Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

[Dark_Soul20189]

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?

It's the ads, the same reason why I am unable to access the wiki on my phone.

 

[Antvasima]

Clarifications about how the advertisements prevent phone viewing of this forum would be appreciated. Maybe we will be able to do something about the problem?

 

[Antvasima]

Ah i see. So, is all Bureaucrats can do that?

I don't think so. I think that super administrator rights are required for that option.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, the issue is that Pinocchio cannot attack people with his nose, so the edit seemed more like very self-evident cleanup than a statistics edit.

Forgot to mention this, but when it comes to our range, not everything has to be an attack to qualify as range. There are uses like making nose grow longer to push a button or making use as a barrier or tripping hazard are things that can still be useful in battle. I also kind of have doubts that "He can't attack with his nose" when I can hypothetically see him turning his head and it basically functions similar to swinging a long stick/rod. It's probably still a 10-C attack, but it could be used in combat one way or another. And even if it wasn't an attack, there are still proper utility uses for it.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Clarifications about how the advertisements prevent phone viewing of this forum would be appreciated. Maybe we will be able to do something about the problem?

Phones have much smaller everythings than Computers. That means loading ads takes up valuable drive space thus leading to insanely long load times. The solution to this is unrealistic for the long run, so... damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Jinx666]

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.

Thats literally not what I said at all? You dont have to strawman to just say you disagree.
If its a verse that literally no one else on this wiki knows about or can pitch in reliably for (staff members can only read logic but wont know proper context of any verse they dk)

The system is already not efficient at managing things and most CRTs drone on for longer than they need to/dont resolve cause staff wont respond or comment. It might be fine to a staff member who actually have direct power in resolving any CRT but thats not the case for regular members. Finding a way to lessen the need for CRTs of blatantly self-evident stuff in regards to things like missed additions, and not things like actual stat changes would be completely ideal and get progress much faster. If others do have a problem with it for actual content reasons, then it no longer becomes self-evident since theres opposition. As long as that opposition isn't doing it to be spiteful to someone then it can then be discussed. Otherwise why bother trying to block an edit no one has an issue with (other than by principle)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Thats literally not what I said at all? You dont have to strawman to just say you disagree.
If its a verse that literally no one else on this wiki knows about or can pitch in reliably for (staff members can only read logic but wont know proper context of any verse they dk)

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).

I don't know what you meant to say here, but I can't really find an alternative interpretation for what you're suggesting.

CRTs are necessary. The whole purpose of the wiki is that changes are verified and agreed upon by trusted members (at least, members the wiki has deigned to trust, hah). I admit, I cannot fathom a world in which someone opposes the Pinocchio thing, but I must also admit that I have found this wiki to be an amazing source of people who will disagree with almost anything.

Statistic changes need CRTs. It is what it is.

 

[Jinx666]

I don't know what you meant to say here, but I can't really find an alternative interpretation for what you're suggesting.

Im definitely not saying what you're quoting me on, nor dismissing the concept and necessity for CRTs.
I just dont think, at the least, minor additional edits dont need entire CRTs to implement as long as they are self-evident and referenced. Those aren't 'statistics', its not the same as something like AP or Durability, which requires a value (or in a ballpark), at least something that a quick ability addition, or something self-evident (like the fact Pinocchio's nose isnt Extended Melee Range). You clearly disagree with that but then thats a discussion in of itself because I think CRTs should need a substantial basis as opposed to just needing it for any general edit.

CRTs are necessary. The whole purpose of the wiki is that changes are verified and agreed upon by trusted members (at least, members the wiki has deigned to trust, hah). I admit, I cannot fathom a world in which someone opposes the Pinocchio thing, but I must also admit that I have found this wiki to be an amazing source of people who will disagree with almost anything.

I know CRTs are necessary, but they dont need to be necessary for everything irrelevant, self-evident or actually backed-up/referenced when that has shown to dampen efficiency and progress of verses, as well as just cause unnecessary tension with pedantic tattle-tailing.

People can disagree with the change and I welcome to hear it, but that also just allows for some people to simply be contrarians for petty/personal reasons that you cant evidently prove. Just looking at the page itself tells you it isn't exactly quality (it could be deleted? but i'm not pushing for that). I'd rather not encourage it since people hate to just be wrong sometimes and go around every twict and turn to die on that hill. So i'd rather cut off a reason to get into that spiral in the first place (because no, no one should be trying to rate a stat off of Pinocchios non-combative ability, and no one cares enough to make a CRT because look at the page)

Statistic changes need CRTs. It is what it is.

Well im not referring to statistic changes mostly. Theres more to pages than just the statistics like AP, Speed, Dura. I agree, those need CRTs no matter what (of varying degree). Something like Range technically counts, but if it is fixing something thats purely inaccurate self-evidently, that has no evidential backing like the Pinocchio thing, then I question how excessive the system needs to be, and how it relates to the multiple other threads that are discussing the inefficiency of our current CRT system. Nothing is ever gonna be perfect but i think we can find a better middleground.

