nothing to do with generating photons just manipulating them, and most people manipulate light by manipulating waves of light not particles. So I think the definition should be changed to- Light Manipulation The ability to manipulate waves of light to cause a variety of things, such as: Energy Constructs, Force Fields, Energy Beams, and Invisibility. or at least something better then the definition we have now12.218.84.165 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Is someone going to acknowledge I posted this?!?!?!?!?12.218.84.165 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason the word photons is used is because that is what light is, "The elementary particle that defines light is the photon." Wether it be single particles or waves its still fundamentally using photons.

And about the manipulation part we here for the most part consider manipulation to make up all the control, generate and/or absorb to avoid have to make a seperate power for each. I hope this helps. Thefro552 02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New power?

While doing my usual project editing on the List of Marvel Characters I stumbled upon the character of Flashback. At first glance I took his powers to be time travel and moved on but later something made me think of him again and take a second look.

Giving some thought to his powers I dont believe that they can be explained by any other power on the page. Although it is time travel in a sense it also is quite different.

I am still not sure on the power so I figured I would toss the idea out and get some opinions. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thefro552 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly unique, I can only explain it as a mixture of time manipulation, duplication and mind control. However, We currently work under the rule that two examples are necessary for a power to be shown. I can' speak for others, but it might not be able to be placed. None the less, I think it should... just how to describe it? Jacobshaven3 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Those were the same three powers I thought of to describe it. As for the Two example rule I completly agree and then again I disagree with it becuase I dont want this and other potential abilities to be short staffed becuase they are so unique.

Currently, I hope this doesnt bite me in the ass, there are a couple of powers that have snuck by with only one example. All though I believe that there should be atleast 2 I dont think the powers should be taken off becuase they are unique among the rest.

As far as a name Im stumped. Every name that I come up with has made it seem to tie into another power. Personally I have been going for Temporal ????????. I just cant think of another word for it. Thefro552 12:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. See any name we give would be a bit of OR, since we would be making what we percieve is the best answer... Comicvine describes the power as duplication, so maybe it would be better put as an offshoot of Duplication, like "Temporal Duplication" with a sentence describing the differences? what do you think? Jacobshaven3 14:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. But I still have a nagging problem that I dont consider it duplication. I still dont consider it any power on the list in the true sense. But it makes sense so I wouldnt oppose it. Thefro552 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not duplication in the sense that he multiplies himself. But he does duplicate how many of him there are. None of the other terms like duplication (eg: Doppelgänger, etc) were close enough. I'll edit something in, let me know what you think. Jacobshaven3 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think we need to do something to move it farther away from duplication. Also I dont like the "similer to" part, if its similer thats what it is. This was the same problem I had with danger sense if you remember. Im going to shorten the definition to remove the first part put I cant think of a better name yet. Thefro552 00:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guess what! New possible powers

Ok back at it again with a couple new ones to test the water.

First we have Mary Zero. She is undetectable to just about all forms of survielance. After a run through the list I cant find anything close that would explain this ability. The thing that could be an issue is that its described as a "psychic shroud" so its possible that it could be argued as some form of power in the ESP section.

Then theres Randall Shire. This one has the ability to project emotions through the sound of his voice. My first thought was some form of empathy but thats reading others emotions not placing yours in them. Also it could be argued that its a form of mind control but based on the article definition it doesnt fit.

On a final note. One issue that both of them have is that they are depowered post M-day. This if anything would probably keep them off the list. I know how we prefer to use live characters or ones with powers intact. But just a thought. Thefro552 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Mary Zero's power, it sounds interesting and although I can't remember his name theres a DC character thats undetectable by technology as well, plus, it's unlike any other power already listed. As for Randall Shire, his power is empathic in nature, so it's just an offshoot of empathy. Maybe empathy should list the different ways empathy can come about, so including how some people can only sense emotions, some people can manipulate others, some can't sense emotions et al. Jacobshaven3 10:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked her too. And maybe we should split the Empathy power, but only if we can find good enough powers that are distinct enough to seperate. I think Shires power would be distinct enough in that regard but I dont want to break it up just for one power. Thefro552 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hell why Im at it why not throw out one more I found. This time its a character by the name of Razorback. His powers grant him the innate ability to pilot any vehicle. I instantly thought this was new but couldnt think of a possible title. Then I thought why not group him with Forge and make somthing like "Innate Ability". Tell me what you think. Thefro552 12:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of that power. Possibly call it "Innate Capability" And we can include it as a power which is the, "Ability to naturally be able to do something, which usually requires training. For example, driving a car or building a machine." What do you think? Jacobshaven3 12:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While I like the name it continues the bad trend we have on this page. With no sources we are just making up titles to fit things. While I think in this case its justified by the subjects we are dealing with, really obscure powers, its still not with wiki policy. But in the end I am fine with it. Thefro552 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I get what you mean, however both characters are described as having Inherent abilities. It's not like trying to guess the power and coining a new term. I guess it does go against wiki policy, but if we want a comprehensive list what other choice is there. I think it's safe to follow WP:IAR in this case, since it's the only way to make the article more comprehensive and overall better, which in the end is what Wikipedia's for, isn't it? Jacobshaven3 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting little predictement. I think its good to go. Should anybody have an issue with it they can bring it up here and discuss it further.

Following that I like the name. How about "Innate Capability" - Ability to naturally have skills and/or knowledge typically earned through learning.? Tell me what you think. Thefro552 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I thought your wording was well thought out, I went ahead and copied it into the page. I also placed a note asking to keep both Marvel examples in place until a non marvel example could be found to replace one. I'll go for a look out of them now. Jacobshaven3 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Question: did Mary Zero come before or after Lindsey McDonald had the same power in Angel?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe before, but in any case Im sure you know that Lindsey is not of comic book origin so is not allowed on the page. Very good example though. Thefro552 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, but it does bring another question to mind. Why only comics if superhuman powers are common across all media - film, television, novels...? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been a point of discussion many times in the past. [[Talk:List_of_comic_book_superpowers/Archive_4#Proposals Here] and [[Talk:List_of_comic_book_superpowers#Name here] show small portions of what its about. I personally cant remember the other places I have seen it but if I remember I will be sure to post.

One of the main reason of limiting the list is becuase comics are the main source for fictional superpowers. Any show that has superpowered beings has an eqivalent power in the comics. But I am going to go through and look for other discussions about this topic for reference. I hope this helps. Thefro552 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Officially coined? "Chronokinesis"

What do we think of Masi Oka using the word "chronokinesis" to describe his character Hiro Nakamura's powers? Does that mean it can be officially used, no longer simply a neologism? The source is Interview with Masi Oka (HTML). Interview with Masi Oka on Pixelsurgon. Retrieved on 2007-02-07. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I would still not use it on this page, but that really is a question to post on the comic book project discussion. That question has more implications than just this page. Thefro552 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty Pride ability

I've seen on Archive 4 from this discussion that someone had problems regarding her power. Here's what I've found (Source: "Physics of Superheroes" Chapter 22):

One aspect of quantum mechanics that is difficult for budding young scientists to accept is that the equation proposed by Schrödinger predicts that under certain conditions matter can pass through what should be an impenetrable barrier. In this way quantum mechanics informs us that electrons are a lot like Kitty Pryde of the X-Men, who possesses the mutant ability to walk through solid walls, or the Flash, who is able to “vibrate” though barriers. This very strange prediction is no less weird for being true.

Schrödinger’s equation enables one to calculate the probability of the electron moving from one region of space to another even if common sense tells you that the electron should never be able to make this transition. Imagine that you are on an open-air handball court with a chain-link fence of three sides of the court and a concrete wall along the fourth side. On the other side of the concrete wall is another identical open-air court, also surrounded by a fence on three sides and sharing the concrete wall with the first court. You are free to wander anywhere you’d like within the first court, but lacking superpowers you cannot leap over the concrete wall to go to the second court. Of one solves the Schrödinger equation for this situation, one finds something rather surprising: The calculation finds that you have a very high probability of being in the first open-air court (no surprise there) and a small but nonzero probability of winding up on the other side of the wall in the second open-air court (Huh?). Ordinarily the probability of passing through a barrier is very small, but only situations for which the probability is exactly zero can be called impossible. Everything else is just unlikely.

