| Display title | Reed Richards Is Useless/Headscratchers |
| Default sort key | Reed Richards Is Useless/Headscratchers |
| Page length (in bytes) | 4,084 |
| Namespace ID | 0 |
| Page ID | 50281 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Delete | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Page creator | prefix>Import Bot |
| Date of page creation | 21:27, 1 November 2013 |
| Latest editor | Dai-Guard (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 13:46, 4 April 2014 |
| Total number of edits | 4 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
| Magic word (1) | |
| Transcluded templates (3) | Templates used on this page:
|
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | I understand why you can't have Reed Richards cure cancer or AIDS or have any powerful superhero make peace in the Middle East and end world hunger in one big swoop. But why, oh why, don't we see more examples of authors taking advantage of a simple way around this problem - show the hero slowly chipping away at a huge problem that's often over-simplified, and the problem will still exist and the fictional world will still resemble the real world, but the hero appears less useless. |