I personally do not want to be wasting time trying to push a CRT for an outdated page, with outdated stats that i have no intent for. At the same time, the wiki should seek to stamp out any blatant inaccuracy it can. Theres still tons of pages like this in quality/formatting alone (not talking about stats cause those will always be subjective), so there should definitely be less scrutiny and more leniency on fixing the current weaker/outdated source of pages like this, instead of expecting people to dedicate to the process of a CRT (can literally take years for the most minor of stuff).

Sections such as Weaknesses, Standard Equipment, Powers & Abilities however, dont actually have any statistical value to them. I still agree stuff like that could have a CRT if its substantial/overhaul like additions but I'd much rather vouch a separate Self-evident thread, such as the intelligence one that can reduce the need to make constant CRTs that don't get solved or take ages to actually implement. Its a rock and a hard place with CRTs right now, even despite the staff members only having the power to pass them, and adding more and more for the most minute changes is just dampening efficiency, and making it incredibly exhaustive.

Maybe ill make a thread about this selfevident trying to talk about, cause i genuinely disagree with this philosophy on needing to make a CRT for literally any slight edit (thats about as enforced as jaywalking). Theres plenty of additional ability additions (barring a lot of abstract/conceptual superhax ofc), weakness adjustments, rewording, Technique additions etc, that could just be solved and approved quickly by providing a reference in a megathread (which will encourage more users to actually reference). Any other circumstance that isnt 'self-evident' will show itself as such and can then be ruled by a mod to make a CRT on it instead but otherwise it quickly and sustainably adds content that no one should take issue with. And prevents less tension and frustration for at least one aspect of the current CRT system.

 

[Vietthai96]

What self-evident to you could be not to others, it is entirely subjective. A supposed straight-forward thread could well turn into a controversial thread, in which, we need someone to act as neutral party to solves the issues, and that is staff/moderator.

While i can understand the pain trying to get something so simple as fire manipulation for a guy who is stated to control fire to go through yet can't pass because you need a CRT and wait for staff vote, it is neccessary. Allows people to freely adding "self-evident" things also allows people to do the reverse such as removing what they think as "self-evident removal", and could well turn into edit wars between people who disagree with each other over either this scan should be A or B, which is no different than debating war in a thread, but at least we can control thing within a thread, a profile edit war?, well the only solution is either block the user to lock the profile which create more pain cause it force people, especially staff to constantly patrolling and safe-keeping the profiles, and everyone have life outside the wiki, better solves thing within a controlled environment such as a thread

 

[Jinx666]

What self-evident to you could be not to others, it is entirely subjective. A supposed straight-forward thread could well turn into a controversial thread, in which, we need someone to act as neutral party to solves the issues, and that is staff/moderator.

Well firstly, someone like that would have to have an actual interest/bare knowledge in the verse/media in question to feel they need to oppose it.
If there is something 'subjective', then like literally everything else on this wiki, it can be discussed. But otherwise I don't think we need to entertain things that are quite literally, self evident as long as people can reference and point it out. If theres a valiud response against it then sure, but there are tons of edits people can make on this wiki that realistically no one will take any real issue with (unless they purposefully want to be obtuse in a lot of cases)

While i can understand the pain trying to get something so simple as fire manipulation for a guy who is stated to control fire to go through yet can't pass because you need a CRT and wait for staff vote, it is neccessary. Allows people to freely adding "self-evident" things also allows people to do the reverse such as removing what they think as "self-evident removal", and could well turn into edit wars between people who disagree with each other over either this scan should be A or B, which is no different than debating war in a thread, but at least we can control thing within a thread, a profile edit war?, well the only solution is either block the user to lock the profile which create more pain cause it force people, especially staff to constantly patrolling and safe-keeping the profiles, and everyone have life outside the wiki, better solves thing within a controlled environment such as a thread

Which is why im proposing a self-evident thread where people can discuss these changes and ask for permission instead of needing to open up and write an entire CRT. If its self-evident, then the evidence would be super easy to reference, and otherwise prevent more exhaustive CRTs over the most minor of things.
Its all well and good saying that it could lead someone down a pipeline of making 'self-evident' statistics changes or something, which will always not be allowed on the wiki without a CRT, but that doesnt mean we need to apply that to every single adjustment.