This is an intrinsically quantum mechanical phenomenon, in that classically there is no possible way to ever find yourself in the second court. This quantum process is called “tunneling”, which is a misnomer, as you do not create a tunnel as you go under the wall. There is no hole left behind, nor have you gone under the wall or over it. If you were to now run at the wall in the other direction it would be as formidable a barrier as when you were in the first open-air court, and you would now have the same very small probability of returning to the first court. But “tunneling” is the term that physicists use to describe this phenomenon. The faster you run at the wall, the larger the probability you will wind up on the other side, though you are not moving so quickly that you leap other the wall. This is no doubt how the Flash, both the Golden and Silver Age versions, is able to use his great speed to pass through solid objects, as shown in the fig. 1. He is able to increase his kinetic energy to the point where the probability, from the Schrödinger equation, of passing through the wall becomes nearly certain.

Consider two metals separated by a vacuum. An electron in the metal on the left side is like a person in the first open-air handball court. Instead of a concrete wall, a thin vacuum separates this open-air court. And electron in one metal has a small but nonzero probability of finding itself in the second metal. The electron does not arc across the vacuum gap and does not have enough kinetic energy to escape from the metal on its own. (This is a good thing. Otherwise all objects would be continually leaking electrons all over the pace, and static cling would be one the most gripping problems of the day.) Rather, the electron’s matter-wave extends into the gap, decreasing in magnitude. A similar phenomenon occurs with light waves moving from a denser to a less dense medium. Under conditions for which the light wave should be totally reflected at the interface, there is still a small diffraction of light into the less dense medium. The diffracted wave’s magnitude decreases the further into the less dense medium it progresses. Since the square of the electron’s wavefunction represents the probability of finding the particle at a point in space and time, a finite magnitude for the “matter-wave” indicates that there is a probability the electron is in the second metal. If the gap is not too large (compared to the electron’s matter wavelength, which in practice means roughly less than one nanometer), then the matter-wave will still have an appreciable magnitude in the second metal. Let us be clear, the electron on one side if the barrier moves towards the obstruction, and most times simply reflects of the wall. If a million electrons strike the barrier then, depending on its height and width, 990,000 electrons might be reflected and 10,000 would wind up on the other side.

If the separation between the two metals is too large, then even for the most energetic electrons the chance of tunneling becomes very, very small. A person’s momentum is large, so our matter-wavelengths are very small – much less than a trillionth trillionth of the width of an atom and much less smaller than the width of the concrete wall separating us from the second open-air handball court. Nevertheless, if you were to run toward the concrete wall, there is a very, very small probability that your matter-wave will arrive on the other side of the wall. The greater your kinetic energy, the larger your chance of tunneling. Those who doubt that this is indeed possible are invited to begin throwing themselves at concrete walls right now, and to persevere in their attempts no matter how discouraging the initial results

Electrons in a solid rattle around at a rate of more than a thousand trillion times per second. Consequently, in one second they have a thousand trillion opportunities to tunnel through a barrier. Send enough electrons against a barrier, and if the height of the wall is not too high or the thickness of the separation too large, and appreciable fraction will indeed tunnel to the other side. Not only has the phenomenon of quantum-mechanical tunneling been verified for electrons, but it is the central principle behind a unique type of microscope called a Scanning Tunneling Microscope that enables one to directly image atoms. As shown in the fig. 2, when a metal tip is brought very close to, but not touching, a metal surface, it can intercept the electrons clouds surrounding each atom on the surface. When the electrons tunnel from an atom to the metal tip, an electrical current is recorded in a meter connected to the tip. Whether or not tunneling occurs is very sensitive to the separation between the atoms on the surface and the scanning change the probability if tunneling by factor of more than a thousand. By moving the tip slowly over the surface and carefully measuring the current at each location, the position of each atom on the surface can be mapped out.

Just such an image is shown in fig. 3, which shows the location of carbon atoms on the surface of a crystal of graphite (more commonly known as “pencil lead”). The gray scale is not real (carbon atoms aren’t really black or white, or any color for that matter) but is used to represent the magnitude of the current recorded in the tip at any position, which in turn the carbon atoms in graphite form hexagonal plates that are nearly two-dimensional, much like the six-sided plates that make up a snowflake. That fact that the carbon atoms form a hexagonal lattice implies that a crystal of graphite consists of sheets of carbon atoms as in fig. 3 lying atop one another. If you pressed snowflakes together, the hexagonal plates would lock in place much like the carbon atoms in graphite. Building a three-dimensional crystal out of such two-dimensional sheets, the solid essentially stacks each sheet atop the other like the thin layers in a puff pastry. The planes in solid graphite are so loosely held together that you can easily peel them apart just with your hand, simply by scraping a pencil point along a sheet of paper. The fact that this form of solid carbon makes a better writing implement that if all carbon atoms had four equally strong bonds (otherwise known as “diamond”) can be inferred directly from this atomic image.

In the next chapter we will discuss the physics of transistors and diodes, and I’ll give away the punchline now and tell you that these semiconductor devices are essentially valves that regulate and amplify the flow of current. One way this current can be controlled is through the tunneling process. When two conductors are set close to each other, separated by a thin insulating barrier, normally no current can flow from one conductor to the other. By applying a voltage across this sandwich structure, the effective height of the wall separating the electrons of one region from the other can be varied. As noted, the tunneling probability is very sensitive function of this barrier height. In this way the tunneling effect is used to modulate the flow of electrons across the device. There “tunneling diodes” are integral components of cell phones, as well as many other solid-state devices. Quantum-mechanical tunneling is therefore not an esoteric theoretical novelty or useful solely in atomic microscopes. Many of the products we associate with our current lifestyle would not be possible without tunneling being a reliable phenomenon.

In the next chapter we will discuss the physics of transistors and diodes, and I’ll give away the punchline now and tell you that these semiconductor devices are essentially valves that regulate and amplify the flow of current. One way this current can be controlled is through the tunneling process. When two conductors are set close to each other, separated by a thin insulating barrier, normally no current can flow from one conductor to the other. By applying a voltage across this sandwich structure, the effective height of the wall separating the electrons of one region from the other can be varied. As noted, the tunneling probability is very sensitive function of this barrier height. In this way the tunneling effect is used to modulate the flow of electrons across the device. There “tunneling diodes” are integral components of cell phones, as well as many other solid-state devices. Quantum-mechanical tunneling is therefore not an esoteric theoretical novelty or useful solely in atomic microscopes. Many of the products we associate with our current lifestyle would not be possible without tunneling being a reliable phenomenon.

When we apply the laws of quantum physics to large objects like Kitty Pryde of the X-Men, we find that tunneling is still possible, but very unlikely. How unlikely? Assuming Kitty’s mass is kg, then even if she could run at a wall as fast as she could a million times a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe before she could expect to quantum-mechanically tunnel through to the other side. Clearly the one-time miracle exception comes into play in big way here. With our improved understanding of physics, we can now more accurately describe Kitty Pryde’s mutant power as being able to alter her macroscopic quantum wave function, increasing her tunneling probability to near 100 percent at will. Quite useful when one has locked the keys inside the car.

A long-standing puzzle I comic books is, if Kitty Pryde can walk through walls, why doesn’t she fall through the floor at the same time? How, when she is “phasing” and immaterial, can she walk? In X-Men #141, it was argued that while phasing, Kitty actually walks on a surface of air, and is not in actual contact with the floor. While immaterial in her phasing mode she is therefore unaffected by any trapdoors opening beneath her. Assuming for the moment that she can indeed walk on air – that is, that somehow the air provides enough resistance to the backward force of her feet that is supplies a forward thrust, propelling her forward – the question still arises as how her partially material foot can follow her body through a wall.

