• 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.

All-purpose request thread (New forum)

i sent direct links to the pages themselves, it'll genuinely take a minute at most to confirm i'm right, double checked right now and yeah im still right unless there's been a glitch in the matrix
I just wanted to confirm with two people who seem to know the Manifold verse.
 
I am going to ask about the reason for the existence of both Biological Manipulation and Organic Manipulation, Organic Manipulation outright admits it is just matter manipulation for carbon based matter the thing is no other element gets this treatment and I am pretty sure graphite, steel, carbon nanotubes, and diamonds aren't organic it also claims biological manipulation doesn't work on dead things. Back to biological manipulation it has manipulation of atoms listed as a type, that should be equal to organic manipulation slightly unrelated but biological manipulation mentions Body Control twice but never links and the shape shifting defined on the page is literally body control just link to a different thing and worded differently it should be replaced by the ability to transmute other life forms.
There is a specific Powers and Abilities pages discussion thread available for these types of issues.

@Bobsican @Damage3245

Do either of you remember the correct URL for it?
 
Here are some comparatively minor issues that I found in my community to-do-list:


Language cleanup is necessary, so it turns more formal:



The Elsword pages seem to be scaled to 4-A from a creation feat without evidence that it scales to physical power:



@BakiHanma18 @Tsubasa16


Can somebody investigate if these pages contain guesswork statistics please?



Possible duplicate categories:




Help with all of the above would be very appreciated.
 
I rolled back your edits.

Here is a page that seems to have managed to structure the powers and abilities lists in a workable manner in terms of code, but I am not sure if it uses the agreed upon official layout structure.

 
I rolled back your edits.

Here is a page that seems to have managed to structure the powers and abilities lists in a workable manner in terms of code, but I am not sure if it uses the agreed upon official layout structure.

@Damage3245

Do you know exactly what has been agreed regarding powers and abilities section lists? And should we mention it in our standard format for character profiles page?
 
I really really don't think this layout should be used for haxxy characters like Dante. It will end up looking really weird and the page is gonna be longer than it needs to be.
 
Okay. Never mind then. I think that there was some accepted thread in which it was decided to use lists, and possibly scroll lists, for long powers and abilities sections, though. Can somebody find and link to it please?
 
I really really don't think this layout should be used for haxxy characters like Dante. It will end up looking really weird and the page is gonna be longer than it needs to be.
It's not a mandatory style change; if a page doesn't benefit from it then it shouldn't be used.
 
Thank you. We should preferably get a staff discussion in order to make a more official decision about this though, after which the relevant instruction page should be appropriately modified to inform our community.

Would you be willing to start such a thread in our staff forum?
 
Thank you. We should preferably get a staff discussion in order to make a more official decision about this though, after which the relevant instruction page should be appropriately modified to inform our community.

Would you be willing to start such a thread in our staff forum?
I can get that started tomorrow morning. I've got some calcing to work on tonight and some other wiki work to get through for now.
 
Okay. Thank you for helping out.
 
Well, Damage said that he will start a staff discussion for it. Hopefully we can agree upon a working standard format code to use for situations like this, and then show it in the relevant instruction page.
 
Yeah, I think there's some valid issues with either possible format, but I've got some suggested guidelines in mind that should minimize issues either way we go with it.
 
Here are some comparatively minor issues that I found in my community to-do-list:


Language cleanup is necessary, so it turns more formal:



The Elsword pages seem to be scaled to 4-A from a creation feat without evidence that it scales to physical power:



@BakiHanma18 @Tsubasa16


Can somebody investigate if these pages contain guesswork statistics please?



Possible duplicate categories:




Help with all of the above would be very appreciated.
Bump.
 
Which would we prefer to keep out of Armored Characters and Armor Users?

Armored Characters currently has a lot more users.
I am not sure.

What do you think, @Promestein ? Is there any notable distinction between these categories?
 
I'd say just remove both personally. I think having a category for people who wear armor is dumb
 
I'd say just remove both personally. I think having a category for people who wear armor is dumb
I think that's fair.

Unlike categorizing people who use swords or other weapons, a person doesn't require any skill to have armor. We mention swordsmanship or other weapons in their Power & Abilities section, but we don't have "Armor Mastery" for example.

So I think it'd be fine to remove those categories.
 
They're probably also underused given how omnipresent armor is
 
I would prefer to keep one of them at least. I think that it is as valid a category as most others. However, it seems to be redundant to use both of them.
 
I would prefer to keep one of them at least. I think that it is as valid a category as most others. However, it seems to be redundant to use both of them.
@Promestein @Damage3245

Never mind. I suppose that the armor categories are not very useful. You can probably remove them if you wish.
 
I'll probably handle that tomorrow if not done by then.

I've removed the Speedsters category, and I've sorted through nearly 300 wanted categories today.

I'll be making that staff thread for abilities formatting in an hour or so.
 
Back
Top