• 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.
Thank you for helping out.

1: I don't think that anybody other than yourself here has even responded to my suggested approach.

2: It would destroy all of our current naming conventions if we use lower case letters for Low Complex Multiversal, for example, and this is also an official title, not just a regular sentence, so I am afraid that I very strongly oppose that we start messing with our standards in this regard. It would set a terrible precedent. The question here was rather if we should update all of the current range statistic types to use upper case first letters in the manner that you mentioned, or if they should remain as they are.

4: That is not what I said. I am fine with either of the two options, and do not consider it a big deal. That is all.

7: You accidentally made Subsonic and reaction into a single word.

8: I personally do not think that we should be inflexible in this regard, and give ourselves massive amounts of unnecessary longterm work, by being inflexible in this regard. EIther option should be fine.

IHN:

1: That would be absolutely massive amounts of work, and we cannot initiate a very major wiki revision project over something like this. It would have to be a gradual longterm change.

2: That is correct, yes, but what I said above still applies. We cannot check through around 28,000 pages unless it is for a genuinely extremely important purpose.

3: Yes, very strongly agreed. This should always be corrected whenever one of our members notice it.

4: Yes, also strongly agreed. It looks inconsistent and unprofessional otherwise.
 
1. Yeah, I wasn't sure if it was best to remove their votes or not over that. Do you think I should?

2. Alright, I'll edit it to have those two options.

4. I don't really see the distinction between "either option is fine" and "no standard". Do you think there should be a standard, but don't care which? If so, I could put you down as something like "either standard".

7. I'll fix that.

8. I'll put you down as "no standard" there, then.

IHN:

1-4. These are all intended to be gradual changes; I more want help for figuring out how to word them for the Common Editing Mistakes page. If my post is unclear in that regard, could you give me some pointers on improving it? Maybe I should re-state that I just want help writing descriptions for that page just before that section?
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
1. Yeah, I wasn't sure if it was best to remove their votes or not over that. Do you think I should?
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Sir_Ovens

What do you think about this?
Agnaa said:
2. Alright, I'll edit it to have those two options.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Agnaa said:
4. I don't really see the distinction between "either option is fine" and "no standard". Do you think there should be a standard, but don't care which? If so, I could put you down as something like "either standard".
Click to expand...
I mean that we should probably mention that either full stops/periods or semicolons are acceptable to use, as this is not an important enough issue to burden ourselves with lots of extra work. What is not acceptable is to use the following type of solution, for exmple: "(Type 2) (Examples here)"
Agnaa said:
7. I'll fix that.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Agnaa said:
8. I'll put you down as "no standard" there, then.
Click to expand...
That is not really what I tried to say here either. See my response to point 4 above.
Agnaa said:
IHN:

1-4. These are all intended to be gradual changes; I more want help for figuring out how to word them for the Common Editing Mistakes page. If my post is unclear in that regard, could you give me some pointers on improving it? Maybe I should re-state that I just want help writing descriptions for that page just before that section?
Click to expand...
Okay. No problem.

Well, you could just mention that only gradual changes are intended to be applied if our members notice them, not via a massive wiki revision project.
 
4/8. I have put you down as "either semicolon or a full-stop" and "either of those standards" respectively. I hope those capture your intention.

Everything else has been edited in.
 
Agnaa said:
4/8. I have put you down as "either semicolon or a full-stop" and "either of those standards" respectively. I hope those capture your intention.

Everything else has been edited in.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That seems fine, yes.
 
 
I agree with removing those full stops.

Neutral on range and speed stuff.

Types should be semicolon, imo.

I dislike the references after punctuation.
 
Agnaa said:
More Discussion Needed: (Note that for all of these opting for there to be no standard is a valid option)
Click to expand...
1. Only to finish full sentences.
2. I'm fine with this.
3. They should be capitalized, I don't see why the shouldn't be.
4. Semi-colon only.
5. After punctuation.
6. I'm fine with either, I do not believe people need to be consistently reminded that it's "movement speed and reaction speed" when it's already within the Speed category though.
7. No collapse.
8. I'm fine with either.

Agnaa said:
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)
Click to expand...
All well and good.
 
Thank you for the evaluations. If we get further staff input here, somebody can probably apply the results afterwards.
 
Agnaa said:
If a non-standard range rating is used on a profile, how should it be capitalised?
Should abilities with types and descriptions have them separated by a semicolon, a full-stop, or should there be no standard?
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.
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".
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".
Click to expand...
Going through in turn,
-Should fit the same as other ratings
-Semicolons
-Should be placed after punctuation, though I'm not sure whether I'd put parentheses in that category.
-I prefer 'normally'
-Neutral.
I agree with the rest.
 
I've mostly put down your preferences for the stuff you explicitly listed, since for many of them "agree" is a smidge unclear, imo.
 
Agnaa said:
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: 3 (@Agnaa, @Abstractions, @GyroNutz)
  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.
Click to expand...
@AKM sama @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Starter_Pack @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @Damage3245

Your help would be greatly appreciated here, as we need some further input before we apply these changes.
 
1. Only to finish full sentences.
2. Agree
3. I will need to look at some examples of this.
4. Semicolon only
5. References after punctuations.
6. Prefers no shorthand but is okay with either
7. No collapse. But in files with large number of keys and ratings, it can be messy, so "normally" can be used in those scenarios.
8. Either, or.
 
1. Either works for me.
2. The change seems fine.
3. Seems odd that a non standard rating would be used at all but if it was needed, I would say only the first word should be capitalized but I'm fine regardless of which option is picked.
4. Either a semicolon or a full-stop is fine with me.
5. References before punctuation is how I always do it so I'll agree with that.
6. I prefer no shorthand but either is also fine.
7. No collapse but if it makes a profile look much better then it's alright I guess.
8. I prefer "with" but either works.
 
Since there's a consensus and it's easy to implement, shall I update the capitalisation on the Range page to make them consistent?
 
1) I think full stops work in statistics sections in some cases, such as to separate the tier a character gets from what stems from themselves and what comes from equipment or such. For examples, two profiles of mine which use to have this distinction. Also, I'd let it be used in P&A sections if a power comes from two different sources or abilities, and thus needs two separate explanations.

2) Agreed with capitalization

3) I'd use the same schema

4) I prefer semicolon only

5) I always place them after punctuation, as imho it looks quite bad otherwise, but still before parentheses, tho I try to not put them at the end of a sentence that is closed by a parentheses

6) I'm okay with shorthands

7) I prefer no collapse

8) I'm fine with either
 
Saman: I counted your votes, but I'd point out that for #1, I was told to use semicolons instead for tier separations. You can see that being used on this profile.
 
Anyway, do we have a sufficient number of staff evaluations to discern any consensus solutions here, that can be applied, yet?
 
I think everything in my list has enough consensus to be applied.
 
Okay. That is good then.

Did you update it with all of the new staff sentiments?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Agnaa
References for Common Feats Re-organization
Replies
22
Views
1K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
  • Locked
Regarding the Common Editing Mistakes Page
Replies
10
Views
877
Antvasima
Antvasima
Regarding Page Names (Semantics)
Replies
21
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
10 11 12
Replies
454
Views
30K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Back
Top