However, if the mechanism by which she is able to pass through solid barriers is indeed quantum-mechanical tunneling, then it is perfectly reasonable that she would not slide through the floor. When an electron tunnels from one side of a barrier to the other, it conserves energy in the process. If it has a certain value of kinetic energy and potential energy on one side of the barrier, it has the same total energy after the tunneling process is complete. In fact, tunneling can only occur when the energy of the object is exactly the same on both sides if the barrier. In which case, if she were to speed up by falling through a trapdoor while tunneling, where would she gain this extra kinetic energy from? Similarly, she could never slow down, as she would have to make contact with her surroundings in order to transfer some of her kinetic energy.

Technically, she cannot walk while tunneling, as she may not increase her energy by pushing against any object, whether the object is the solid floor or a cushion of air. But at the same time, she cannot lose any energy either. All she needs to do is walk normally as she approaches a wall, turn of her mutant power of maximizing her tunneling probability, and she will glide through the partition with the same speed as she had when she neared it. For those times when she desires to phase through a floor, such as in Astonishing X-Men #4, where she actually phases through nearly a hundred feet of solid metal to reach an underground lab, she would jump up slightly while in her corporeal mode, and then right before her feet touch the ground, activate her mutant tunneling ability. She would continue her motion with the last kinetic energy she had while solid, and descend with a steady velocity. It’s probably safer for her if she keeps her mutant tunneling power activated until she is near the floor in the lower room, and avoids becoming material near the ceiling, where she would have to deal with her now large gravitational potential energy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.139.212.85 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

An astonishing bit of original research : ) - jc37 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's come from an actual Book ("Physics of Superheroes"), which was written by a Physicist (James Kakalios), how is it Original Research? :p Jacobshaven3 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the book (book's author), and was attempting to make a joke (which apparently failed...). Consider that the author doesn't write the character, and has never written the character. This is nothing more than a physicist who is also a fan boy : ) - This information might be useful and useable in her article (as a reference outside of comics), but I don't see how it's at all useable for this list's purpose... - jc37 03:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photographic Reflexes

Looking through the list it occurs to me that this isnt really any different from photgraphic memory, which we dont allow on the list. Its a really good ability but isnt technicaly superhuman. Should it be removed? Thefro552 00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlike eidetic memory (which I think should be on the list, but for different reasons which I won't go into now), Photographic reflexes isn't just someone remembering something. It's the ability to watch someone fighting, and remembering the exact way they do it. Echo can mimic Bullseye's superhuman aim and Daredevil's fighting styles because of watching a video recording of them fighting, I'd say that was very superhuman... Even people with eidetic memory in real life can't do that. Just my two cents anyhow... Jacobshaven3 01:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. It could be argued that Bullseye has no powers but I wont get into that. Well the the point Im trying to make is that either both or nonw should be on. Personally Im conflicted over weither either can be called superpowers. I just wanted to bring it up and see what everybody thought. Thefro552 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I Can't find it anywhere described as a super human ability, it's called an innate ability of Taskmaster's, but since he can catch bullets with his power it appears super human. I guess it depends on your interpretation of "superpower". If we are only classifying things that are (at least currently) impossible for humans, then no they shouldn't be here, but they are very rare things, especially perfect eidetic memory (since it's never actually been proven). As for Photographic reflexes, I've never heard of it in real life. Jacobshaven3 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats my definition of a superpower. Don't get me wrong I love the abilities. It makes me happy that they havn't been used to death like super strength or telekinesis. Buuuuut to me, I still wouldn't call them superhuman. All though it is really rare it is humanly possible, examples being they can do it and there has been no instances or explanation that characters like Taskmaster and Echo are superhuman. There are just really good at what they can do. Even though neither of us has heard of real life examples of these, we have never heard of real life examples of many aspects of the comic book lore. Thefro552 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess thats good bye photographic reflexes and memory abilities, until we find somethng to say otherwise. Jacobshaven3 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Catching bullets are easily a superhuman, but if that's not enough, Taskmaster has also been able to perform mimicked actions at superhuman speeds thanks to his Photographic Reflexes. He did this in his Udon-penned mini-series by watching videos of actions he would mimic fast-forwarded.

Well I have an idea. Since its just the two of us discussing this lets give it a few days and see if anyone else has some comments on it. I dont want to go a make a decision with out atleast a third perspective. I say lets wait till, lets say Tuesday, and then make a desicion. Does that sound good? Thefro552 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. :) Jacobshaven3 03:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thefro552 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cordelia Chase had that, and she was just a fictional cheerleader.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this and how is that different from Mimicry, because he does mimic what they do, just physically instead of actually mimicking there "power." +.+ Flameninja311 21:22 15 March, 2007 (UTC)

Being able to mimic somebodies movements is something that you can be naturally good at, which under training can become (in real life) almost as good as what Echo can do. Mimic on the other hand mimics the unnatural abilities that others have, which must be a super power. Echo couldn't watch spiderman climb walls and then repeat it, Mimic could. thats the key difference. Jacobshaven3 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man for clearing that up. I was a little confuzzled. =) Flameninja311 22:59 15 March, 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but was there a reason to remove this power from the list? Luis Dantas (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biological Manipulation

If there is no category for this specifecally than we should go back to the examples. Characters with the ability to heal only points to the healing aspect of the power. Thefro552 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lot's of the examples are going to have to have specific examples then, and categories for them won't be happening and time soon since there are very similar categories around. All characters that can heal, even if it's subconscious, can alter the biological processes. All the biological manipulators are on that category. Also, healing is the most common aspect of the ability. However, I will go look and see if there is a category that can be used. Jacobshaven3 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I have to say that trying to read this page is very difficult. A list of headings followed by one line of text is not easy to read. I have tried to think of a way to improve this, but haven't done so yet. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Crowley 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This format is probably the simplest to read. I can't speak for the others but I normally try to avoid excess information in the definition for easier readability. The examples are there to give further information on how the powers can be used.

I guess that some of the definitions can be lengthened a bit. Also some more appropriate examples can be found that give can give the reader a better feel of what the power is. Thefro552 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More coinage

Justice League Unlimited used the term "ferrokinetic". Just adding it to the talk page since a cited reference got removed from the main article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Idea

Ok, so the whole "Categories" idea can't be used anymore, and we all agreed that examples aren't going to be possible, so let's just wait for the list's to come out. Technopathy's link for instance already has a list. If not, how about only using third party sites to reference the powers, or putting the examples hidden in the page source, so none are shown but we have proof that the power exists in Comic book fiction. It wouldn't matter who examples where, as long as they existed. Jacobshaven3 16:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried the category replacement articles would get out of control. Would a Superhuman strength and Superhuman strength/List format be possible? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really remember us agreeing that examples should be given up on. All I remember happening was the lists began to appear and it seemed that we all silently agreed that was the best way to go.

Personally I think that the examples are still workable. But I think that its time to take a new approach. I beileve that its time to make up some criteria for the examples. Also maybe after all the bad examples have been weeded out we can come to a consensus amongst ourselves of what examples best represent the powers. Thoughts? Thefro552 07:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason the examples were removed in the first place was because, since we had to be selective (can't put every example down) we have to be subjective, and I think someone argued it could feasibly breach NPOV and/or OR. Basically, if one person thinks the Human Torch would make a good fire manipulator, and another person thinks Pyro would be, how do we draw a line? I guess in the above exaple, Pyro could be argued to be the only one that actually manipulates fire, but not every instance of multiple examples can be settled that easily. Jacobshaven3 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That is why I believe criteria needs to be made for what makes a good example. In a perfect world all of the powes would have there own page with every character on them that has the power. Unfortunetly this isn't true so we do need to find the best possible examples as a group and come to a consensus on what should stay. Thefro552 14:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I would place criteria as:

No more than three examples for any one power

No more than one example from any publisher

An example can only be used for one power

If more than three examples are avilable, a third party source must be used as a decider of which example is used.

