Fixing the Situation With Locations...

[KieranH10]

Ok, here I am again... I've had my intelligence, personality, authority, validity, and pretty much everything else insulted over this subject and even after attempting to reconcile, nobody cared. I have a lot to say about the last location thread and what happened there, but i'm not here to discuss what went wrong, I'm here to make it right now that I'm home. Though I want it to be clear that I'm not happy with how my last thread ended and how the subject was treated.

This topic is much too large and important to be acting immaturely or to rush along, I thought our staff would agree but apparently we need telling this directly. So can we please wait until the topic is actually concluded before applying anything this time around.

Feels like some people didn't read what they were agreeing to last thread, which is upsetting, many members had agreed to the thread entirely and then changed their mind when something they didn't read was brought up. So please ensure that this thread is read through, and you know what you're agreeing to. Else we have more pointless wasted time.

Anyways, that is a very summed up version of the situation. But once again I'm not here to pointlessly argue with people, which is why I will not be discussing that subject any further, and am focused purely on fixing this.

So with all of that, this thread will conclude what needs changing, what needs adding, and what needs removing to any page regarding the subject entirely. The dedicated sections will describe what's actually wrong, the conclusion will mention how to actually fix it. This subject will be concluded after this thread is done.

What was never accepted in the uploaded draft:

"Locations with extremely inconsistent structures with no canonical reasoning are not allowed."

• This was still being discussed, it had simply been moved out of the way by staff to discuss Versus Thread Rules regarding locations. But nothing was actually concluded on the subject.

"Locations that are already covered by another profile are subject to heavy scrutiny in regards to their necessity."

• This is just blatantly wrong in regards to what was actually accepted by everybody in the thread.
• What wasaccepted, was that merging the formats for the profiles was absolutely fine, and worked without making profiles look messy or incomprehensible. So that should be the actual rule put in place.
  • Antvasima also agreed that example profiles presented in the OP were fine and should be linked on the rule to give a guideline of how to handle merging formats efficiently.
  • While this is all fine. I do agree with Ant that some form of rules or guidelines will also certainly be helpful in this regard. But not much is really needed to keep the pages from being messy when I look into it:
    • Just something along the lines of "Please attempt to keep relevant statistics in the correct area on a merged profile relevant to one another. This means ensuring that the Tier section stays at the top of a page, and that Attack Potency stays above Speed."
      • This rule, along with the the examples provided will be enough to give an idea of how to handle them pretty easily.
      • All profile types keep them In the same place in relation to one another, so an entire rule page isn't needed, as we already do this by default.

"If a location is better represented by another profile format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above format."

• That's basically just another rule for the same thing right? Somehow we've got a very similar rule to the one above, but it also seems to disregard the one above too...
• Once again, like above. This is just not what was accepted, and is pretty much the opposite of what was... But it's pretty much the same case as above so I've said what I want to about that.

"The end is too variable"

• No, that's like disallowing a profile for Spinda because of it's massive amount of different patterns, or Galactus because every species sees him differently, every end has exactly the same notable structures, just in different places. the end can very, very easily be composited with absolutely no negative implications, it generally looks the same, is made out of the same stuff, and has the same structures and entities, every. single. time.
• We can take steps like this with profiles if cases like this occur, just like we do with every other profile, not allowing an entire dimension from a verse because an island in it has a different shape for different people is absolutely ridiculous.

Contradictions in the Uploaded Draft:
The current page goes on to say "Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis." Basically, "Don't make stuff which has little reasoning to be indexed" which actually was accepted, so I have nothing to say in that regard. But:

• The examples provided then go on to list The Hidden Leaf Village, and Hyrule. Which absolutely would not fit under our standards, as they seem to be very mundane areas from images provided.

The current page also mentions "Locations with extremely inconsistent structures with no canonical reasoning are not allowed."

