• 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.

Deleting the Aim-Dodging page

Status
Not open for further replies.

The_Impress

She/Her
VS Battles
Retired
11,801
7,363
So an annoyance I've felt, time and time again is, the wiki just straight up has so many pages for standards that it becomes immensely hard to keep track of, thus leading to there being alot of outdated info present across what are some of the most important pages on the wiki.

I'll try to get deleted some of these pages I feel are redundant, and info present within them can be incorporated into other pages for convenience, starting with

I feel all of the info present here can just stated in Projectile Dodging Feats, it's only relevant against projectile dodging and if I wanted to calculate a case I'd like to know thestandards to invalidate the feat to.

So yeah the proposal is to delete AIm-Dodging and move all the info within it to Projectile Dodging for simplification of pages
 
I would much prefer that we keep it, as it is an important principle to know about for our scaling system, and we need to make certain that it is easy to find.
 
Last edited:
I mean it's relevant to Projectile Dodging symbiotically, so its contents being on that is far more preferable that being independent
 
Moving all the info to one page and adding a redirect from Aim Dodging makes the most sense to me given how the term "Aim Dodge" is rather omnipresent from my experience, it will help people get to the page easier.
 
I wouldn't mind this but, I still think an Aim Dodging section should be elaborated before we delete the Aim dodging page. Yes, if a character is shown to move before a projectile is fired, it's clearly Aim Dodging. But Aim dodging is also the standard assumption for comics if either one of two things is pointed out if we just see a shot fired and missing the target, or there's a panel showing a projectile in motion but no information about the target being within the line of fire within the same panel. Basically this rule down below must be kept with the bold section being very important highlights I repeated.
  • The character is clearly and explicitly shown to move after the attack/projectile is in motion, depicting quite clearly that the character is reacting to the attack/projectile itself and not its source. For example, a character who is shot at, moving the body after the bullet has left the gun, to dodge it. Just having the attack/projectile be shown in motion simultaneously with the dodge or the attack/projectile be shown in motion with the dodger off panel is not enough. The projectile must be shown in motion with the dodger in the same panel and the dodge coming afterwards. These two feats would not be allowed, but these two would.
I also agree with making a redirect.
 
Well, if all of the information from the Aim Dodging page is kept by moving it, and possibly expanded on, a redirect link should be fine.
 
Okay. That can probably be applied then.
 
Looks good, I have updated the page. The last thing to do is to turn Aim Dodging into a redirect to the Projectile dodging feats page; which I do not remember the best way to add that in.
 
Okay. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top