This source must state the example and it's link with the power, and must be written by a reliable source other than a comic book, in order to show higher notability over other examples. (Since all examples will be in a comic book, being allowed they would void this criteria)

Of course, these are only ideas, but I think they should prevent the constant changes. Jacobshaven3 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that wasn't what I was getting at. We have all this already but as we have seen its not enough. What I was getting at is not editing the how the examples are placed but the examples themselves. Heres what I mean,

The example must be a well written page, no stubs.

The page must have a well defined Powers and abilites section to give a good representation of the powers capabilites.

The example must have reliable external links to provide further information.

See what Im getting at. The examples are there to help demonstrate what the powers are capable of doing. This I hope will seriously limit the possible canadates for examples. Also I would like to make a note that the character doesn't have to well known to represent the power effectivly. Thefro552 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I like the idea. I'll start looking for the best examples. Jacobshaven3 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait lets not get ahead of ourselves. First we need to come up with the criteria then go through and raid the current examples and remove all of those that don't work. Thefro552 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, gave some thought and I like these rules.

-The example must be a well written page, no stubs.

-The page must have a well defined Powers and abilites section to give a good representation of the powers capabilites.

-The example must have reliable external links to provide further information.

-The example must fit all aspects of the powers definition as best as possible.

-The example must have have the power in current canon or at the time of the characters death.

-If the example has a variety of abilites then the noted power needs to be one of the more prominent.

Those were the best ones I could think of. Feel free to edit, remove, and/or add so we can come to a good agreement. Thefro552 22:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All I could think of would be changing the last one to " If the example has a variety of abilities, then the noted power needs to be thoroughly explained." Simply because some powers, for instance Flight, may not necessarily be a prominent ability, but still may be explained very thoroughly in an article. Other than that, you've put down a very good criteria. I think that some may be a bit subjective, resulting ina rguments like: "I think this ones best" / "no, thats better obviously". Maybe include something along the lines of "All examples must be of good article status or higher," thus making a quantifiable (is that the term?) standard. This would automatically prevent under defined articles, e.g. stubs, from being included, and could possibly convince editors to put extra effort into their favourite characters artcles in order to upgrade them enough.

What do you think? Jacobshaven3 01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The whole purpose is really just to filter out as many bad examples as possible. Im really tired of examples being placed (there are still some on the list) that are there simply becuase it says they have the power in there hero box and have no section for the powers description. Thats the whole point of the example. But I say lets re-word, add/remove and make this list standard. Thefro552 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, you may or may not know: There is currently a discussion of the related categories at WP:CFD. If the trend continues, the categories may become lists, which then could be linked to as examples. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if so then we can still apply these rules to the others that don't have lists to refer too. Thefro552 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar Energy Absorption

I think this should be a sub under Energy Sourcing because I believe it fits the definition. Sunspot is a character that absorbs sunlight and converts it into flight, strength, and force blasts. I want to know what you think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ice399 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

This is already covered under light manipulation. Just becuase it can fuel other powers does not quite give it enough headway to be its own ability. Thefro552 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.187.105 (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fun task for everyone

Next to every character example, we need to put <ref>Action Comics #1</ref> or whatever their character / power origin is. Citations are good people! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this is necessary and will make the article better, maybe it would be best until the actual examples are settled. I know people want the best examples possible, and many currently put aren't. Jacobshaven3 15:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just change the citation whenever the example is changed :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive just begun to change the examples. It took me awhile to find an appropriate one for telekinesis. If this continues this list is going to look a whole lot different when this is finished. Still not quite sure how to do the references, if someone could use Psimon as an example for doing this it would me much appreciated. Thefro552 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example notes

First before this starts Im using the more prominent rules I proposed in the earlier discussion. Also after looking through the list of bad examples I must say that I have nothing against DC, it just happens that a mojority of the companies examples are bad.

Now this covers the Method, Power manipulation, and Personal physical powers sections.

Telekinesis - Isis
-Has no Powers or abilities section.

Power negation - Needs DC example.

Power sensing - Needs DC example and Caliban
-Bad description of abilities.

Accelerated healing - The Creeper
-Bad description of abilities.

Acid generation - Anarchist
-No Powers and abilities section.

Biological manipulation - Raven
-Powers say nothing about healing.

Bone manipulation - Needs DC example and Spyke
-Should animated version be allowed?

Echolocation - Man-Bat
-No Powers and abilities section.

Invisibility - Invisible Kid
-Powers say nothing about actual invisibility. "Note" Might be new power altogether.

Invunerability - Supergirl
-Bad description of abilities.

Matter Ingestion - Matter-eater Lad
-No Powers and abilities section.

Merge - None of the example have Powers and abilities sections or give good descriptions of power.

Pheromone manipulation - Crimson Fox
Bad description of powers.

Poisen generation - Cobra
No Powers or abilities section.

Self-explosion - Both are bad
-Nitro has no Powers and abilities section.
-Damage has bad description of abilities.

Sonic scream - Black Canary
-Bad description of abilities.

Superhuman physical resistance - The Tick
-No Powers and abilities section.

Superhuman reflexes - Blade
-Bad description of abilities.

Superhuman senses - Timber Wolf
-Bad description of abilities.

Night vision - The Owl
-Powers and abilities section say nothing about Night vision.

X-ray vision - Both bad
-Peepers has bad descripions of abilities.
-Lar Gand has no Powers and abilities section.

Superhuman strength - Both need better description.

Ok thats what I thought on them. Just a start, something for us to chew on. Expection comments. Thefro552 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Never noticed how crappy the examples are, so I'll help you out with better examples and I'll do what is needed. Flame 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your telling me. I expect the rest to be similer. Thefro552 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional character by superhuman power

Ok, as you may or may not know, many of the categories were turned into lists.

The current format seems to be: List of fictional characters who can X.

There are also some categories which exist under Category:Fictional characters by nature, and some of it's subcats, including Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability.

You should be able to link to the relevant list for "examples", now. Please feel free to expand the lists appropriately (and citations/references, such as requested above would be great : )

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 08:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vamperiusm a super power?

While i know that vampires are depicted as having a vast range of superpowers. :i.e. shape shifting, immortality, hypnotic suggestion ( the list goes on). However shouldn't vampirism itself be considered a superpower. It can include the classical superpower of vamperiusm which i would say define as : The ability to drain and draw blood for the substation of life force. I am not sure about examples in the DC universe, however i know vamperic characters for marvel would include: Dracula, Bloodstorm, Baron Blood, Moberisu the living vampire.

However vamperiusm as a super power can also include the ability to drain without a bite. For example i believe Exodus and Mimic have both exhibited the ability to drain life force from victims. I would also include in this list Holocaust and Selene who are better known examples for this ability. Also now that i come to think of it doesn't sauron leach mutant energies to activate his transformation into sauton. I didn't want to just go ahead and do it as i fear the topic might be too ambiguous to clearly pin down.

--Dr noire 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your points. Unfortunetly Vampire as a term is far too broad to be labeled as a power. Possibly the ability to drain life force could be used as I can't think of anything that would fall precisly under. But being a vampire implies too many different variations and definitions. Thefro552 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Comics Collaboration of the Month

This list page is the current Collaboration of the month. For those interested, place {{User ComicsCollab}} on your userpage (or wherever you place your userboxes, or notice templates) to stay aware of the current collaboration. - jc37 14:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, its about time. Thefro552 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes tv series characters

Is there some reason not to use these characters as examples? There is an electronic comic book affiliated with the show. The point of this list, from my understanding, is to categorize superpowers which are found in comic books. I don't see where using a popular example like the Heroes characters causes any problems. Slavlin 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In the past we have typically agreed that to qualify as a comic book character they must have originated in a comic. This does not applie to Heroes. Even if they have a comic now there still arn't comic book characters since the comic accomponies the show. Thefro552 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what is really the intent of this list? If it is to show what a power is through a well known example, then I don't see where excluding Heroes characters help. Several of the examples here do not have well written articles and some are even lacking Powers sections. Check out Spider Woman. I removed that one as a "Bio-electric Energy" form of flight since it was really redundant to Energy Auras, but there is not even a powers section for that one. If we can link a power to a better written article rather than a virtually unknown minor character, why shouldn't we do that? Slavlin 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All of those are valid points. Also they are all points that are being worked on. As you must have noticed we have began to place reference points after the example. I have also propositioned a new set of rules for use of examples that you can read farther up the list. If you would like to help that would be great. Find better examples, but as a comic book character as that is the preffered medium. Thefro552 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Heroes characters would also be useful to include as there are a couple of powers on the show that have not been otherwise lsited here. I am thinking of the plasticity manipulation, and Eden McCain's persuasion, to name two. Michaelritchie200 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt work for a couple of reasons. First, neither of the characters have there own page to direct too. The little descriptions they have offer very weak explanations on there abilities. Second there both dead and arnt likely to come back. Thefro552 (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TOC

