• 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.

Common Editing Mistakes Additions Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agnaa

Agnaa

VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Gold Supporter
14,846
12,293
As discussed in this thread, there are quite a few cases where our pages have inconsistent punctuation.

This thread aims to notice places where that's happening, discuss what our standard should be (or whether it should be left up to the whims of the profile's creator), and then to add them to the Common Editing Mistakes page to be gradually implemented to pages.

A few inconsistencies I've noticed, to give some examples and start some discussion:
  1. Which parts of the page should be ended by full-stops, and under what circumstances?
  2. When and how should terms like "at least", "likely", "possibly", and "higher" be capitalised?
  3. When should statistics sections, particularly the tier, use commas or full-stops for separating ratings?
  4. What letters in range ratings should be capitalised and when?
  5. Should pages be standardised to American English, British English, or neither?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for helping out.

My main gripe is that it looks very weird if regular sentences are not ended with periods (.), but I am not sure how that would affect all of the commas in most powers and abilities sections, for example.

I do not think that the issue with standardising capitalised or non-capitalised first letters of "at least" (/"At least"), etcetera is as prominent a problem. We can probably cpntinue to not capitalise them when preceded by a comma and capitalise them when preceded by a period, as usual.

The range page already details which letters that should be capitalised, but we should probably standardise the system, yes.

I prefer international/British English, since it is likely used by far more people, but I do not think that this seems like a problem that is practically manageable to enforce as different editors are used to different spelling standards in this regard.
 
Agnaa said:
1. Which parts of the page should be ended by full-stops, and under what circumstances?
Click to expand...
I would say anything that is a full sentence, unless you're in a weird case where a full sentence is part of the P&A list and not in brackets.

Agnaa said:
2. When and how should terms like "at least", "likely", "possibly", and "higher" be capitalised?
Click to expand...
When they are at the beginning of sentences/right after the ":" of stats. Otherwise, they shouldn't be.

Agnaa said:
3. When should statistics sections, particularly the tier, use commas or full-stops for separating ratings?
Click to expand...
Never use full stops. Use commas or, if commas alone create ambiguity, use semicolon. Exception would be if you, for some reason, have a full sentence in there.

Agnaa said:
4. What letters in range ratings should be capitalised and when?
Click to expand...
If the standard range ratings are used they should be capitalized as they are on the Range page.

Agnaa said:
5. Should pages be standardised to American English, British English, or neither?
Click to expand...
Neither.
 
I mostly agree with DontTalkDT save there are some characters who's justification seem to have a small paragraph explaining tiers individually; in that case there should be periods separating sentences. But the last sentence that is right next to the ")" should not have a period because the round bracket should suffice.

For ratings, AP ratings are capitalized but level is lower cased and Class is capitalized.

I don't think we need to force either language structure, though some people prefer American for certain words. Most people still use American terms for numerals from what I have seen; million = 10^6, billion = 10^9, trillion = 10^12 as opposed to 10^6, 10^12, and 10^18 with milliard and billiard in between. And I usually see people use commas for three digit places and periods for decimals as opposed to vice versa. Although, it is generally agreed Scientific Notation most preferable above all else.
 
Yeah those standards all seem reasonable enough to apply. Particularly DDM's idea of ending any full sentences with full-stops if they're not otherwise ended by a bracket.
 
Agnaa said:
  1. Which parts of the page should be ended by full-stops, and under what circumstances?
  2. When and how should terms like "at least", "likely", "possibly", and "higher" be capitalised?
  3. When should statistics sections, particularly the tier, use commas or full-stops for separating ratings?
  4. What letters in range ratings should be capitalised and when?
  5. Should pages be standardised to American English, British English, or neither?
Click to expand...
1. Full stops should only be used when there are no brackets. In the event that two or more sentences are made within a bracket, the last sentence shouldn't have a full stop. The other sentences should have full stops.

2. They should be capitalized if they are the first word in a sentence. For example: At least 9-B, possibly 9-A. The word "higher" should never be capitalized because it works in conjunction with "far higher", both of which are never the first words in a sentence.