Any edit that creates an 'edit-war' isnt self-evident unless one person is clearly in the wrong for it. Anything that people do take an issue with then opens up to a discussion/debate, and can then either be made obvious whose wrong, or actually justify a CRT to further discuss it out of derailment.
Otherwise there are plenty of examples of these evident abilities that no one would ever feel the need to take issue with unless its against something personal

Theres easily a middle ground that can be achieved here, and everything that mostly benefits are the pages only really cared about by a few users anyway. Its literally just less CRTs, which are exhaustive by nature and only controlled by a selected few, for minor edits and tweaks without expecting someone like a regular member to have to wait an unreasonable amount of time. Especially in circusmtances of obscure verses that staff members do not know and would have to rely purely on whats being referenced. (All while we still keep a ton of outdated pages)

 

[Vietthai96]

Well firstly, someone like that would have to have an actual interest/bare knowledge in the verse/media in question to feel they need to oppose it.

Bro, everyone have right to question something they finds wrong, you have no right to "shut up" someone with an excuse of "you need to have bare knowledge of the media", by that logic, staff is pointless and is not allowed to evaluate cause muhh you don't know the verse

Theres easily a middle ground that can be achieved here

There is already middle ground here, self-evident, straight-forward thread only need 1 staff vote (2 for controversial verse or topic) and 24 hours grace. Anything lower is just inviting unnecessary troubles

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

There is already middle ground here, self-evident, straight-forward thread only need 1 staff vote (2 for controversial verse or topic) and 24 hours grace. Anything lower is just inviting unnecessary troubles

Ain't we planning on making a new forum for self-evident CRTs and stuff?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Ain't we planning on making a new forum for self-evident CRTs and stuff?

That's the idea, yes.

 

[Jinx666]

Bro, everyone have right to question something they finds wrong, you have no right to "shut up" someone with an excuse of "you need to have bare knowledge of the media", by that logic, staff is pointless and is not allowed to evaluate cause muhh you don't know the verse

Idk where you're getting these quotes from, but unfortunately yeah, in order to make the most valid call possible in those situations, someone would need full context of whats actually happening in the media. Thats not to say people can't comment, but theres a reason we allow people to list themselves as 'Knowledgable Members', and I don't think anyone blocking edits on media they dont know anything about is ideal.

Obviously its not possible for someone to know every form of media, so its fine for people like staff members to be able to read and make a judgement despite not knowing the media, but I personally dont see why their take would objectively be a deciding factor if they dont know the series in themself.

So im not saying they should "shut up" at all. I just dont know why someone who doesnt know the verse or the context would feel the need to call it wrong without any reason, especially if they lack as much context. If its not self-evident, there should be a direct reason why, but otherwise if theres no one who can actually make a valid point and doesn't know the verse then...

There is already middle ground here, self-evident, straight-forward thread only need 1 staff vote (2 for controversial verse or topic) and 24 hours grace. Anything lower is just inviting unnecessary troubles

Yet it still can take years relying on a staff member to speak on something, with no guarantee they actually know the verse (which can be akin to a FRA). All verses don't get equal support and I cant really expect any staff member (in a volunteering role, not a paid job) to take the time to properly understand the context of a verse they have no interest or stake in. All they can really do in a thread abt a verse they dont know is look at it the best they can, but then theres loads of verses with no staff support and are made by individual regular members.
Ergo if its all compressed into one megathread without needing to have all these threads for obscure verses get lost to time (even after like, 20+ bumps), its far more likely to be able to resolve

Instead of needing to spam and create new threads, it'd be much easier to make it a megathread and have the comments in said megathread put through these requests for self-evident edits. At least then, its a little easier and less excuse to be doing it without recording it, and we aren't tripping up on a load of different threads for the most insignificant, obvious "yeah sure" edits. It gets exhaustive for anyone without a shred of staff decision power.
We literally already do this for Intelligence. Like it just gets to a point where its a lot more restrictive than it needs to be on stuff that lowkey doesnt need all this tension and discussion in the first place.

 

[AlexSamDen]

Don't know if this is the right thread to say this, but that's a problem I've had ever since I've joined the wiki (so over a year now)

For some reason I cannot access the forum (and often the fandom part of the wiki too, but that's random) without relying on VPN

This applies to both mobile and PC

 

[Reiner04]

I think it should be made mandatory to link any profile edits made as a result of an approved CRT before closing the thread, and for those edits to be verified by participating staff. At the moment, I often have to go through linked CRTs in edit summaries while patrolling and have to read entirety of it just to confirm that the implemented changes match what was agreed upon, some of which are really hard to follow. Requiring staff to review and approve the edits themselves would ensure that only the agreed changes are applied. It also wouldn’t add much extra work, since they’ve already evaluated the CRT, they would simply be confirming that the edits reflect the decision. This would make edit patrolling significantly more efficient. It can be problematic for changes across 20-25 profiles but should be easier for 1-5 profiles.

