Talk:List of comic book superpowers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
???	This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of comic book superpowers article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
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.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives

[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] 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)

[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. Wheras 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. :)

Jacobshaven3 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

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)

[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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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] 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. Steve block 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. Steve block Talk 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Steve block'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 Steve block 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)

[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)

[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. Here and 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 February 7, 2007. ~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.

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 Relfexes

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)

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)

[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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_comic_book_superpowers_dda1.html"

Categories: Unassessed Comics articles | Unknown-importance Comics articles | WikiProject Comics articles

Talk:List of comic book superpowers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Name

[edit] Categories as Examples

[edit] Telekinesis and technopathy

[edit] Motion to move

[edit] Just noting

[edit] Proposition

[edit] Smile

[edit] Powers

[edit] Survival in a Vacuum

[edit] Bone Manipulation

[edit] Ghost Powers

[edit] Bio-electricity

[edit] Electromagnetism

[edit] Dream Manipulation?

[edit] Cyberpathy

[edit] DC know-it-all wanted

[edit] Topics to address

[edit] Invulnerability - no such animal

[edit] Power References

[edit] Neoligism idea

[edit] I haven't forgotten Cyberpathy!

[edit] Biological Manipulation

[edit] Light Manipulation

[edit] New power?

[edit] Guess what! New possible powers

[edit] Question

[edit] Officially coined? "Chronokinesis"

[edit] Kitty Pride ability

[edit] Photographic Relfexes

[edit] Biological Manipulation

[edit] Formatting

[edit] More coinage

[edit] New Idea

[edit] Solar Energy Absorption

[edit] Fun task for everyone

[edit] Example notes

[edit] Fictional character by superhuman power

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search