3. Always use commas, never use full stops. I don't know why we ever needed to use full stops in the first place.

4. First word in a sentence should always be capitalized because duh. If it's a rating that exists in our Range page then it should be capitalized. If it's a custom range like "dozens of meters" it shouldn't be capitalized.

5. I'm more biased towards British English, but I still get squiggly lines when using it because the site uses American English. On paper though, it changes very little so I suggest just leaving it alone unless it involves official naming conventions like Berserk.

Edit: Also personal preference, but when you have a P&A with a type use semicolon ( ; ) after the type to insert the explanation. Example: Immortality (Type 1; Can live forever)
 
Always use commas, never use full stops. I don't know why we ever needed to use full stops in the first place.

I used a full stop on this page because it has four tiers, with each pair of tiers grouped with each other. I expect there to be a handful of other pages where some separate tiers ought to be grouped together. But as per DontTalk's suggestion, a semicolon would work there instead.
 
I personally think that DontTalk's solutions seem fine, but my grasp of proper sentence structures is not flawless.

Somebody would also have to properly rewrite and insert new example images for our common editing mistakes page after we finish here.
 
Sure!

Also, feel free to defer these for now if they'd end up being too many at once. But some other inconsistent standards I noticed...
  1. Which pieces of punctuation should reference tags be placed before/after?
  2. This one's kind of a catch-all for many bits of statistic formatting. When there's a different rating from the physicals because of an ability/weapon, sometimes the physical rating is followed by "physicals" or "normally", and sometimes it isn't followed by anything (i.e. 10-B, 9-C with weapons). Similarly with speed, sometimes the main speed rating is described as "normally", sometimes it's described as "travel, combat, and reaction speed", and sometimes it's not described at all.
  3. Sometimes reaction speed is listed as "rating reactions", and sometimes it's listed as "rating reaction speed".
  4. Sometimes later speed ratings are prepended with the word "with", i.e. "Athletic Human normally, with Subsonic reaction speed".
 
1) I think that periods and commas should be placed right before reference tags, like this for example: "Sentence.<ref></ref>"

2) I am not sure what you mean here. Distinctions between physical power and energy blasts should, for example, preferably always be noted though.

3) I do not recall seeing this. Please elaborate.

4) I think that it should just be listed as "Athletic Human travel speed, Subsonic reaction speed" (or maybe "Athletic Human travel speed; Subsonic reaction speed" if that is what was intended.

Also, when we apply our new punctuation rules, the periods should be placed after any bolded statistics text for aesthetical reasons. For example " '''Star level'''. " instead of " '''Star level.''' "
 
1) Do you feel the same way about parentheses? Or parentheses followed by periods/commas?

2) Some pages index characters as "10-B normally, 9-A with magic", others as "10-B physically, 9-A with magic", and yet others as "10-B, 9-A with magic".

3) Some characters have speed sections such as "Athletic Human normally, with Subsonic reactions".

4) Fair enough.

5) I strongly agree.
 
Agnaa said:
1) Do you feel the same way about parentheses? Or parentheses followed by periods/commas?
Click to expand...
I think that sentences in parentheses should preferably be written somewhat like this: "(Phrase, phrase.)"
Agnaa said:
2) Some pages index characters as "10-B normally, 9-A with magic", others as "10-B physically, 9-A with magic", and yet others as "10-B, 9-A with magic".
Click to expand...
I think that the second option seems best.
Agnaa said:
3) Some characters have speed sections such as "Athletic Human normally, with Subsonic reactions".
Click to expand...
Well, I think that I mentioned how I view such cases in my last preceding post in this thread.
Agnaa said:
4) Fair enough.
Click to expand...
Okay.
Agnaa said:
5) I strongly agree.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
1) Ah, I meant in the sense of where the reference tags should go. Since "(Sentence),<ref>Reference text</ref> following sentence" adds a bit more distance between the reference tag and the relevant text, which some people don't like (although I personally prefer it).
 
