Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26285761-20150702074516/@comment-26285761-20150704015837

Gordon Ecker wrote: The Most Interesting Nobody in the World wrote: Gordon Ecker wrote: A separate subsection for "unique abilities" seems like too much of a hassle. Actually, it seems to make it more convenient for everyone else. Until some well-intentioned editor sees the page, thinks that "unique abilities" means "don't list anything that another Gem can do" and tries to "fix" the "mistake" by chopping out important information. It happened a couple months back on the Amethyst page.

Everyone is notified of an edit. That may happen occasionally, but it never goes unchecked for long.

For example, right now, weapons aren't lusted under "unique abilities" even though every Gem seems to get a unique weapon with unique special attacks. It's not a unqiue ability to summon a weapon, since every single gem can do it. But the weapon is unique, and so are all of the special attacks. It's kind of weird to use "unique abilities" as an organizational category and then list actual unique abilities like Garnet's rocket punch in a completely different section.

I disagree, because I look at it the same way the wikia does.

There are also abilities which are currently listed under "unique abilities" even though they don't really fit there, like Garnet & Peridot's electricity powers or Amethyst and Jasper's spin dash techniques. Actually,  "  Unique may denote that only one person has it or it could mean that it is something not usually seen in the masses. In which case the latter definition is used." Why should we use a weird, uncommon and confusing definition of "unique" which has caused problems in the past when we could use a clearer and more standard term like "special abilities"? It is not weird, uncommon, or confusing, I was simply unenlightened. Most people do not have that problem, including me now.