• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Off-Site Respect Threads on Wiki Pages (Staff Only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
We still need to fix the copy and pasting issue for blogs and pages on the wiki.
Please elaborate. Have Fandom been unable to help you with this when you have directly contacted them in the past?
 
Okay. So should we only use this rule for Marvel and DC Comics instead, given that they are the most inconsistent?
Most of the staff already agreed on doing this in general, not just for Marvel and DC.

By the way, most of the Feats sections don't actually feature an off-site respect thread from what I recall, they generally are just listed separately at the bottom of the profile from what I recall, but in any case it seems they'll have to be found manually if we can't filter them like how we once did with piracy websites.
 
Okay. Most of the feats threads can probably be found via external links searches for Reddit and maybe Deviantart links.

Hpwever, I am very uncertain if it is a good idea to remove all of them, as they can be useful for scaling most types of fictions/verses, just not Marvel and DC.
 
Well, the pages that have remained until now have enought of a base by themselves, as they don't rely on such respect threads for scans to begin with from what I'm aware.
But doing a filter first so nothing isn't compromised doesn't hurt, such respect threads are to be ported to blog posts and so on as outlined in the before-mentioned option 1 I mentioned before (which seems to be agreed on).
 
That would be an awful lot of work though, and we are overworked enough as it is right now, so only restricting them for Marvel and DC seems far more realistic to apply.
 
Well, this revision can just be done in the long run, as we seemingly did with off-site versus threads before, a note could be added to the Editing Rules over this kind of content to encourage users to remove the ones they find, and while we are on that explain the reason why they aren't allowed to be featured like this.
 
In retrospect I think that it seems to give a negative impact if we remove respect threads for comparatively quite consistent verses. It is likely not a good idea.
 
Well, they still have to be monitored in any case, so we can also just not remove them, but require to do a revision over each one that may be removed, or otherwise be featured as a blog post instead.
 
The blog posts would need to have all of their links and images individually copied, due to different editing formats, so it is not realistic to apply for possibly a few hundred of them.
 
It wouldn't be applied to most of them, as most profiles don't rely on them to begin with and go into the issues that have been outlined across the entire thread.

Also, what verses would even qualify as "quite consistent"? Virtually any respect thread is just going to list a ton of tier 9 feats even for character that we currently rate as tier 7 or above from a few feats, so our consistency and their consistency don't match to begin with.
 
I still am of the opinion that it's pretty scummy to just copy the work made by others for our wiki, which is basically what copying them to our blogs would be.
 
I still am of the opinion that it's pretty scummy to just copy the work made by others for our wiki, which is basically what copying them to our blogs would be.
We would still give credit to them at the top of the respect thread blog post by linking their post.
 
That implies we asked them for permission, which I doubt was always the case, and with how other battleboarders sometimes view VSBW, there's a decent chance they wouldn't be willing to give it. Unless you're willing to contact each and every single one of them, that doesn't really work.
 
That implies we asked them for permission, which I doubt was always the case, and with how other battleboarders sometimes view VSBW, there's a decent chance they wouldn't be willing to give it. Unless you're willing to contact each and every single one of them, that doesn't really work.
Well, do you have any better ideas? As we still need moderation over this sort of stuff, even if it won't be removed, it's a hard task and all, but it's of a good priority to fix the issues that have been outlined across the thread. Also, if they don't want to, they can just ask for us to just remove them, as we do with fanart currently, no profile relies on them for justifications on what's on the profile beyond the research some users do in some cases, after all, so it wouldn't compromise the profiles themselves if they were removed.
 
Well, do you have any better ideas? As we still need moderation over this sort of stuff, even if it won't be removed, it's a hard task and all, but it's of a good priority to fix the issues that have been outlined across the thread. Also, if they don't want to, they can just ask for us to just remove them, as we do with fanart currently.
All I know if that if someone put the effort in a respect thread, stealing their content is absolutely unacceptable. Either way, yall do whatever,
 
Well, I think that collecting all of the Marvel and DC respect thread links into a single sandbox page that we can reference if necessary, and keeping the others, seems like the best solution here.
 
