- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,841
I will ask our forum system manager if we can get extra safeguards to not lose sandbox or general post creation progress, but don't we already have save buttons that should help with this?
-
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.
Suggestions for improvements (New forum)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vs battles wiki
I will ask our forum system manager if we can get extra safeguards to not lose sandbox or general post creation progress, but don't we already have save buttons that should help with this?
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,842
@AmonInChains
Here is what he replied:
"A single click on the alert button shows the alert dropdown. It goes to the alert page only if you click again or click when the dropdown opens.
When you type something and accidentally click on other links, you can easily hit back and see your draft text.
XF usually saves periodically whatever you type."
Here is what he replied:
"A single click on the alert button shows the alert dropdown. It goes to the alert page only if you click again or click when the dropdown opens.
When you type something and accidentally click on other links, you can easily hit back and see your draft text.
XF usually saves periodically whatever you type."
Testarossa002
Username Only- 2,788
- 3,449
This is a suggestion for forum experience improvement
I don't know if this is appropriate for here (the title and OP support me), but if it doesn't, it can be deleted
I wanted to put this on the current thread discussing a similar topic, but I can't seem to get permission to comment. It's also not that big of a deal to warrant its own thread, so this is the next best option
Staff (this also applies to CGMs) should be strongly encouraged to put the type of CRTs they'd prefer to NOT evaluate on their profile header or whatever it's called
If you have a list of sections that you'd wish to not evaluate (Tier 1/2, HST verses, Light Novel etc), it deters those with CRTs that fall into that category from bothering to post on your wall.
I've seen staff with over 30 notifications whenever they check in with the site. Lephry mentioned how he once had 90+ notifications.
This way, your wall would be tailored to verses that that you'd like to evaluate, which reduces your notifications.
It's also beneficial to blue names. You know who exactly not to bother. If this CGM is averse to evaluating black hole or manhwa feats, you know not to bother messaging, and you can focus your energy elsewhere
Lastly, it also helps HR management overall. If there are only 2 current staffs willing to evaluate tier 1 threads, they (HR) already know that and can tailor their recruitment to looking for more staffs that are willing to take on tier 1 threads. I don't know how staff recruitment works, but if there are two staff potentials with comparable CVs but one available slot at that moment, the one with tier 1 evaluation capabilities can be given the nudge ahead as a tie-breaker.
I've seen similar messages on FinePoint's and Amorchopy's walls, and it goes a long way
It's a WIN-WIN-WIN for everyone involved
I don't know if this is appropriate for here (the title and OP support me), but if it doesn't, it can be deleted
I wanted to put this on the current thread discussing a similar topic, but I can't seem to get permission to comment. It's also not that big of a deal to warrant its own thread, so this is the next best option
Staff (this also applies to CGMs) should be strongly encouraged to put the type of CRTs they'd prefer to NOT evaluate on their profile header or whatever it's called
If you have a list of sections that you'd wish to not evaluate (Tier 1/2, HST verses, Light Novel etc), it deters those with CRTs that fall into that category from bothering to post on your wall.
I've seen staff with over 30 notifications whenever they check in with the site. Lephry mentioned how he once had 90+ notifications.
This way, your wall would be tailored to verses that that you'd like to evaluate, which reduces your notifications.
It's also beneficial to blue names. You know who exactly not to bother. If this CGM is averse to evaluating black hole or manhwa feats, you know not to bother messaging, and you can focus your energy elsewhere
Lastly, it also helps HR management overall. If there are only 2 current staffs willing to evaluate tier 1 threads, they (HR) already know that and can tailor their recruitment to looking for more staffs that are willing to take on tier 1 threads. I don't know how staff recruitment works, but if there are two staff potentials with comparable CVs but one available slot at that moment, the one with tier 1 evaluation capabilities can be given the nudge ahead as a tie-breaker.
I've seen similar messages on FinePoint's and Amorchopy's walls, and it goes a long way
It's a WIN-WIN-WIN for everyone involved
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,844
I will mention this suggestion in our main private staff discussion thread.
However, our Human Resources group are not the ones deciding our staff recruitment survey candidates. Our bureaucrats do that.
