• 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.

Explanation Pages reorganisation (Important: Help needed)

Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
164,967
71,694
Hello.

I would greatly appreciate if any of you would be willing to investigate which of the blog posts listed with the "Explanation Pages" category that were never officially accepted and are not currently in use/officially referred to, so it can be removed.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Explanation Pages

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Our wiki navigation bar also needs to be updated in this regard. If any of the "Information Pages" that it links to are outdated, they should be removed, and if you know of new well-constructed officially accepted and used explanation pages for the cosmologies of different reasonably prominent verses in our wiki, these should preferably be added instead.

Screenshot_20220729-093745_Firefox.jpg

Thanks in advance for any help.


Edit:

After discussion in other threads, I think that the current best approach here seems to be to clean up the "Explanation Pages" category, so only legimately accepted explanation pages are included, after the contents of them have been moved from blogs to regular wiki pages.

It may also be a good idea if the remaining blogs are kept track of by replacing the "Explanation Pages" category with "Explanation Blogs" instead.
 
Last edited:
 
Confluctor said:
What about blogs? Do we need to investigate those too or just pages?
Click to expand...
Blogs are a much bigger problem in this regard than regular wiki pages. Please definitely do not remove the "Explanation Pages" category from any regular wiki pages that are actually used for different verses. This is almost exclusively about cleaning away the category from all of the currently unused and unaccepted or completely outdated old blog posts.
 
Thank you. Please link here to any blogs that need to have the category removed, as I think that administrators and bureaucrats are the only staff members who can edit the blog posts of other members.

Maybe content moderators as well, but I am not certain.
 
Hmm. That is very unfortunate. It would help a lot with our cleanup work if content moderators were able to directly help out.
 
Antvasima said:
Hmm. That is very unfortunate. It would help a lot with our cleanup work if content moderators were able to directly help out.
Click to expand...
Is there something that can be done about this or is this some standard that cannot simply be changed?
 
I technically could ask Fandom about it if you wish, but I don't think that they will change their safety standards.

I plan a much more important major revision project for removing all inappropriate categories from all sandboxes and blog posts in our wiki though, and we really need help from our content moderators with that, so maybe I could give all of content moderators who volunteer to help out with it temporary wiki administrator rights while they are participating?

It would be a big responsibility though, so all of you would need to promise to be very careful.
 
Antvasima said:
I technically could ask Fandom about it if you wish, but I don't think that they will change their safety standards.

I plan a much more important major revision project for removing all inappropriate categories from all sandboxes and blog posts in our wiki though, and we really need help from our content moderators with that, so maybe I could give all of content moderators who volunteer to help out with it temporary wiki administrator rights while they are participating?

It would be a big responsibility though, so all of you would need to promise to be very careful.
Click to expand...
Okay.

Maybe.

Yeah, that's reasonable.
 
Wait what? Explanation pages have to be approved? Is there not some sort of precedent for this? If not could we make one?

Like this feels like something that should have rules established before we go around chopping down pages.

People's blogs should be left alone since it's their part of the wiki. Would it not be best to run the blogs through the wringer and just make them their own pages with their own unique category to make it "official"? We're already listing them on verse pages as supplementary reading material, I don't see why they shouldn't be public.
 
I am talking about currently unused personal blogs, not regular verse explanation pages that were accepted in preceding content revision threads.
 
I am currently working on refurbishing many of the Explanation Blogs for God of War and Devil May Cry, as many of them use old Discord links. I have fixed a majority of them, but some blogs have some coarse language in the main parts that aren't tabbered to be user responses.
 
Thank you to everybody who are willing to help out with this project.
 
I believe most of them get accepted via CRTs (sometimes vaguely via people seeming to have no issues with them), so, maybe we should make a rule to from now on make the accepted ones have a comment in them with someone saying "This Explanation Page was a accepted in [link this thread]." if they're accepted, and edit the comment to add more and more links if further threads cause the Explanation Page to grow bigger or update itself. "This Explanation Page was a accepted in this threads: [link here], [link here] and [link here]." Any random user could be making that comment, if preferably it should be the user who made the page or a staff.
 
That seems like a good idea, yes, but for the purpose of this project the officially accepted validity of such blogs can be checked by using the "What links here" button to see if any of our regular verse or character pages link to them.
 