Anyway, the big problem when we apply our new punctuation rules will likely be how to properly handle powers and abilities sections and similar cases. For example, should we write them in the following manner:

"[[Accelerated Development]] (Explanation and examples.), [[Power Copying]] (Explanation and examples.), ..."

Or as:

"[[Accelerated Development]] (Explanation and examples.) [[Power Copying]] (Explanation and examples.) ..."

?
 
Agnaa said:
1) Ah, I meant in the sense of where the reference tags should go. Since "(Sentence),<ref>Reference text</ref> following sentence" adds a bit more distance between the reference tag and the relevant text, which some people don't like (although I personally prefer it).
Click to expand...
I also prefer that method over placing all references after the end of each sentence, as it is a bit more specific.
 
Antvasima said:
Anyway, the big problem when we apply our new punctuation rules will likely be how to properly handle powers and abilities sections and similar cases. For example, should we write them in the following manner:

"[[Accelerated Development]] (Explanation and examples.), [[Power Copying]] (Explanation and examples.), ..."

Or as:

"[[Accelerated Development]] (Explanation and examples.) [[Power Copying]] (Explanation and examples.) ..."

?
Click to expand...
I'd prefer

"[[Accelerated Development]] (Explanation and examples. More explanations and examples), [[Power Copying]] (Explanation and examples), ..."

Not using full-stops for sentences that end with parentheses, as DontTalk/Oven suggested earlier.
 
Hmm. Wouldn't that still look grammatically incorrect, inconsistent, and unprofessional though? Isn't it better to properly long-term try to fix our pages to fit much better with conventional wiki standards in this regard?
 
It is grammatically fine to end off parentheses without a full-stop.

I went to the store and bought steak, grapes (the green kind; NOT the red kind), almonds, and a whole bag of cherries.
 
Okay. If it is grammatically acceptable and professional looking, it should be fine to continue with this practice. However, I would appreciate if you can investigate in some reliable grammar site in order to make certain.
 
Each of these websites shows parentheses being used mid-sentence without a full-stop. Although I'm not quite sure what you'd consider a reliable grammar site; those are just the first four that popped up with a search.
 
Okay. Then it should be fine to keep doing so. Thank you for helping out.
 
If an ability such as "self-[[Poison Manipulation]]" or "Pseudo-[[Flight]]" is listed, should the word modifying it (self/pseudo in these examples) be capitalised or not?

I know that DT/Oven said that words such as "likely/possibly" should only be capitalised if they start a sentence, but I feel like these cases could be treated differently.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that the second option seems best.
Click to expand...
Would that option (10-B physically, 9-A with magic) really be the best if their higher tier is still physical, just with a certain technique/weapon?
 
Confluctor said:
Regarding the last post, yes, capitalised.
Click to expand...
That is correct, yes.
Agnaa said:
Would that option (10-B physically, 9-A with magic) really be the best if their higher tier is still physical, just with a certain technique/weapon?
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. Physically means the same as striking strength, so as long as that has been mentioned as different to energy blast output, for example, in the striking strength section, it is not absolutely necessary to mention it in the attack potency section as well, but it doesn't hurt in order to make certain to avoid misunderstandings.
 
Antvasima said:
Please elaborate. Physically means the same as striking strength, so as long as that has been mentioned as different to energy blast output, for example, in the striking strength section, it is not absolutely necessary to mention it in the attack potency section as well, but it doesn't hurt in order to make certain to avoid misunderstandings.
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting a slightly different situation, something like "10-B physically, 9-C with swords" would be a bit strange, since swords are physical.
 
Well, we usually use that kind of structure for low-tiered characters that can only hit that hard with a weapon, which seems practical to me, as it avoids misunderstandings (for example to clarify that it does not scale to durability).
 
Fair enough, we can keep it then.
 
So what are the conclusions here so far, and would somebody here be willing to rewrite the Common Editing Mistakes page accordingly, including replacing all of the outdated example/illustration images in it?
 