However, our Human Resources group are not the ones deciding our staff recruitment survey candidates. Our bureaucrats do that.
- 846
- 805
I’d like to ask if it's possible to add an implementation to hide likes on posts, like an on/off toggle button.
This isn’t really something that affects me personally, but I’ve seen several people who feel some anxiety about it when they get outliked, which also ends up in frustating or being incapable of maintain composure while debating.
This isn’t really something that affects me personally, but I’ve seen several people who feel some anxiety about it when they get outliked, which also ends up in frustating or being incapable of maintain composure while debating.
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,846
Hmm. I don't think that seems realistic, given that the like button is a part of the same row together with various other buttons, especially for staff members.
Also, this doesn't seem particularly stressful. We even removed all other reaction buttons, including downvote when setting up this forum, as likes are supposed to be encouraging in most cases.
Also, this doesn't seem particularly stressful. We even removed all other reaction buttons, including downvote when setting up this forum, as likes are supposed to be encouraging in most cases.
- 846
- 805
I don't think it's that difficult tho.
The reaction show comes from the div "reactionsBar" as shown here.
By just nuking it, it just disappear without affecting other interface.
I think it can just be adjusted to dissapear to the users who deactivate the option. It's just a conditional after all I think?
I mean, I just made this because I saw those two posts.Also, this doesn't seem particularly stressful. We even removed all other reaction buttons, including downvote when setting up this forum, as likes are supposed to be encouraging in most cases.
- 5,265
- 1,628
Atp, i think another one of those large threads just for adding self explanatory Powers and Abilities to profiles without the need for a CRT should be added.
As long as the showing of the feat is references by the user, and approved by a mod overlooking it, it should reduce the need to make a CRT for the most minor of additions right? As long as its not a controversial power
As long as the showing of the feat is references by the user, and approved by a mod overlooking it, it should reduce the need to make a CRT for the most minor of additions right? As long as its not a controversial power
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,849
Well, it is displayed in the same row as various other buttons for staff members at least, so I prefer to not mess with it.
Hmm. My apologies, but it seems a bit oversensitive to me, not something worth changing our entire forum system for.
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,850
In theory, yes, but we would need to gather quite a lot of administrators and thread moderators who are willing to continuously overview and evaluate the thread, as I don't have the energy for doing it myself, and that is easier said than done.
- 5,265
- 1,628
Surely theres people that would be willing? Would surely save a lot of minor CRT's from needing to go through the trouble if it can all be done on one thread which would also take up Staff time.In theory, yes, but we would need to gather quite a lot of administrators and thread moderators who are willing to continuously overview and evaluate the thread, as I don't have the energy for doing it myself, and that is easier said than done.
It would also encourage more people to reference/explain their feats and reflect as such on the page for a new standard, and theres already similar threads that show staff members with knowledge about P&A in particular such as these:
Unofficial Powers and Abilities Addition Thread Infinite
In this thread we talk about what powers, traits, and abilities that should be added, removed, modified, etc. A project started by SomebodyData. Previous Thread
Powers & Abilities Evaluations Thread
The purpose of this thread is for our members to ask for evaluations regarding which abilities that are being demonstrated during different types of displayed scenes or feats.
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,852
In theory, yes, but we would need to gather quite a lot of administrators and thread moderators who are willing to continuously overview and evaluate the thread, as I don't have the energy for doing it myself, and that is easier said than done.
@Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Mr._Propeller_Hat @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Catzlaflame @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Nierre @Reiner04 @Dalesean027 @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless @Imaginym @Vietthai96 @Godernet @TWILIGHT-OP @Random-Helper323Surely theres people that would be willing? Would surely save a lot of minor CRT's from needing to go through the trouble if it can all be done on one thread which would also take up Staff time.
It would also encourage more people to reference/explain their feats and reflect as such on the page for a new standard, and theres already similar threads that show staff members with knowledge about P&A in particular such as these:
Unofficial Powers and Abilities Addition Thread Infinite
In this thread we talk about what powers, traits, and abilities that should be added, removed, modified, etc. A project started by SomebodyData. Previous Threadvsbattles.com
Powers & Abilities Evaluations Thread
The purpose of this thread is for our members to ask for evaluations regarding which abilities that are being demonstrated during different types of displayed scenes or feats.
