Fan Creation talk:Fan powers/Archive

Need for page

Do we really need this page? Does anyone else think we should move it to a user subpage namespace? Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

• I don't care one way or the other. It's no worse (or better) than some of our other fan creations. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I think if this page is to exist:

• Each power listed should only provide a brief description and limits.
• Otherwise, it should definatley belong on a userspace.--Riddler 18:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
  • And the most recent addition is why this page shouldn't. People are retarded. --Riddler 18:46, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
• Since it's been contributed by more than one user (with actual content versus removing content), then I'd stear away from moving it to a subpage. But prior to the other two one-time additions, yes, it belonged as a user subpage.--Bob 19:55, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm

I decided to reserve judgment on this article for a few days because, really, it's no different than any of the other fan creations. However, since it seems like people are going to take it seriously (there's a stern warning not to add silly powers now), then I think it should be shot in the face before it gets out of control. The 'ships articles were enough of a headache, what with the prolonged unfunny edit wars, and the Theories articles are still like that. No one is ever going to agree on what constitutes a "silly" fan power and what constitutes a "serious" fan power. I say we either let people add whatever they want (and trim it to a list--we don't need paragraphs on hypothetical powers) or kill it now before it gets out of control.--Hardvice (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

• I think that's a great solution. Let's let it stew and see what comes of it. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I think it is funny that in the same edit that the warning not to add silly powers was added, two silly power names were added "crystallogenesis" and "metallogenesis". -Lөvөl 12:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Standards

If we're going to have this page, can't we at least come up with some standards for inclusion and naming? Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 20:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

• Page definatley needs hard standards if it's not to be a user subpage. --Piemanmoo 16:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
• Like I said, just a brief definition of the power and it's limits. We don't need to know how it could be used in battle.

An example I could think of would be: --Ability: Weather Control
Description: The ability to control aspects of weather, such as rain, snow, and lightning.
Limits: One can only control the weather in an immediate area, and if extreme caution and concentration isn't used, it can become uncontrollable.

Ability: Manifestation Activation
Description: Through concentration, he who has this ability can, in short terms, activate ones power, even if they are only an infant.
Limits: This can be harmful to those who don't have an ability to manifest, and those who are too young may not be able to control their ability.--Riddler 17:37, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

It could work

• I think this is a good idea for also the fans to show what powers they would want Heroes characters to have. But I'm just curious, should we edit the silly ones out like tomatosis or leave it for laughs? Otherwise, I think this was a good idea. I agree with Riddler, I think there should be a layout and an organized matter. Jason Garrick 21:53, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

• • I re-typed Biological Perpetuity. If you guys like it, I'll do the rest to the best of my ability so we have some structure for this page. It also lessens the bulk. --Riddler 22:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)