Conclusions:
  1. Full-stops should only be used after full sentences, unless that sentence is ended with a parenthesis/bracket. (Note: This last part is already mentioned within the page, but not the first part)
  2. Terms such as "at least", "likely", "possibly", and "higher" should only be capitalised when after a full-stop or colon. This includes when they are part of the P&A sections. Unnecessary since this is already on the page.
  3. Full-stops should never be used in statistics sections outside of parentheses. If commas create ambiguity, use a semicolon instead. The only exception would be if there is a full sentence within that statistic. (I guess an example of this could be some lengthy intelligence justifications, for a character who has different levels of intelligence in different areas?)
  4. Range ratings should be capitalised as they are on the Range page.
  5. If an ability has a type and justification given, they should be separated by a semicolon. (Disclaimer: only Oven mentioned this, and said it was a personal preference; more discussion may be warranted)
  6. Reference tags should be placed after other bits of grammar, such as periods, commas, and parentheses. (Disclaimer: I have seen people fiercely disagree with this, it may warrant further discussion)
  7. If a character has a rating for their ordinary physical strikes, without magic, empowerment, and the like, as well as other ratings, that first rating should be written as "{{Tier}} physically", not as "{{Tier}} normally" or just "{{Tier}}".
  8. Speed types should be listed fully, i.e. "reaction speed" not "reactions".
    • Ant, I am now a bit confused about your post on that, would you also want characters to have ratings such as "Athletic Human travel, combat, and attack speed, Subsonic reaction speed", or "Athletic Human travel, combat, and attack speed, with Subsonic reaction speed" or "Athletic Human normally, Subsonic reaction speed" or "Athletic Human normally, with Subsonic reaction speed".
    • The issues of collapsing multiple speeds into "normally", and of using the word "with" before later speed ratings, haven't been 100% clearly addressed, to my eyes.
  9. Where statistic ratings are bolded, punctuation should not be bolded. For example, At least '''9-A''', possibly '''higher''' is correct. While At least '''9-A,''' possibly '''higher''' is not.
  10. Modifiers attached to powers and abilities with a dash should be capitalised. Pseudo-[[Flight]] is correct, pseudo-[[Flight]] is not.
Although I'm not quite sure how to write most of these into a format proper for the Common Editing Mistakes page.
 
Thank you for the summary.

1) Is it really accurate grammar to never use full stops/periods after the last sentences within parentheses?

2) This seems fine.

3) I think that they should preferably be used at the end of statistics sections and to separate the powers and resistances segments when this is applicable.

4) Yes, but should we update the Range page to turn more consistent in this regard?

5) This seems fine to me, but I do not mind periods/full stops either. I do not really think that it is a big deal.

6) I personally prefer this, yes, as it looks more organised, but I am not remotely diehard inflexibly dedicated to the issue.

7) This seems fine as well.

8) I prefer "reaction speed", but am not really opposed to when "reactions" is used either.

a) Preferably either of the first two options, but I am not remotely a diehard stickler to inflexible standards in this case as long as what is intended can very clearly be understood by casual visitors.

b) Okay. Further input is appreciated then.

9) Yes. Strongly agreed. The formatting looks aesthetically awful otherwise.

10) Yes. That is correct.

11) Help from other members of our staff and experienced members would be very appreciated then. Should I call for our administrators and content moderators?
 
1) In most contexts yes, but we do admittedly have a strange not-really-grammatically-proper structure here with our statistics. Our statistics ratings can get quite long, but we don't really consider them "sentences", so we don't tend to end them with full-stops. Parentheses are sorts of extra sentences within larger sentences; in that context, they don't get finished with full-stops since the overarching sentence itself provides the final punctuation. But we're in a weird case where we have parentheses within non-sentences. I looked up what a professionally published book did in a case like this, and you can see that in items 21 and 25 of this list of translation notes, parentheses aren't ended with full-stops, and the other non-sentences aren't ended with full-stops either. This is barely-charted territory, but I think we're fine.