What do you think about this?
- 12,767
- 15,268
I don't know if I'm being dumb, but the Standard Format for Character Profiles page is kinda ass. The first thing when someone sees the page is a image of the source code of the format, which is kinda irrelevant, then a bunch of examples of the navboxes and tabbers, and then the format for profiles appears after those examples without any indication.
What we users want from that page is a quick copy-paste from the format, and preferably clean, without explanatory text. Could the page be reformulated and a more direct way to copy-paste the format without having to access the page's source code, going down ignoring a lot of unnecessary explanations (that shouldn't be on the top) and then having to clean the format be added? Like I'm not even asking for the removal of all the explanations, just the clean format and something that is easy to copy.
What we users want from that page is a quick copy-paste from the format, and preferably clean, without explanatory text. Could the page be reformulated and a more direct way to copy-paste the format without having to access the page's source code, going down ignoring a lot of unnecessary explanations (that shouldn't be on the top) and then having to clean the format be added? Like I'm not even asking for the removal of all the explanations, just the clean format and something that is easy to copy.
- 757
- 818
Yeah I agree, something like a copy-pasteable blank profile format at the top of the page with the detailed explanations being placed below it should work.
It would be more convenient than copying an existing profile then emptying it manually everytime you want to make a profile.
- 2,603
- 5,160
Slight agree, but also, let me also just note that we also have a feature like this, but you're not seeing it because you're not using the actual source editor.
Right now, your editing preferences are set to either "VisualEditor" or "VisualEditor - source mode". When you try to switch to "Source editing", it just puts you into "VisualEditor - source mode", which doesn't include this functionality.
That's also why your edits show up with the "Tag: Source edit" label.
When you edit in the actual source editor, you just need to click "Standard Profile Page," and you're instantly given the full MediaWiki format without even needing to copy-paste.
With that said, we should either promote this feature more or make it easier to find, since while some users know it exists, they don't seem to be the majority.
Sorry, I just wanted to mention this before agreeing (and I do somewhat agree). I'm still fine with adding an easily copy-pastable MediaWiki format to the Standard Format Page, which can be taken from the Standard Profile Page function and adjusted if needed:
vsbattles.fandom.com
We might need to get the input of the bureaucrats before moving forward with any changes though.
Right now, your editing preferences are set to either "VisualEditor" or "VisualEditor - source mode". When you try to switch to "Source editing", it just puts you into "VisualEditor - source mode", which doesn't include this functionality.
That's also why your edits show up with the "Tag: Source edit" label.
When you edit in the actual source editor, you just need to click "Standard Profile Page," and you're instantly given the full MediaWiki format without even needing to copy-paste.
With that said, we should either promote this feature more or make it easier to find, since while some users know it exists, they don't seem to be the majority.
Sorry, I just wanted to mention this before agreeing (and I do somewhat agree). I'm still fine with adding an easily copy-pastable MediaWiki format to the Standard Format Page, which can be taken from the Standard Profile Page function and adjusted if needed:
Createpage-with-video
vsbattles.fandom.com
We might need to get the input of the bureaucrats before moving forward with any changes though.
- 12,767
- 15,268
God damn you’re amazing. I’ll do that next time.Slight agree, but also, let me also just note that we also have a feature like this, but you're not seeing it because you're not using the actual source editor.
Right now, your editing preferences are set to either "VisualEditor" or "VisualEditor - source mode". When you try to switch to "Source editing", it just puts you into "VisualEditor - source mode", which doesn't include this functionality.
That's also why your edits show up with the "Tag: Source edit" label.
When you edit in the actual source editor, you just need to click "Standard Profile Page," and you're instantly given the full MediaWiki format without even needing to copy-paste.
With that said, we should either promote this feature more or make it easier to find, since while some users know it exists, they don't seem to be the majority.