For some reason, when I see the Table of Contents, only the information under "Means" is indented and it is the only part that collapses when I click Hide. Is there any reason that happens that could be fixed? I didn't know if we have something odd in the page code causing it or if it is a bug with Wikimedia software. Slavlin 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Means and Methods sections

I was looking at this page and realized I was looking at a list of powers which had a section for the origins of the powers and what the source of the powers could be. That did not appear to fit with the nature of the page, so, being bold, I removed those 2 sections. I don't think that they detract any from the page and I also think it frees up a couple of good, well known heroes for power examples that really need them. Slavlin 07:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The means and methods were readded. The note stated that my change was reverted per previous discussion, but I can't see where a consensus was ever reached on it in prior discussions, even in the archive. Slavlin 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_comic_book_superpowers/Archive_4#Means_and_Methods

First this should shed some light on the subject. Second it was agreed upon becuase many powers characters have powers that are in direct relation with a higher order of abilities. Take Vance Astrovik for example. He has the ability to fly but to do this action he uses his telekinesis. Although it is an extention of his telekinesis it doesnt take away from the fact that it is flight and its own power.

The section is there to help the reader get a more informative look on the powers. That little section would not deserve its own page so its grouped into this ,very similer, article. I hope that this helps.

And I am going to revert it back and I hope that you will not remove it again until this issue is resolved. Thefro552 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How is "Mutation" a "higher order of power"? I am trying to reshape this into an entirely objective and non-original research perspective rather than nominate it for deletion. As it is structured right now, I can't see how the entire list structure is anything but OR. If the list is to be a list of superpowers, it should be confined to the powers themeselves. Otherwise, it is not a list, instead it is a work of original research. Slavlin 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I cant see how you say that Mutation is original research. Maybe its not referenced but its a very common origain for superpowers. This section makes for a more comprehensive outlook on the list. To strike it from the list completly would be foolish at best. If another page can be made to accomadate the information then I would have no issue at all of removing it. But as it stands I can't see any of this section as OR. All of them can be accounted for in comic book fiction. Thefro552 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, read what I say, not what you think I said. The LIST would be a work of OR if the structure is artificially imposed by adding things outside the stated criteria of the list. By building the structure to the list that X, Y and Z are the origins of powers, A, B and C are the means by which they are exercised and D through W are the powers, you are defining a structure that is unsupported by an external source. If you wanted to build an origins and powers list, I would be ok with that too, but I would rather keep this to just powers, especially since you have several of the most recognizable supers listed in the origin section. Personally, I would rather handle it this way:

• First, I would have this list just confined to Powers. No origins, no means, no methods.
• Second, I would establish that this listing is to define and give a good, recognizable example for each. I would not mind re-using a hero or villain rather than give a "4th stringer" that only REALLY devoted fans would know.
• Third, I would break it down by one of 2 options:

1. What is the specific power? (ex. An energy aura) or
2. What is the specific effect? (ex. Flying or Force Fields)

The reason I would suggest doing this is that it will remove a lot of the objectivity concerns that it appears a lot of people have had. I have played quite a few superheroes RPGs and I have seen dozens of powers lists. Probably the most comprehensive that I have seen is either the one from the Marvel Superheroes RPG's Ultimate Powers book (ISBN 0-88038-413-1) for a specific powers list, or the Champions book for a list based on the effect. I would not mind helping getting this list up to featured list or even just good article status, but as it stands right now, it is significantly muddled without a clear definition of what the list is even for. Slavlin 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and I will concede. Your first option is fine but some of the powes must be reintagrated into the list that were placed in that section. The second is something that we have tried to do for a long time. We have limited to one use per character for the main reason that they would get overused in several categories. Your third I would need an example as to how that would work before I can say anything about it. Thefro552 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you like, I could put together a listing in my sandbox based on some of the lists I have used in my RPGs before and use those books as a reference. I have the Marvel Ultimate Powers Book and could use it for a basis. I will do that when I get home and put a link here, but leave out examples to be added later. On the third point, a better example of Power vs Effect would be Mr. Fantastic. Power would be Elasticity, but effect would be Elongation or Stretching, Resistance to Damage and Shapeshifting. An example with 2 characters would be Gypsy Moth (comics) and Medusa (comics). Power would be Telekenisis but the Effect would be Animation of Cloth and/or Fibers, just to be really precise. It is more a differenece of How vs. What or How they do it vs. What they do. Slavlin 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that RPG powers are not comic book superpowers. The books are not published by the comic book publishers, and though they sometimes work with the license owner, they don't always, and often create whatever they want in order to "fit in" to whatever arbitrary denotation system (typically numeric) the RPG uses. As for your other points, "means and methods" are in place for the very simple reasons to avoid page bloat, and neologisms, among a host of other problems this page has had. We talked about splitting the page, but without such examples on this page, well-meaning, over-zealous contributors tend to cause issues. - jc37 08:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider it a secondary source then, but wait till I get a chance to put an example together before you blow it off. Without an objective criteria of what a discriminate power and how the page should be composed, one which is not a structure defined by Wikipedia editors alone, I would want to move it to Wikibooks. Even if the list items are NPOV and not OR, in the attempt to categorize them, you can wind up with an OR structure, which I want to keep this from being. And for the means and methods, what does being a mutant have to do with the power of telepathy? The power itself is separate from the origin of that person's powers. If you clarifiy this on the page, that origins are NOT to be included, then you don't have to worry about people adding page bloat. I would leave it off for the same reason that we don't protect pages pre-emptively. The page is what it is or it is not. Right now, it is NOT a "list of comic book superpowers." Instead, it is a list of powers and origins and the editors opinions on how to classify them. Slavlin 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with several of your points. I've tried repeatedly to get editors to add references to this list. I think it's been a couple months since my last attempt, and now that this is the WikiProject Comics collab of the month, I think I'll set a deadline. If, by the time the collab is over, we don't have at least some references, I'm going to nominate this page for AfD. As it stands, it's mostly a combination of unsourced material and WP:OR. It's a vandal magnet, and has arbitrary inclusion criteria. (And speaking of arbitrary inclusion, let's not even think about looking at example choices, and which example may be "more appropriate"... sigh.)

As for means and methods, those sections were intended to be a sort of introduction, and to show the examples there, rather than as powers themselves. For example: Using an object doesn't mean that the character has a power, it means they have an object that grants a certain power. And same for whether a person has invulnerability due to TK or magic, or whatever.

I think the entire "innate means" section should be removed. Omnipotence, mutants and mutates, and "non-human physical features" should not even be on this page. They are more a definition of what makes the character "super-human". (And there could be an infinite set of examples of these.)

Hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why specifically comic books?

Superpowers are found in several other forms of fiction, as well as gaming. Shouldn't the list just be Fictional Superpowers? --58.109.11.135 10:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was decided in the past to limit to comics. This is becuase at the time there were several arguments as to what the page title should be. Finally it was decided to stick stricly to comics since they are the main medium by which super powers are expressed. Thefro552 11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed powers

I would like to start a listing of proposed, accepted and rejected powers here to help new editors to see what has been run up the flag pole before. Add proposed powers here along with any reasons that you think they are different than similar powers. When consensus is reached, I think it would be good to archive the discussion and list the power, with a link, under either Accepted or Rejected along with a brief reason. What do you think? Check out the example below. It is an edit I made, but I discussed it above first. I think it could be of great use as we shape it upSlavlin 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding Creation as an example for a proposed power, contrasting it to other powers already in the list. Though here it is merely an example, I would like to officially propose it at a later time. (Please forgive the redundancy of my edit. I am also new to the talk pages.) 75.108.205.201 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example of proposal list

Underwater adaptation Replaced by Waterbreathing and Resistance to Damage.Slavlin 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Superhuman biting/Superhuman leaping Removed as extensions of Superhuman strength. Thefro552 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Photographic reflexes and Perfect accuracy Removed per consensus as they are not superhuman abilities.