 

[StarShooter80]

The site should mention on at least a section of the home page (or another page if it would be more fitting) that the best viewing experience for VS Battles is on a computer, and that it is almost unusable for phone users as:

• Tabbers are non-functioning, which is pivitol for many VS Battles profiles and especially the current major/trending ones.
• Character renders or images cannot be resized and are too large on the screen.
• Abundance of ads is far more reoccurring.
• Extremely laggy.

And that the only work around for those that only view the site on a Phone is by using the Desktop mode, which fixes the tabbers and renders, but also comes with issues like text sizes wildly changing, and also being hard to navigate through properly. (I get that other fandom sites have also been more easy on computers than mobile devices but its done to a much less egregious degree, and is actually usable for some as they find work arounds for the tabber/image render issues for the default mobile view mode.)

Here's a video for a comparison between these different devices, as reference.

Again I'm not sure if the home page is the best place to state this, it can just say that the highly recommended viewing experience is on laptop, and then expand as to why in (for example) the FAQ page, with the reasons I just laid out before.

 

[AmonInChains]

Would be nice to being capable of erasing your own sandboxes, otherwise they stack up infinitely apparently.

 

[JPTheGamer]

Would be nice to being capable of erasing your own sandboxes, otherwise they stack up infinitely apparently.

I second this; I got a bunch of old CRTs (ones I don't plan on finishing or already used) there, anyway.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

change the pride flag vsbw logo colors/stripes to be from top to bottom instead of side to side please because this one is an atrocity to look at

 

[Antvasima]

change the pride flag vsbw logo colors/stripes to be from top to bottom instead of side to side please because this one is an atrocity to look at

What do you mean? It is placed in the exact same position as our usual logo.

 

[Antvasima]

Would be nice to being capable of erasing your own sandboxes, otherwise they stack up infinitely apparently.

I do not think that is possible without giving everybody in our forum staff rights, which is not workable.

 

[Antvasima]

The site should mention on at least a section of the home page (or another page if it would be more fitting) that the best viewing experience for VS Battles is on a computer, and that it is almost unusable for phone users as:

• Tabbers are non-functioning, which is pivitol for many VS Battles profiles and especially the current major/trending ones.
• Character renders or images cannot be resized and are too large on the screen.
• Abundance of ads is far more reoccurring.
• Extremely laggy.

And that the only work around for those that only view the site on a Phone is by using the Desktop mode, which fixes the tabbers and renders, but also comes with issues like text sizes wildly changing, and also being hard to navigate through properly. (I get that other fandom sites have also been more easy on computers than mobile devices but its done to a much less egregious degree, and is actually usable for some as they find work arounds for the tabber/image render issues for the default mobile view mode.)

Here's a video for a comparison between these different devices, as reference.

Again I'm not sure if the home page is the best place to state this, it can just say that the highly recommended viewing experience is on laptop, and then expand as to why in (for example) the FAQ page, with the reasons I just laid out before.

I think that it is an excellent idea to mention in our wiki's mobile viewing front page that it should preferably be viewed in desktop mode on mobile phones and tablets.

However, I do not remember how to edit that particular text (shown in the screencapture image below).

Do any of our staff members here remember the correct URL, or should I ask a Fandom staff member for help instead?

 

[Antvasima]

I think it should be made mandatory to link any profile edits made as a result of an approved CRT before closing the thread, and for those edits to be verified by participating staff. At the moment, I often have to go through linked CRTs in edit summaries while patrolling and have to read entirety of it just to confirm that the implemented changes match what was agreed upon, some of which are really hard to follow. Requiring staff to review and approve the edits themselves would ensure that only the agreed changes are applied. It also wouldn’t add much extra work, since they’ve already evaluated the CRT, they would simply be confirming that the edits reflect the decision. This would make edit patrolling significantly more efficient. It can be problematic for changes across 20-25 profiles but should be easier for 1-5 profiles.

This also seems like a good idea. Is somebody willing to create a staff forum thread about it?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it is an excellent idea to mention in our wiki's mobile viewing front page that it should preferably be viewed in desktop mode on mobile phones and tablets.

However, I do not remember how to edit that particular text (shown in the screencapture image below).

Do any of our staff members here remember the correct URL, or should I ask a Fandom staff member for help instead?

View attachment 969

I have asked a Fandom staff member for help now.

 

[Antvasima]

I have asked a Fandom staff member for help now.

I received help, and have updated the text at the top of our mobile view version's front page.

Please tell me here if it should be adjusted further.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

What do you mean? It is placed in the exact same position as our usual logo.

The way the rainbow is on it isnt very pleasing to the eyes. What I mean is to change the position of the pride flag stripes to be vertical instead of horizontal

 

[Antvasima]

That is the only image for this purpose that I have available. My apologies.

 

[MSahla]

Imagine a Versus Threads Moderator...

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Our other staff already have the authority to crack down in Versus Threads. What would your proposed role even do?