Sorry, I just wanted to mention this before agreeing (and I do somewhat agree). I'm still fine with adding an easily copy-pastable MediaWiki format to the Standard Format Page, which can be taken from the Standard Profile Page function and adjusted if needed:
Createpage-with-video
We might need to get the input of the bureaucrats before moving forward with any changes though.
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,857
I think that it seems like a good idea to copy-paste the code from the above-linked page in a <nowiki></nowiki> format to a new "Standard Format Code" page or something similar, and then link to it in our Standard Format for Character Profiles page, and in our relevant navigation template, in a visible manner.Slight agree, but also, let me also just note that we also have a feature like this, but you're not seeing it because you're not using the actual source editor.
Right now, your editing preferences are set to either "VisualEditor" or "VisualEditor - source mode". When you try to switch to "Source editing", it just puts you into "VisualEditor - source mode", which doesn't include this functionality.
That's also why your edits show up with the "Tag: Source edit" label.
When you edit in the actual source editor, you just need to click "Standard Profile Page," and you're instantly given the full MediaWiki format without even needing to copy-paste.
With that said, we should either promote this feature more or make it easier to find, since while some users know it exists, they don't seem to be the majority.
Sorry, I just wanted to mention this before agreeing (and I do somewhat agree). I'm still fine with adding an easily copy-pastable MediaWiki format to the Standard Format Page, which can be taken from the Standard Profile Page function and adjusted if needed:
Createpage-with-video
We might need to get the input of the bureaucrats before moving forward with any changes though.
- 5,091
- 4,136
Can I suggest we remove the "summarized notification" since it keeps happening for me and the only thing it does is make me unable to check where the notification is from, since it instantly reappears after I try to check it out... So I have no idea where it came from or what it was... It just makes things annoying and fully removes the reason for them in the first place...
- 7,333
- 5,515
Alert preferences
there is an option there
- 5,265
- 1,628
I'd like to formally request that the wiki have a more detailed and thorough explanation on what form of edits require a Content Revision Thread in order to apply (mostly for singular information on its own, such as an ability addition). This should include what sections/aspects of profiles should require a CRT in order to change, and to what significant degree. All I can see currently is what is briefly written on the 'Welcome Message' page.
This is due to my own personal confusion (and i'm sure others have similarly been confused on this) on what we're actually allowed to fix up and change without needing to dedicate an entire CRT that only staff (who may not have direct knowledge on certain verses/pages) have the power to resolve. We obviously have a Self-Evident Intellgience thread that shows some precedent for things like this. Nonetheless, it is better to have in writing on the official wiki what is allowed and what isnt as a clear reference point.
As i'm not a staff member, I don't think it's my place to be creating my own thread regarding it as i don't uphold these standards or have any power in changing outcomes. Maybe this can also bring a discussion on how to better format the Wiki Rules pages.
This is due to my own personal confusion (and i'm sure others have similarly been confused on this) on what we're actually allowed to fix up and change without needing to dedicate an entire CRT that only staff (who may not have direct knowledge on certain verses/pages) have the power to resolve. We obviously have a Self-Evident Intellgience thread that shows some precedent for things like this. Nonetheless, it is better to have in writing on the official wiki what is allowed and what isnt as a clear reference point.
As i'm not a staff member, I don't think it's my place to be creating my own thread regarding it as i don't uphold these standards or have any power in changing outcomes. Maybe this can also bring a discussion on how to better format the Wiki Rules pages.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,053
- 29,637
Whether or not we have this discussion (sounds like something that will last for six months without much happening), I will clarify to you that any change which alters the statistics or abilities of a profile absolutely requires a CRT, however minor. Adding explanations is fine, though if the explanation changes the context of the ability (say, adding context that changes mind manip from single target to billions of targets), that is something that needs a CRT. If you're ever unsure, ask.
- 5,265
- 1,628
Well im sure theres plenty of instances that go under the radar, questioning the efficiency of, like you said, needing a six months CRT to make any minute change. Id rather just know what doesnt require an entire CRT to have to change. Stuff like rephrasing textual sections, such as weaknesses or notable attacks/techniques, fixing abilities, changing formats of pages etc. Im sure it'll avoid a lot more arguments and misconceptions, or at least provide a solid reference.
