Standard Human Weaknesses - Completely Unnecessary

[Shmooply]

Some profiles on the wiki for human (duh) characters has "standard human weaknesses" written on their weakness section. An example would be Patrick Bateman's profile, but for some reason this is listed as a weakness on human characters that do superhuman things or resist things that ordinary humans don't, such as Courier Six.

The problem with this is that it's a really pointless ability. This is like if you wrote "can be trampled to death" on the profile of a character with small size, or "is kinda slow" for a gigantic character (assuming they aren't a physics-breaking monster that can somehow move super fast despite all the added weight). Because of this, I think we should remove this weakness from every profile that has it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's mostly important for characters/species who aren't human. Such as various aliens and demi-gods. And it's short for saying; they still need to eat, sleep, and breathe.

 

[Shmooply]

Except the examples I brought up are actual humans and superhumans, and I feel that's still an unnecesarry thing. Should we give a majority of the profiles on the wiki the same weakness since plenty of them are characters who have been shown to have a need for hunger, or haven't been shown to ever be hungry or starving?

 

[Mazdoesstuff]

Agreed

 

[Shmooply]

bump

 

[Shmooply]

It's mostly important for characters/species who aren't human. Such as various aliens and demi-gods.

Actually, where is it stated that this is what the weakness is for? I've so far checked three pages of profiles that have this weakness listed, and the only non-human/demi-gods I could find that had this weakness were MCU Thor and (arguably) Piper from the Percy Jackson books.

 

[Funnimane]

It's mostly important for characters/species who aren't human. Such as various aliens and demi-gods. And it's short for saying; they still need to eat, sleep, and breathe.

Specifying the assumed needs of any living thing as a "weakness" is still redundant and unnecessary in most cases. I'd say stuff in a "weaknesses" section should be more specific to that individual or species, and not just the negative attributes that everyone is assumed to have unless proven otherwise. For divine or godly beings it might need clarification, but for other organisms, even if they're supernatural, I still think it'd be redundant. And needless to say it is for human characters.

 

[Shmooply]

bump

 

[Bobsican]

Yeah, TBH I'd be fine with blacklisting "standard human weaknesses" from being brought up in a page at all.

 

[Shmooply]

bump

 

[Nullflowerblush]

there's really no reason to kick off an entire manhunt against something largely inconsequential and that only affects a very small number of pages

 

[Bobsican]

I mean, if the wiki could automatically blacklist several piracy websites... but that's besides the point.

 

[Mr._Propeller_Hat]

Standard human weaknesses basically means that they can still die like a regular human could, such as getting shot, or they still have the same limits of what a human has

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's just a thing all humans/mortals have; they need to eat, sleep, breathe, they will eventually die of old age, toxic chemicals deadly to humans are deadly to them, ect. And they will die if any mandatory organs are removed/destroyed.

But, admittedly, it's just a common sense thing and that can commonly be explained by the absence of Immortality types, regeneration to an extent, or self sustenance, ect. And only time I would find it necessary is giving it to an alien or demi-god type character who just happens to still have all of those weaknesses. And giving those to human character or animals seems unnecessary. I wouldn't mind officially saying it's unnecessary to add them to profiles.