Creation or Matter Creation: ability to form objects or creatures. Unlike Summoning or Duplication the items or creatures do not already exist. Biological Manipulation does not specifically mention creation.

[edit] Heat vision

I put up heat vision as a superpower and it went ignored, so I ask why heat vision can't be a superpower under "Superhuman vision"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.244.36 (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

~As I put under my comment when I removed it, heat vision falls under energy blasts. It is just another form of energy exiting the body. Thefro552 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

[edit] Dust

I previously removed Dust from the example for earth based manipulation, but it was put back on the page. I happen to read New X-Men and Dust cannot control sand or any material other than herself in her sand form. Her power would be more accurate as a Transformation power not earth based manipulation. Lyle A. Ruggles 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I know you all decided to limit this mostly to comic based characters, but is it possible to add characters from other forms of fiction to more obscure or rarely seen powers for more variety? Just for example, I personally believe mentioning Warrant Officer Schrodinger from the manga Hellsing under Omnipresence as a mode of transport/power simply because he's one of the few examples of a non-Omnipotent character or close to that level of power who has this unique ability.

I thought manga was a type of comic book? Thats it's definition here, in which case theres no problem with adding Manga examples as long as they fit the other rules here. Jacobshaven3 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This list has had a few manga examples in the past. I just ask that the character being used has a good description of how there power works on there page. Thefro552 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Super-Powers page

I notice that this page barely covers what super-powers are, their possible causes, their history in comics and elsewhere, or the attempts to classify them (for example by Role-Playing games systems). The Superhuman article approximates but does not cover all of it. So I propose to write a new Superpowers (Abilities) page, with a link from there to this list. Opinions? -Wilfredo Martinez 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Have fun. Thefro552 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. See Superpower (ability) -Wilfredo Martinez 01:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Surfer's board

The Silver Surfer's board is a form of travel, I have been looking through your Transportation section and nothing falls under The Silver Surfer's board. I would be appreciated if you could brainstorm what his board could go under. Thank you.

It is covered under object based powers, not really any different from a jet pack. Also please remember to sign your posts. Thefro552 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heading Level Format Structure

The heading level structure of this article is very poorly formatted. Firstly, the entire article, including the References section, has been contained under a single main heading, "Means". The "Power" section further down has a higher level heading than the "Means" section, but since the "Means" heading is the first on the page, and has a lower-level heading, the "Power" heading appears to have been automatically down-graded.

I attempted to correct it, but another user promptly reverted my correction. Possibly the other user has a point, and my understanding of some of the terminology is not entirely correct, but the structure still needs a bit of work. Does noone else find a section number like 1.2.6.3.25.7 the slightest bit strange?

My suggestions: find ways to break up the page into smaller sections. It's a bit strange to have a section headed "Power", simply because this is a page about powers. The majority of the article is contained within this section, but somehow it's become a level three heading. At the very least, the formatting should be edited so as to be consistent, so that at least the References section appears as a level one heading. Furthermore, if the entire article is contained within a sinlge heading, then it should be re-considered as to whether that heading is needed at all, or whether it's simply self-explanatory. --Belthazar451 01:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous concern was that if we remove the top section (which aren't "powers", as you correctly noted), is that "well-meaning" users will add them as powers.

The same goes for splitting the powers to separate pages. You'd end up with several pages, all with most of the same powers listed.

That said, perhaps if we could find some "intuitive" spliiting point, it may reduce such confusion.

If anything is worthy of being split it is "Mental faculty and knowledge-based abilities" and its sub-sections. We could split that section, leaving the header with a link to the new page.

The shapeshifting section could be merged with List_of_shapeshifters_in_myth_and_fiction#Comics and Shapeshifting#Shapeshifting in comics, as appropriate, or all three sections could be split to their own page.

The same goes for the Flight section. There is a small section about comics' characters' power of flight under Flight#In fiction to which this could be merged to (or even creating its own section), but honestly, the whole "in fiction" section should be split from the flight article, since that section has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Something like Superhuman power of flight, perhaps.

Let's start with those, and see how it works. - jc37 09:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to split the page into separate pages, but it would be a good idea to split the one big section into several smaller sections. I'm uncertain as to how the page is meant to look, but the first heading on the page ("Means") is a level-two heading. Possibly as a result of this, "Powers", written in the page code as a level-one heading, has been demoted to a level-three heading. Similarly for "References", though a level-two heading in the code, it has been demoted to a level-four heading. Thus a good point to start might be a more consistent heading format. That is, the first heading should probably be a level-one heading, as should "References". Should "Power" also be a level-one heading as written, or should it be something else? Getting those two headings to function correctly will break up that one big section into three smaller ones, which would be a good start.

Second, what does "Means" mean in the context of this article? Why is it different from "Method" or "Powers"? Should "Powers" be broken up into types of powers? The "Powers" section already has four sub-sections - would it be preferable to promote these to level-two or even level-one headings? Currently they show as level-four, though they appear in the code as level-two.

On my screen, the table of contents takes up almost half the active width of the page, due to the large size of the indent for some lines. Correcting the behaviour of the section level formatting as I suggested above should go a long way towards making things neater. I'd do something myself, but I'm slightly concerned about putting something in the wrong place. --Belthazar451 12:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Means is now equal to Powers in heading. Does that resolve your concerns? (And possibly answer your latter question?) - jc37 12:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. =) You didn't promote the "References" heading to level-one, so I've done that. Rather a simple fix, really - makes my prior comments above seem kind of excessive. =D

Mind you, it's almost identical to the edit I made earlier. =Þ --Belthazar451 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutation

Shouldnt mutation be listed under "methods" since that particular method of gaining superpowers plays a big part in many comics, especially the Marvel universe. The Taste of Monkeys 04:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinesis

On like fire manipulation or water can we say their kinesis name like pyrokinesis or no—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.36 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 13 July 2007.

See Talk:-kinesis#fictional use for your answer. And please for future referecne sign your posts. Thefro552 01:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Created or published

I came across something not so sure about. For Superhuman strength an anon user placed Icon (comics) as an example. Whenever a new example is added that Im not familier with the first thing I do is check what company makes it. Many times its a Marvel or DC thats filled. Then I came across this and couldnt decide wether it should stay or not. Its created by Milestone Media but is published through DC. So my question is it a valid example? Thefro552 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proofreading the reference section

Reference 4 has a link but no caption. VisitorTalk 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neologisms in List of comic book superpowers

I'm not sure that qualifies. A good number of those have been used in comic book fiction to describe the powers, and as such as very pertinent to the subject at hand. Also note that this is a guideline and not policy, and therefore needs to be interpreted wit the subject matter.

Because of this, and only because of this, I am going to revert the chance and we should bring this for discussion on the article's talk page in order to reach some consensus on what terms have verifiable use and which do not. Please don't take this as a challenge to your edit, just as a much-preferred community decision. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been a discussion, a few actually, on this topic. Talk:-kinesis#fictional use or Talk:List of comic book superpowers/Archive 4#Neologisms. Please take a read before further discussion. Thefro552 11:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however you removed at least one (pyrokinesis) that was accepted as a widely used "real word" in those discussions. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already a link to a seperate page concerning the term directly underneath Fire Manipulation. This should cover all the bases. Thefro552 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme wealth

Wealth is often used as a form of power in comic book land. It certainly is a defining characteristic for Batman. Iron man has great wealth and Green Arrow did for a while before it was decided that was too much like Batman. It may not be as exotic as turning into a lizard or shooting super laser boogers, but the need for material resources is so compelling that comic books often use wealth to explain how a hero is able to obtain a fancy super-hero car and doesn't have to work a job but can hang out down at the Super Hero Hall all day. Even in comic book land, wealth is a super power. Opine. SnappingTurtle 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be your view. There is nothing superhuman about have alot of money. That is a means to aqiure abiltities not an actual ability itself. If anything it would fall under the technology based powers under the guidlines. All of your examples fall under this too. None of them have any inherent superhuman powers, with the exception of Iron Man now. Thefro552 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I'm considering indefinitely semi-protecting this page, in the same way that Superman and Batman are. It would mean that unregistered accounts (shown as IP addresses) would not be able to edit the page, but would instead have to request another editor to edit the page for them on this talk page.