A lot of this should be very verse dependent imo but obv I dont want things to be caught out so minorly and then blown out of proportion. Theres already a massive issue in terms of efficiency and timeliness in regards to CRTs. I'd like to continue to push an idea i have above with more threads similar to the self-evident intelligence thread, in regards to things such as ability additions as a part-solution to all that.
I dont know how much I can trust asking an individual on their take and would rather it get an official statement so theres no risk of variation between the individual. As a policy, this should be a lot more blatant in whatever way it can on the official wiki so I still strongly concur that a discussion needs to be made. This is definitely important enough to warrant this discussion, and if its already clear to the mods what the standards are for it, then it shouldn't take too long or be in much opposition.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,053
- 29,637
- Anything that adds to the content of the profile's statistics needs a CRT. If you're rephrasing an ability, it's fine. If you're adding a weakness, it needs a CRT (even if the weakness is obvious). "Fixing abilities" is too vague for me to give insight on. Changing the format doesn't need a CRT, though you may want to work with other supporters; whatever format is more agreed upon would be the one we use, changing it from that might be classified as vandalism.
- I don't think rules like this should be verse dependent. That serves to complicate things tremendously.
- If a staff member misguides you, then the fault falls on them, not you. Getting confirmation in this way means you won't be in trouble, at least, if something goes awry (presuming you follow what the staff member says).
- You severely underestimate the ability of bureaucracy to turn a universally agreed upon thing into an incredibly lengthy discussion about minutiae, so that in the future, we do not have another well-meaning user wanting a discussion to clarify rules further.
- 5,265
- 1,628
I mean theres plenty of things to be said and ideas to be made in regards to this, but its no paid job so I understand its more difficult to get everyone working seamlessly. I'm not gonna push it too much here but I'll consider making my own thread on how I would word things. Policies and rules should always have an official reference on site as opposed to just relying on any user, no matter how informed, on being able to say things. It's how it works irl too.
I definitely disagree in thinking we cant treat some verses differently. Not all verses are equally supported or have necessary discussion, and i think it should be fine for any individual, as the only person working on said verse, to be able to add trivial things without needing to go through the long-winded process (and then continually keep doing that if they miss something from the last CRT). Changing stuff like AP or Speed post-publishing, sure that needs a CRT, but anything less significant shouldnt need a CRT to pass. Especially if staff cant give an authentic and informed opinion unless they want to dedicate themselves to learning about the verse.
Maybe explicit granted permission for certain users to be able to edit and adjust pages/verses they have made overtime, outside of changing stats, if they potentially miss anything.
Personally i think verses should have some sort of grading system to their quality (not the accuracy of their stats) to identify this. Something that can be determined mostly at face-value (like whether stuff is referenced, or whether there are active supporters) and doesnt require complex discussion. If we could separate these verses by this, then the rules could be a lot more lenient and less exhausting to any verse that just genuinely doesnt have the dedication towards it.
This can go for weak pages that only barely are allowed on the wiki (guesstimate stats, enough information). Cause i think those should be fine to get all the self-evident help they can get and only possibly be put under contention if someone actually disagrees (and isnt just reporting it because its technically against the rules)
I digress though, i'll bring it up again once i have more collected thoughts, i understand things are complicated but I think its a good idea for this wiki to start pushing a lot more detailed explanations of their policies, at least in regards to what the minimum requirements to make a CRT are, and then maybe talk about extenuating circumstances.
I definitely disagree in thinking we cant treat some verses differently. Not all verses are equally supported or have necessary discussion, and i think it should be fine for any individual, as the only person working on said verse, to be able to add trivial things without needing to go through the long-winded process (and then continually keep doing that if they miss something from the last CRT). Changing stuff like AP or Speed post-publishing, sure that needs a CRT, but anything less significant shouldnt need a CRT to pass. Especially if staff cant give an authentic and informed opinion unless they want to dedicate themselves to learning about the verse.
Maybe explicit granted permission for certain users to be able to edit and adjust pages/verses they have made overtime, outside of changing stats, if they potentially miss anything.