The others still need to be moderated, however, if they can't be done now it can be something done in the long run, as said before.

Keeping the Marvel and DC respect threads all in a single blog post also is pretty messy, there should be only one per respect thread, rather than merging all of them to a single one per series or so.
 
I can confirm that the respect threads used in my profiles are all very accurate and high quality.
 
Well, each respect thread link in the sandbox page should obviously state which Marvel or DC character that it is for.
 
Yes, but sandboxes can continuously have new respect threads added to them by members who are not sysops/administrators.
 
Well, it's going to be a single respect thread per blog post, and the linked one woudl be best being a version archived in archive.org to avoid the source being compromised at a future date, and so they aren't really going to be edited. If they become outdated, a new blog post can just be done accordingly.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to write some Editing Rule over off-site respect threads, namely to avoid them just being added to profiles.
 
I think that lists with links to respect threads seems simpler for our purposes, since it would take too long to copy all of the links and images otherwise.
 
It may be simpler, but that just avoids dealing with the entire issues that have been outlined across the thread and most staff agree on, either they have some basic moderation or they're best just being removed, especially considering that no profile relies on them for justifications and are more of utilities just linked either for potential research or to give credit.
 
It is not realistic to go through all of them and somehow determine which feats that are acceptable or not, and the ones for more consistent franchises are useful to keep as future references.

Marvel and DC Comics are the main problems in this regard, since the feats are all over the place.
 
It is not realistic to go through all of them and somehow determine which feats that are acceptable or not, and the ones for more consistent franchises are useful to keep as future references.

Marvel and DC Comics are the main problems in this regard, since the feats are all over the place.
Again, "consistency" for us, and "consistency" for other websites just aren't compatible, so this doesn't extend to only those two verses, especially considering that they also list a ton of tier 9 feats and so on when they bear no priority for us. Users can also find such respect threads for research purposes by looking them up if they so desire, so they can also just be removed with a bot in lack of better options, then eventually readded in some blog post that gets evaluated as we currently do with calculations.

Otherwise it would be best to just wait to see what other staff members think, as this seems to be more of an issue on what we're going to give priority to.
 
We can still often use the higher feats for those characters, whereas Marvel and DC Comics feat lists would blatantly contradict several of our ratings, due to the "everybody can fight everybody" convention.
 
Yes, but there's still the issue of:

  • How they give an inappropiate portrayal of how we actually rate each character, and thus being misleading to the idea we want to give.
  • We can't count with those links staying properly forever as they can eventually get taken down, especially in cases like reddit where this is common as it gets "updated", at best we need to archive every single one in Archive.org and update the link accordingly.
  • They take feats and statements from a many different media, regardless of them coming from a different canon, side-material and such, which is clearly counterproductive for our purposes.
  • They can also perfectly be against our standards or even include lies for all we now, as they don't conform to our standards and have not been evaluated or approved by anyone in here.
 
What do the rest of you think? Should we remove all of them after all?
 
I'm with Bob, regardless of time issues, we shouldn't link unevaluated stuff on profiles, otherwise we can start linking profiles of the same character that are on other wikis, youtube videos that explain someone's view on the character's strength, external blog posts, hell, someone might even link the Death Battles episodes, it's no different.

It doesn't make sense to strive for accuracy with calcs, debates, references, dividing media and everything else if the profile can just link to some place where all of these things can perfectly be ignored, all over the place, flat out wrong and so on.

My opinion is that we either host and evaluate them on blog posts, or we just evaluate them as they are, with the risk of them being changed, deleted or else.
 
Most of the staff already agreed on doing this in general, not just for Marvel and DC.

Right, but I think the scope of an issue makes it something to reconsider.