3) This might warrant more discussion, then.

4) I would prefer more consistency here, yeah. The ones that stick out to me are ones like "Tens of meters", which I think should be capitalised like "Tens of Meters".

8) Ah, maybe we could leave this up to discretion or wait for more discussion then?

11) Yeah probably. Should I create a post, either in the thread or in the OP, about which things need more discussion, and which things simply need to be worded to fit that Common Editing Mistakes page?
 
1) Thank you for investigating. That seems fine then.

3) I suppose so.

4) Yes, agreed.

8) Well, some official instructions seem preferable, even if they are not very strict or inflexible.

11) A good explanation post here in this thread would probably be best. I can send a notification to our bureaucrats, administrators, and content moderators afterwards.
 
Hey gang. We need some help with deciding some general formatting standards, as well as some help with writing down accepted standards in a format suitable for the Common Editing Mistakes page. Below you'll find a list of things that still need discussion, and things that have been accepted.

More Discussion Needed: (Note that for all of these opting for there to be no standard is a valid option)
  1. Some have proposed that full-stops should not be used in most sections of the page, only being used to finish full-sentences when those sentences aren't already ended by a parentheses. If a statistics section needs more separation for clarity, a semicolon should be used instead. Others think that full-stops should still be used at the end of statistics sections, and to separate the powers and resistances in P&A sections.
  2. Since the capitalisation of official Range ratings be made consistent? For example, changing ratings such as "Tens of meters" should be changed to "Tens of Meters".
  3. If a non-standard range rating is used on a profile, how should it be capitalised?
    • Non-standard range ratings should not be capitalised, unless it's the first word in the range section: 1 (@Sir_Ovens)
    • Non-standard range ratings should be capitalised using the same schema as official range ratings: 4 (@Agnaa, @Abstractions, @GyroNutz, @SamanPatou)
    • Prefers only the first word, but is okay with either: 1 (@LordGriffin1000)
  4. Should abilities with types and descriptions have them separated by a semicolon, a full-stop, or should there be no standard?
  5. Should reference tags be required to be placed after bits of punctuation, such as periods, commas, and parentheses? In source-code, this would look like this, and on the page itself would look like this. If, instead, references were placed before punctuation, it would look like this in source-code, and like thison the page itself.
  6. Should shorthand be allowed for speed ratings? Shorthand such as "reactions" rather than "reaction speed".
  7. Should we allow speed ratings to be collapsed under a "normally", or should we require them to be explicitly listed? For example, "Athletic Human normally, Subsonic reaction speed" or "Athletic Human travel, combat, and attack speed, Subsonic reaction speed".
  8. If there are multiple speed ratings, should later ones (or even just the last one) be prepended with the word "with"? For example, "Athletic Human normally, with Subsonic reaction speed" or "Athletic Human normally, Subsonic reaction speed".
Implementation Help Needed: (Please write out how these should be added to the Common Editing Mistakes page, and gradually fix them if you happen to notice them)
  1. Standard range ratings on profiles should be capitalised as they are on the Range page.
  2. If a character has a rating for their ordinary physical strikes, without magic, empowerment, weapons, and the like, and they also have other ratings, that first rating should be written as "{{Tier}} physically", not as "{{Tier}} normally" or just "{{Tier}}".
  3. Where statistic ratings are bolded, punctuation should not be bolded. For example, At least '''9-A''', possibly '''higher''' is correct. While At least '''9-A,''' possibly '''higher''' is not.
  4. Modifiers attached to powers and abilities with a dash should be capitalised. Pseudo-[[Flight]] is correct, pseudo-[[Flight]] is not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Agnaa
References for Common Feats Re-organization
Replies
18
Views
837
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • Locked
Regarding the Common Editing Mistakes Page
Replies
10
Views
800
Antvasima
Antvasima
Regarding Page Names (Semantics)
Replies
18
Views
1K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
8 9 10
Replies
369
Views
23K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Back
Top