Personally i think verses should have some sort of grading system to their quality (not the accuracy of their stats) to identify this. Something that can be determined mostly at face-value (like whether stuff is referenced, or whether there are active supporters) and doesnt require complex discussion. If we could separate these verses by this, then the rules could be a lot more lenient and less exhausting to any verse that just genuinely doesnt have the dedication towards it.
This can go for weak pages that only barely are allowed on the wiki (guesstimate stats, enough information). Cause i think those should be fine to get all the self-evident help they can get and only possibly be put under contention if someone actually disagrees (and isnt just reporting it because its technically against the rules)
I digress though, i'll bring it up again once i have more collected thoughts, i understand things are complicated but I think its a good idea for this wiki to start pushing a lot more detailed explanations of their policies, at least in regards to what the minimum requirements to make a CRT are, and then maybe talk about extenuating circumstances.
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,865
Well, for the record, I think that it is not realistic to require that extremely self-evident, constructive, and minor changes, such as the one for Pinocchio, should require content revision threads, or at least not until we finally get our new self evident revisions forum installed and functional.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,053
- 29,637
Self-evident threads still require a CRT, per our current rules. The sub-forum just aims to highlight said CRTs. What Pinocchio thread are you referring to?Well, for the record, I think that it is not realistic to require that extremely self-evident, constructive, and minor changes, such as the one for Pinocchio, should require content revision threads, or at least not until we finally get our new self evident revisions forum installed and functional.
- 177,461
- 90,404
- Thread starter
- #1,867
It was mentioned in our wiki vandalism discussion thread and seems to be what led to Jinx mentioning this topic here.
- 5,265
- 1,628
Yeah, though outside of that, its merely led to a separate suggestion (thats actually worth talking about) in regards to making policies officially written and stated. Making CRTs for minor changes that self-evidently and blatantly help pages, let alone super outdated/barebones ones such as Pinocchio, is only making progress and efficiency worse (and cause more arguments over fundamentally irrelevant things.)
A self-evident thread for changes like that sounds like a good step forward (Should still write what specifically warrants a CRT, and if there are staff with varying opinions then it clearly requires discussion), but should probably work more as a log/asking whether its okay to implement minor ability additions. There's been plenty of times i've had to add on some additional abilities whether it was missed on publishing a page (created by me) (we cant all memorise every single ability page on this wiki) or whether theres a better ability to link it too and word it as. I don't really see the need to put strings on these types of edits as long as it can be justified by the user (such as providing a reference, explaining why in the edit-log, being something minor etc).
I understand why these things need to be logged and monitored obviously, but I think you can also find yourself being able to trust users who have shown they make constructive pages/progress in regards to editing to modern standards with that, with minor additions, at least for verses that only they are actively working/knowledgable on, and arent in any direct contention. Hold them to things such as requiring a suitable reference alongside the edit, limit any debatable powers (like the things/hax you'd usually see on Tier 3+) to CRTs, but let things self-evident just flow. And for the most part thats been fine.
I've been admittedly adding the ability/category 'Additional Limbs' to a lot of pages that blatantly show this (It's a fairly recent ability I made a CRT for so a lot of pages would absently not have them since they were made before) and as a result i've been making sure it becomes more casually known and integrated onto the wiki. Needing a CRT every single time i come across a character that fits such a blatantly obvious power category just feels like an unnecessary obstacle, and we're all aware the current CRT system isnt streamlined. It hasn't caused any issues since.
If theres any other user that genuinely contends against the edit for its validity of information (not because its technically a rule-break) then that can open up a discussion instead. Edits can be easily reverted until then, and things can be settled. Either the dispute comes to a conclusion (at a reasonable mod's discretion), or its a clear example of something that needs a CRT.
A self-evident thread for changes like that sounds like a good step forward (Should still write what specifically warrants a CRT, and if there are staff with varying opinions then it clearly requires discussion), but should probably work more as a log/asking whether its okay to implement minor ability additions. There's been plenty of times i've had to add on some additional abilities whether it was missed on publishing a page (created by me) (we cant all memorise every single ability page on this wiki) or whether theres a better ability to link it too and word it as. I don't really see the need to put strings on these types of edits as long as it can be justified by the user (such as providing a reference, explaining why in the edit-log, being something minor etc).