By the way, most of the Feats sections don't actually feature an off-site respect thread from what I recall, they generally are just listed separately at the bottom of the profile from what I recall, but in any case it seems they'll have to be found manually if we can't filter them like how we once did with piracy websites.


Yes, people can essentially make their own feat lists in the Feats sections, but from what I've seen, over 90% of the time that section just links to a respect thread, so the approximation of 1500+ pages isn't going to be orders of magnitude off.

I'm with Bob, regardless of time issues, we shouldn't link unevaluated stuff on profiles, otherwise we can start linking profiles of the same character that are on other wikis, youtube videos that explain someone's view on the character's strength, external blog posts, hell, someone might even link the Death Battles episodes, it's no different.


I feel like there's a difference between a list of all of a character's feats, and a profile that mentions a few of their highest ones. I see them serving different functions.

Also, how far does linking unevaluated stuff go? Is it only stuff from other battleboarders? Can we no longer link to other wikis for, say, a list of a character's spells for ones who have hundreds?

My opinion is that we either host and evaluate them on blog posts, or we just evaluate them as they are, with the risk of them being changed, deleted or else.


Even so, this feels like a lower-priority project. ig it could be enshrined in the rules and start to be gradually worked on, but a massive burst of edits to clear them all is unlikely to be successful.
 
Also, how far does linking unevaluated stuff go? Is it only stuff from other battleboarders? Can we no longer link to other wikis for, say, a list of a character's spells for ones who have hundreds?
I think it's a case by case basis, but even a list of spells or such should receive some kind of evaluation, because they could be taken from different media, versions of the characters and so on.

Because we require making CRTs to add stuff, while linking to external websites and taking them as granted by default is kinda like cheating.

Even so, this feels like a lower-priority project. ig it could be enshrined in the rules and start to be gradually worked on, but a massive burst of edits to clear them all is unlikely to be successful.

You're totally right on that, it's not an urgent thing.
 
I think it's a case by case basis, but even a list of spells or such should receive some kind of evaluation, because they could be taken from different media, versions of the characters and so on.

Because we require making CRTs to add stuff, while linking to external websites and taking them as granted by default is kinda like cheating.


That's pretty fair, but we don't require CRTs for (most) initial profile creation, but from what I've heard it seems like y'all would still want to look into CRTs that were included when the page was made.
 
I'm with Bob, regardless of time issues, we shouldn't link unevaluated stuff on profiles, otherwise we can start linking profiles of the same character that are on other wikis, youtube videos that explain someone's view on the character's strength, external blog posts, hell, someone might even link the Death Battles episodes, it's no different.

It doesn't make sense to strive for accuracy with calcs, debates, references, dividing media and everything else if the profile can just link to some place where all of these things can perfectly be ignored, all over the place, flat out wrong and so on.

My opinion is that we either host and evaluate them on blog posts, or we just evaluate them as they are, with the risk of them being changed, deleted or else.
These are very good points.

What do the rest of you think?
 
So should we write a new rule for this then? If so, is somebody willing to write a draft, and in which page should we place it? Is the Editing Rules page fine?
 
So should we write a new rule for this then? If so, is somebody willing to write a draft, and in which page should we place it? Is the Editing Rules page fine?
The Editing Rules is perfect as it's the same place where a similar kind of stuff regarding versus threads is clarified (Although it seems we have yet to say in there as well over how off-site calculations aren't allowed for indexing purposes, but a similar wording can be used, or even be said on the same rule as this one).

Anyways, based on the one we do have over off-site versus threads...
"Do not add any respect threads or calculations from external sites to profiles, as they can't be properly monitorized to keep content of good reliability for our purposes, and recurrently do not meet our standards. Also, feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across."
 
I think that quite a lot of our oldest profile pages still link to calculations in the Narutoforums or Wayback Machine backups of them. Suddenly removing all such calculations would likely mess things up, whereas copying them to blogs here while giving credit should be fine.
 
Perhaps something like this?

"Do not add any respect thread links from external sites to our character profile pages, as they can't be properly monitorized to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top