• 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.

A new type of wiki management thread?

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I rather consider it my job as a Content Moderator to do this. I would be fine with such a thing.
 
Okay. Thank you for the reply.
 
Good point. I had forgotten about that.

It seems better to simply expand the use of that thread to include grammar problems then.
 
I have a question. If and when this becomes a ongoing thing, say if someone tries to report that a profile has two of the same abilities on the page, but both of those ability links are there for their ability and resistance respectively, should we add that as a notice in the OP in case anyone reports the wrong profiles?
 
I am not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.
 
Anyway, the topic has now shifted to if we should expand the purpose of the previous clean-up thread.
 
So say for instance we have a profile that has "time manipulation" twice on the profile, but the second link is supposed to be what the character is resisted to, which is time, and someone thought it was typed in twice without double checking what it's actually for.
 
Well, I suppose that we will simply have to be cautious to not blindly remove anything that we are told, and rather try to make an evaluation of the profile contents.
 
Are the rest of you fine with if I expand the use of the thread that Monarch linked to to include serious grammar errors?
 
Okay. Thank you for the reply. I will do so then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
Clarifying the number of staff necessary to approve Tier 1 and 0 revisions
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
IdiosyncraticLawyer
A proposal to limit the number of ongoing Staff Discussions
Replies
33
Views
2K
Agnaa
Agnaa
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
Fact-Checking Scans: Who says a fake can't surpass the original?
Replies
11
Views
1K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Back
Top