However, I'd like some input from others on this.

I'll give this notice a week. If no one comments here, I'll semi-protect the page at that time.

Thanks, in advance, for your thoughts on this. - jc37 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally that seems a bit extreme. As much as I like this page its not on the same level as Batman or Superman. A majority of the anon edits are out of good faith, just they don't understand how the page works.

I revert any vandalism I see and to me it seems only a small percentage of the edits, compared with other pages I watch its seems rather normal. Ontop of the vandalism that happens is split 50/50 between anon users and those with accounts.

I don't think semi-protecting the page is neccesary. As annoying as it is its just that, an annoyance. And that is easily fixable. Thefro552 02:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While I have little problem with that, have there been any "good" edits from IPs in the last 1000 edits? or just more kinesis or heroes tv or shuffling examples or even just general vandalism? - jc37 02:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Those actually have been on the uncommon side. I more see users switching out perfectly good examples with there favorites or adding extra company examples when the spot is already taken. As I said, good intention, just misguided. Thefro552 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That was example #3 above: "or shuffling examples" : )

So, to clarify, all you've seen are examples of those 4 types? (As I ask this, I realise that I'm heading towards having to go through the page history myself, sigh...) - jc37 07:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate point that I'm getting at is that I don't feel that vandalism of the page is a big enough problem yet to afford a semi-protected status. I don't want to go through any numbers either but if that needs to happen to further add weight to either side then so be it. Thefro552 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superman not listed in examples

It's ridiculous for Superman, of all characters, to be excluded from examples in the list of powers. He's listed once in the sources, but not once in the powers. And Superboy for superhuman strength?? That's not logical. The Silver Age Superboy (whose first appearance is cited) wasn't as strong as Superman. Wryspy 17:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I will state my reasoning now that I have the space. Superman is listed, Energy sourcing is a superhuman ability so in its own right a power. Superman has been a problem in the past because he is a good example for many of the powers. It doesn't have to be the strongest in there but a decent page that gives the reader and idea of what the ability is.

In regards to Superboy I removed him as an example and he has been replaced with Blok whose page has a source, references and a decent description of his strength. He might not be well known to everybody but thats not the point. Its a decent example to showcase what superhuman strength is. Thefro552 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:"but thats not the point" -- so what is the point? Wryspy 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Energy sourcing is listed under Methods, not Powers. Wryspy 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm making is its not a popularity contest. The goal of the page is to placed the best examples that we can, but, not reuse the same examples over and over again. It stated right in the guidelines.

And in regards to your P.S., each of the abilities in the Methods section are superpowers in there own right. They are separated for the sake of being neat and easily understandable. Thefro552 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Superman's place in the history of comics is not merely a matter of a popularity contest. It's a matter of historical importance. He is the single best known superhero on the planet. "Everything begins with Superman." Telling me what is stated right in the "guidelines" is irrelevant when I wasn't disputing the need to avoid reusing the character as an example. I'm saying Superman needs to be listed once in the Powers section. Well, we've stated our positions. Let's see what anybody thinks. Wryspy 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What you think is irrelevant. Yours is personal opinion. It doesn't matter. You have no logical reason to make it so. We wouldn't be having this argument if you had a solid point, Everything began with Superman doesn't, doesn't mean anything. Thefro552 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't seem to be the case that Superman is excluded from the list. The terms of the list are fairly straightforward, presenting every listed power with an exemplar who is among the best examples of that power. Having said that, I can wonder why Supergirl is listed for invulnerability rather than Superman. John Carter 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) It seems that if we want to provide the exemplar for each power, Superman should be used for super strength, super hearing, flight, etc. He is the original and best example for most of his powers, and his article is a FA with tons of references. Using Wolverine for accelerated healing is a no brainer, just like using Superman for super strength should be. I'm also wondering why the examples say "or" instead of "and." With "or," it would be true if only one of the examples has the power and the other does not. We should be providing examples where it's obvious all of them meet the criteria. - Peregrine Fisher 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the big issues is that a lot of the pages to be used as examples don't have sufficient sourcing or a good powers section. The examples aren't just there to show who has the power but to help show the different variations of the power. Many of the abilities have a wide range of possible uses. Its not about whoever is the strongest should automatically be an example. Thefro552 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's who's the strongest, but who originated the power or is the most associated with a power. Basically, if Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, etc. or the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Spider-man, the X-Men, the Avengers, etc. have a power, they are who we should be using as the example. Basically, the most notable characters. A lot of the example characters we have now would have trouble meeting WP:Notability, like Blok for instance. If we have a notable example, I think we should use it. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Fisher. The examples should be well-known characters where possible. Maybe like a well-known and then a lesser well-known, if there's multiple examples? Such as X-Ray vision. The most common superhero that has X-Ray vision is Superman, and yet you have listed Peepers and Lar Grand, who are not only two minor characters (whom I've never heard of) but they also are not cited, and you can get Superman in there, who is the first character that comes to mind when you think X-Ray vision, and you can definitely find a citation for him. Anakinjmt 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Before I comment, I'd like to note that I've been a proponent of replacing these "examples" with links to the categories/lists of the characters with the powers.

I think the "choice" of one example over another is pure opinion, subjective, and well-nigh original research. I really could care less whether an editor "feels" that Superman is the first one, the last one, the best one, the worst one, or whatever, of whatever power that they're arguing over - Strength; Invulnerability; etc. Wikipedia:Verifiability comes to mind...

That said, considering how these things have turn into rather disruptive debates or just a series of reversions, to reduce disruption, we decided that an individual character should only appear on this page once.

But ok, how about this as a compromise: Superman's powers even have their own page. I would think that that would be a better page to link to. Especially since there are many characters who exibit one or more of those powers from the DC Universe. (Pick a different character to "pipe link" to, for each power, if you truly feel that it's necessary to have a character as an example.) So we can stand by the "single character usage" guideline for this page, but yet have (hopefully) the best descriptors for the powers. Anyone oppose? - jc37 03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as being opinion, yes, to a certain extent it would be an opinion of who to use over which characters, but you still need to cite sources, so it's not really original research. The policy should be to use more common characters instead of obscure ones. Now, considering your proposal...what? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Anakinjmt 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to the Superman powers article at which point in this list? Wryspy 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swamp Thing's travel method?

