Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26285761-20150702074516/@comment-26285761-20150705075946

Gordon Ecker wrote: The Most Interesting Nobody in the World wrote: Gordon Ecker wrote: Wiktionary lists that usage as "proscribed", and according to disctionary.com, Collins English Dictionary describes that usage as "informal", while Random House Dictionary lists it behind 3 other more common and narrower definitions. That seems pretty uncommon and non-standard to me. Actually, Wiktionary is not a legitimate source, and that's only two other sites out of thousands. I'm not convinced. Random House and Harper Collins are both major dictionary publishers. Have you seen a dictionary that says otherwise?

Could you explain why you think "unique abilities" is a better option than less superlative terminology such as "special abilities", "powers and abilities" or "Gem powers"?

I do not find "Unique Abilities" a problemtatic title, despite your efforts. Sorry :/

The Most Interesting Nobody in the World wrote: Also, I'm convinced now that each Gem has each of their Unique Abilities in their very own variation, with their own UNIQUE properties. Name any Unique Ability, I'll gladly explain how. I'm sure you can come of with a persuasive argument. But we're supposed to try to avoid speculation in wiki articles. Right now, Garnet's page describes what we know about Garnet's electricity powers and Peridot's page describes what we know about Peridot's electricity powers. They could be the same power, they could be different powers, we just don't know. Okay, but the point was that your preferred definition of "unique" could fit the aforementioned "Unique Abilities" as much as mine.