Antvasima said:
That seems like a good idea, yes, but for the purpose of this project the officially accepted validity of such blogs can be checked by using the "What links here" button to see if any of our regular verse or character pages link to them.
Click to expand...
I think explanation blogs that have been accepted and added to verse pages are okay to be made into pages right away, assuming there are no dead links to fix or they have no first person language like "Lemme explain" or "I will tell you why X is Y" or something like that, prolly would need to be edited formally then (But there's also the issue of the opinions of other users that may greatly help the blog's case that simply cannot be ignored).
 
Last edited:
If they are currently used as up to date explanation pages for the verses in question, sure, but they should preferably at least be mentioned and overviewed here first before we take that step.
 
Antvasima said:
If they are currently used as up to date explanation pages for the verses in question, sure, but they should preferably at least be mentioned and overviewed here first before we take that step.
Click to expand...
I don't think it needs to be overviewed as much, just check for the CRT where the blog was accepted and use that as justification for the page. Simple.
 
I suppose so, but they need to clearly have been officially accepted already.

Also, after discussion in other threads, I think that the current best approach here seems to be to clean up the "Explanation Pages" category, so only legimately accepted explanation pages are included, after the contents of them have been moved from blogs to regular wiki pages.

It may also be a good idea if the remaining blogs are kept track of by replacing the "Explanation Pages" category with "Explanation Blogs" instead.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
I suppose so, but they need to clearly have been officially accepted already.
Click to expand...
I mean, aren't the CRTs supposed to have done that already? After which they will have been added to the Verse page with the CRT links in the edit history to begin with?

Antvasima said:
Also, after discussion in other threads, I think that the current best approach here seems to be to clean up the "Explanation Pages" category, so only legimately accepted explanation pages are included, after the contents of them have been moved from blogs to regular wiki pages.

I am not sure if the remaining blogs could be kept track of by replacing the "Explanation Pages" category with "Explanation Blogs" instead.
Click to expand...
 
KLOL506 said:
I mean, aren't the CRTs supposed to have done that already? After which they will have been added to the Verse page with the CRT links in the edit history to begin with?
Click to expand...
Yes, if they are already officially used, it is probably fine, but it is preferable if edit histories are investigated for forum thread links and such.
 
Antvasima said:
Yes, if they are already officially used, it is probably fine, but it is preferable if edit histories are investigated for forum thread links and such.
Click to expand...
Ye, that shouldn't be a problem. That's the best way to determine which ones got accepted and rejected.
 
Sorta crossposting this here due to relevance; I noticed in this thread that moving all Explanation Pages to mainspace would run into conflicts with our rules on Verse-Specific Powers and Abilities, since some abilities that don't qualify for that instead have Explanation Blogs.

How should we handle this?
 
Well, we are not supposed to move anywhere nearly all of them to mainspace, just the ones that are officially accepted and used by us already.

However, if this still conflicts with our stricter standards, I suppose that we should only move the explanation pages that genuinely qualify then.

We also still need to remove the "Explanation Pages" category from blog posts that are clearly ill-considered and not accepted.
 
I went through all, or almost all, of the explanation pages and they seem to be accepted.
 
Okay. That is good then. Thanks a lot for the help.
 
Were any of the pages in question outdated? Meaning, were they linked to in their associated verse pages or not?

Also, do any of the following pages contain outdated information as well?
Screenshot_20220819-103810_Firefox.jpg
 
And which explanation blogs should be turned into regular wiki pages?
 
Antvasima said:
Were any of the pages in question outdated? Meaning, were they linked to in their associated verse pages or not?

Also, do any of the following pages contain outdated information as well?
View attachment 306
Click to expand...
I didn't check that, will do it later
Antvasima said:
And which explanation blogs should be turned into regular wiki pages?
Click to expand...
I'll try to gather them and post it here. Should that be ok?
 
That would be very appreciated, yes. Thank you very much for helping out.
 
This is the only one that's outdated. I will check back later to see if I missed any.
unknown.png

Here's the new one if you want to replace it. Now i will check which pages need to be turned in to regular pages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Locked
Wiki problems that need to be dealt with
Replies
24
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Addition of Pointless Categories
Replies
4
Views
1K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
DMUA
Removing Power of the Verse from Verse pages
2 3
Replies
99
Views
6K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
Replies
19
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
BestMGQScalerEver
  • Locked
A needed addition to verse pages
Replies
8
Views
954
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top