Are these fallacy’s real or cap

Are these fallacy’s real or fake

What I mean is do they 

1. Meet the definition of fallacy

2. don’t fall under other fallacies 

here are the fallacy’s : Appeal to reality, appeal to fiction, no limits fallacy, name fallacy, and the keystone fallacy

they are from powerscaling so from my intuition I’m guessing they aren’t fallacies or fall into other fallacies.

Powerscaling isn't something I'm familiar with, so I had to look the terms up. Powerscaling, from what I see, refers to debating who would win in a matchup between fictional characters. People have debated about fiction for longer than any of us have been alive, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. The fact that you're still presenting premises and drawing conclusions from them leaves the debate open to logical fallacies, just that the evidence you're using comes from the source material of a fictional universe which may be incomplete or contradictory, leaving some debates as unresolvable. That said, logical fallacies

That said, it appears that appeal to fiction , using evidence from fiction to support a conclusion in real life, is a real fallacy. Appeal to reality, using evidence from reality to support a conclusion within fiction, appears to be sort of a converse form of that. I think it does meet the criteria of a logical fallacy, that it's an error in reasoning that is likely to fool someone, but I think I'd add the caveat that this could only be applied when debating fiction that doesn't mirror reality.

No limits fallacy: A character has displayed no limits, therefore the character has no limits. I don't think there's a perfect analog to this one, as it's generally recognized that everything in the natural world has limits. But, there are a couple of common paradoxes where people are left to ponder a conflict between two entities without limit (Could God create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it? What would happen if an unstoppable force collided with an immovable object?) The closest fallacy I can find that matches this is confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable , with the limits of a character's power being unexplained.

Name fallacy: An attack's name cannot be used as evidence of its power. One example I found is that Vegeta's Big Bang attack is not equal in power to the actual big bang, therefore the name is meaningless. I'm not sure if there is a fallacy that captures this, but similar dynamics can play out in real life. The most authoritarian country on Earth is called the Democratic Republic of Korea, but a dishwasher washes dishes, so the relationship between something's name and what it actually does has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

It is difficult to tell based on the name alone. But you did provide a link to the "keystone" fallacy. This could fall under questionable cause . My guess is the others are in the same category... there is some element of fallacious reasoning, but either rare or adequately covered by a more common fallacy name.