I'm trying to think of a way to describe how Swamp Thing moves from place to place: by dissolving his current body, moving his consciousness through The Green, and growing a new one at his destination. It's not teleportation, it's not possession (since the new body has no mind in the first place)...I don't know. Maybe its already covered, but it seems unique to me.Ig8887 11:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New entries go at the bottom of the page, not the top. As for your question, it seems similar to Nightcrawler. He travels through another dimension before reappearing in the real world. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar. Anakinjmt 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

As anyone who watches this page is I'm sure aware of, there have been problems with people adding in Heroes characters or Incredibles characters. I thought about how we can possibly stop the problem, and so what I've done is before the examples I've added the following: <!--Do not add Heroes characters or Incredibles characters! They did not originate in a comic book, and therefore do not belong here. If you add them, they will be deleted!-->. Anybody that wants to add in a character has to see that before they add someone in, so hopefully that will fix the problem, cuz I think the only other way would be to semi-protect the article, which I wouldn't care for because it's not vandalism we're dealing with, just good faith edits by people that don't know better. Anakinjmt 15:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been a problem forever. I like the idea. But if it sounds ok I think it would be better to be a little more vague about the specific shows. Example, Do not add any character of non-comics origins. Please see guidelines for further explanation. Now I know this is minor but I blame my OCD. :) Thefro552 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but Heroes and the Incredibles are the characters most often added in, and I think the statement "They did not originate in a comic book, and therefore do not belong here" is clear enough. Is there even another show out there that has original characters with superpowers? (besides Smallville, which hasn't seemed to have caused a problem yet) If other characters besides Heroes and Incredibles characters get added in, then I'll change it. Anakinjmt 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it with a more general statement, that hopefully "stands out" more. - jc37 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think adding anything else in that section will make a difference. I don't know about other editers but I don't go to editing the whole page when I only plan on doing a section of it. I really can't see all of the anon users that adding this stuff reading that. Even if they did see it I again don't think they would read it. Thefro552 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well what he did was in the beginning of the article. I added it before every example statement (check the page out to see what I mean). They have to see it to add characters in. New sections is a different story, but I haven't thought of a way to prevent that yet. Anakinjmt 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the "section-by-section" notice. I'm empathetic to the thought, but if we start doing that, there are other "notices" concerning examples that could be placed there too. A "top of the page" notice, (all in caps, no less), should hopefully be enough for most editors. - jc37 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, most editors will simply go to the individual sections and not even bother clicking on "edit this page." It may be overkill, but I'd rather overkill and take care of all contingencies then keep reverting practically every other edit. Anakinjmt 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-offer

Based on the discussion above, and just looking over the last bunch of edits, I'd like to offer again to semi-protect the page.

What this means is that anyone with an account can still edit the page, but ISP address (IP) editors will only be able to edit the talk page. Which means that they can still request someone make an edit on the main page for them, but this should slow down the constant reversion, and hopefully give the page some stability. This has already been done with several other high-profile pages such as Superman and Batman. - jc37 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. - jc37 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't semi-protection to stop vandalism? Most of the edits have been good faith edits by people who mean well, but are uninformed about the specifics. I still say what I did could very well decrease those kind of edits. Anakinjmt 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't so far : )

Per the protection policy: "Protection should be used only to prevent continuing disruption."

Good-faith edits can still be disruptive.

The kind of watch-dogging that has to be done here is simply greater than just typical articles. And as I look over the last 1000 edits or so, I see mostly reversion. And most of those are IP addresses.

The page simply isn't currently "stable" by anyone's definition of the term. This isn't a "short-term" problem, and is not likely to stop anytime soon. That said, once this season of hearoes is over, we could test unprotecting the page to see if the disruption "dies down".

There are always options : ) - jc37 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with Semi-protection. Why not request Semi-Protection, and let them at the request page decide if it's necessary. I think that theres so many good faith edits that come from people not knowing much about wikipedia, and not reading the quidelines for this page before editing. Although I don't like the idea of stopping so many people from editing, the amount of these adits are disruptive. Jacobshaven3 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've semi-protected it. If it turns out to cause more trouble than it's worth, we can always re-discuss it. - jc37 07:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrokinesis

Now I would be the first to hope this would die but as of Ultimate Secrets I feel it should be rethought. The Ultimate Namor entry states that he is a Hydrokinetic, able to control and shape large bodies of water.

As the problem with most of these words are neologisms that arnt used then does this count now?Thefro552 (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format

What is going on with the setup of this article. Shouldn't it resembled List of cricket terms???--88wolfmaster (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gestalt

As I have removed this twice already I feel I need to state more clearly my reasons for its removal.

1. The name "Gestalt" is suspect as I have never heard the term used for this kind of ability in any comic form. If this word was simply tagged on then it is not valid.

2. The examples are very bad. Captain Planet is not a comic book character and as such does not belong on the list. Firestorms page makes very little mention of the fact that he is a combined entity. In his list of Powers and abilities its not even mentioned.

3. If if agreed that the power is valid the definition is not. It doesnt corroborate with the examples given. It appears to be the editors view on what they think the powers is.

I will wait for a few days as to give plenty of time for discussion. If no actitivy occurs I will remove it once again. Thefro552 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be more of a result of powers or other adventures than the source of powers.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fine under one of the other power categories but it would still have to be redone. I tried to put a power on here that was almost the same thing awhile back the the only character I knew that had is was fairly obscure so it was removed. Thefro552 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it works as a power either, more an affect of having powers. Like heat vision giving someone glowing eyes...

Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

True, true. Its also too close to the Merge power we already have on the list for my tastes. Thefro552 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resurection

Interesting power but I don't see any real way its different from immortality. As far as it looks to me its just the means by which immortality happens. When one of the immortal beings dies he comes back hence resurection. Thoughts. Thefro552 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Some immortals die. Others don't. Some immortals resurrect when they die, some just die.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Any significant comic book examples? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection Man is clearly a dies and comes back to life character. Vandal Savage is a once he dies he's dead, but it's hard for him to die character. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I'm not sure if Vandal Savage counts, per what you're saying. Any better example(s) in Category:DC Comics immortals? Perhaps from Category:Marvel Comics immortals? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't Vandal Savage count? He's been alive 50,000 years. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then he would constitute as a plain immortal. Unless, aside from any inconsistencies, have there been instances where he did come back to life? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was giving an example of one of each. Immortal Man, a Vandal Savage enemy was a resurrecting immortal. There is some suggestion that Resurrection Man replaced him, though. I think Lobo, to some degree counts as a resurrecting immortal, but I'll accept that that is pretty debatable. I can't tell you much about Marvel examples, I don't read Marvel.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday (comics), of course, is another example.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You sort of lost me. All I understood was a "yes" to Resurrection Man and Doomsday but do Immortal Man and Vandal Savage count? And as far as Marvel goes, all I found was Captain Marvel. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Immortal Man, a Vandal Savage enemy was a resurrecting immortal."

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems the two best examples presented (which have the most sources confirming) are Resurrection Man and Doomsday. I vouch for these two in the aticle because I'm not 100% sure if Captain Marvel counts (he had help, and it seemed to be a one-time occurrence). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. A lot of characters have resurrected without it being an actual power. Resurrection Man and Doomsday sound fine for examples. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember if possible its preferable to have one Marvel and one DC example per power. Thefro552 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you much about Marvel examples, I don't read Marvel. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Doomsday is off as he is already under Reactive adaptiation. So I propose we make the power with just Ressurection man again and Ill try to find a Marvel example to fit. Thefro552 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not replace Doomsday with Immortal Man? Think we're able to sample two DC characters FTTB. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Immortal Man is a stub article and offers no description of what his abilities consist of. Not a good example. Thefro552 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some information about him on the Vandal Savage page that can be mined. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to merge some of that content? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there another character with Reactive Powers that we can replace Doomsday?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Im a Marvel fan, so I dont know of any others in DC. Thefro552 (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The only one that springs to mind is one of the Amazos. Do Androids count? Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but no. Thefro552 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Think it's safe to say that we should go with Resurrection Man (DC sample) and Captain Marvel (Marvel sample) until a better Marvel character is found. Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the Captain Marvel sample a valid one? Someone said that he was brought back, rather than came back... Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know Captain Marvel isnt valid. In his latest interpretation he was brought back from the past not ressurected and its certainly not an ability of his. Thefro552 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Why was the page recently moved to List of Comic Book Superpowers? I have just reverted this, as there was no reason stated in the edit summary and apparently no discussion about it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apocalypse's Self-manipulation power

Apocalypse's ability to manipultae his own body is a shapeshifting power. This unique power should be put down somewhere under shapeshifting shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.182.60 (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its exactly as you said, a varient on shapeshifting, theres nothing special to set it apart. Thefro552 (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where To Edit?

I have a problem. I can't edit on this page. Could someone please help me and tell me how to, I want to write up a special technique. Son Gohan (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You would need to be a little more specific as the what the problem is first. Then I would be glad to help. Also please note the this special technique is and check that it is not already on the list is some form. Thefro552 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)