I understand why these things need to be logged and monitored obviously, but I think you can also find yourself being able to trust users who have shown they make constructive pages/progress in regards to editing to modern standards with that, with minor additions, at least for verses that only they are actively working/knowledgable on, and arent in any direct contention. Hold them to things such as requiring a suitable reference alongside the edit, limit any debatable powers (like the things/hax you'd usually see on Tier 3+) to CRTs, but let things self-evident just flow. And for the most part thats been fine.
I've been admittedly adding the ability/category 'Additional Limbs' to a lot of pages that blatantly show this (It's a fairly recent ability I made a CRT for so a lot of pages would absently not have them since they were made before) and as a result i've been making sure it becomes more casually known and integrated onto the wiki. Needing a CRT every single time i come across a character that fits such a blatantly obvious power category just feels like an unnecessary obstacle, and we're all aware the current CRT system isnt streamlined. It hasn't caused any issues since.
If theres any other user that genuinely contends against the edit for its validity of information (not because its technically a rule-break) then that can open up a discussion instead. Edits can be easily reverted until then, and things can be settled. Either the dispute comes to a conclusion (at a reasonable mod's discretion), or its a clear example of something that needs a CRT.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,053
- 29,637
In the event that the page hadn't been updated since our range standards were, then updating it wouldn't require a CRT, we've historically just let people fix small things like that. Otherwise, it would require a CRT with a single mod vote. Obviously the content of the edit is totally fine but, them's the rules. If we allowed everything we thought was obvious, then we'd allow everything, because everyone would disagree on what is obvious.It was mentioned in our wiki vandalism discussion thread and seems to be what led to Jinx mentioning this topic here.
- 5,265
- 1,628
I mean if something isnt obvious then someone will clearly be opposed to the actual content which then justifies discussion (as long as its not just being opposed for any personal vendetta).
Edits that no one has any real problem with on outdated pages that have some grounds for deletion should easily be allowed, and it'd be obvious if why someone was trying to use an example like this as a justification for why they can make an actual serious change without a CRT. Theres easily case-by-case basis (which updating the guidelines and officially writing them would help sort). I feel any issue this could possibly cause wouldn't be anywhere near the tension and exhaustion caused by one of those long-standing CRTs that people get heated over, and if someone finds a legit issue with it it can easily be taken back.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,053
- 29,637
That's not a very efficient way of managing things. "You only need a CRT if someone notices and takes issue with what you did". Self-evident shit needs a CRT, and I'd be opposed to any attempt at rendering that differently.
- 34,684
- 42,041
It's the addition/removal of a stat rating even if locked to what ability that especially requires a content revision. Or heck, for ones even more obvious, I often wonder if a link to a message wall thread of a staff's message wall actually would be something. Fixing typos and spelling errors are obviously things that don't require staff approval or content revisions, and perhaps not edits to the character's summary. The addition or removal of abilities also still requires some degree of staff approval albeit not as much as statistics ratings change.
- 8,700
- 3,169
Ah i see. So, is all Bureaucrats can do that?I can already do that via my important announcement popup messages.
- 2,980
- 1,983
I've been meaning to bring this to everyone's attention for a while and I'm not sure if it was brought up yet, but I've encountered a lot of loading time issues when it comes to being on the forums via smartphone/android. And often times, I have to refresh the page to accept cookies in order to check notifications after being gone from the site for an hour or so.
Does anyone have a potential explanation for why this keeps happening? Is anyone experiencing the same issue or is it just me?
Does anyone have a potential explanation for why this keeps happening? Is anyone experiencing the same issue or is it just me?
- 52,719
- 47,005
Ads. Basically, most phones don't really like having about half a dozen ads slapped on their screen so they take ages to load.
- 8,700
- 3,169
So, will you not get that issue if you're staff or having a supporter badge? Or it still.
- 52,719
- 47,005
To my knowledge, yes.