• But Hyrule has to specifically mention "Ocarina of Time", because it changes structure between games. (See Ocarina of Time vs Breath of the Wild)
• Green Hill Zone is another example of this, probably moreso than Hyrule. But it was included in the list, and already has a profile of its own. Because of un-thought out rules. (Evidence was given against Green Hill Zone being a problem)

What still needs applying from the last thread:

In this thread, I'm not only referring to changing the Standard Format for Location Profiles. Many of the suggestions from the OP will slightly affect other formats too. As was very clear in the OP. Such as:

• The Standard Arenas that was supposed to be added to the other Standard Format Pages, which was agreed upon by those who agreed with the OP. I'm not here to repeat myself constantly, but as was stated in the last thread:

I believe an optional extra section on profiles would be in order, along the lines of a "Standard Arena", which would link to an Arena Profile of such areas.

Which was in the Specifics section of the last thread. For anyone confused. It was also in the TLDR, but apparently that wasn't read either...
This is an incredibly simple thing that should be added to the Standard Format for Characters, Weapons, and Civilizations...

What needs revising from the last thread:
We need to start considering locations as their own thing, their statistics are very different from anything we give to characters and more, so their stats should be judged on their own for validity, the likes of Gotham City has notable inhabitants, notable areas and much more, which in terms of a location, are similar in importance to the likes of speed or durability for a character. Making it more than valid for a profile. If we don't start changing our view on them, were gonna end up with no more than like 50 of the profiles, absolute tops. Making this entire project absolutely pointless.

With the current rules we have with locations, if they were this strict with other profiles then we'd likely half the number of pages we have at the moment if not more, the amount of profiles we don't allow as of current is insane.

• Like seriously, if we were to incorporate some of the rules being suggested here into our other profile formats, many verses would become considerably less reliable, much lower quality, and much harder to understand.

I feel like the likes of Wakanda (MCU) is a massive wrong in these rules, the area DOES have abilities, but just because it's generally grassland and cities, then it doesn't qualify under the current rules. The best example of similarity I could think of here is the ridiculous conclusion that Invisible Woman or Violet don't justify a profile. These cases are almost identical, all of them have force fields and conceal themselves becoming effectively invisible to the outside world, but Wakanda isn't allowed because of it's terrain and supposedly isn't original enough to qualify. Which is like saying Invisible Woman and Violet should not have profiles because they're humans and there's a lot of humans in fiction and we know what humans are...

Another point for the likes of seemingly mostly regular buildings (Avengers Tower, etc) or other (Wakanda, Gotham City, etc) is that they would come under both a standard arena and a form of standard equipment to certain characters. My point regarding the Iron Legion in Avengers Tower in the first thread is very applicable to characters like Iron Man, as he would utilize them in a battle if he were there, and it would not be outside help as they are his equipment. Similarly, Wakanda would be a standard arena for the civilization, and their equipment and tech around their country would be utilized in a battle, such as the surrounding Forcefield, and more. We've seen characters fight by standard in these locations, whether that is because they live there, it belongs to them, or some other reason, they are important to characters and giving some characters standard locations but not others is a confusing and counter intuitive idea.

"Locations such as the mushroom kingdom are too varied between games and therefor can't be made"

• Then make a profile for each notable one between games and mark it as so, exactly like how we do with every other kind of profile. If they vary between games, then they're clearly distinguishable enough to be separated.
• It isn't hard to put (Super Mario 64) at the end of a page title...
• It's exactly what we do with other types of profiles already, why should it be different here? It's not like we don't make Godzilla profiles because he varies too much between movies...

The Hazards Section:
I shouldn't have let this be agreed on. I was trying to be polite with Impress in that thread but she consistently gave tone and I got fed up at the time. That being said, the original format's "Hazards" section should be added into the "Notable Features" section, as a sub-section. It does not fit into anything else reliably, and should be separated to avoid confusion with anything else.

Topics still being discussed at the end of the last thread:
"We can't spam profiles that are very similar to one another, making regular cities and more is unreliable and doesn't benefit the wiki at all"

• Aight, firstly, then let's get rid of all of the Godzilla's, sonics, marvel and dc characters who are in more than one media, every superman ripoff, and many more profiles. On the count of being "similar to one another."
• Similarly, let's remove every Sword, Gun, and Tank. For the exact same reason. They're all similar to one another, so they need to go.
• I have already addressed why certain cities and more benefit the wiki and the other profiles we create in the above section, so I don't need to repeat myself.

There is also the fact that Staff Members noted that "Passive Effects" likely isn't the best name for the section. As not all of the abilities a location might possess would be passive in most cases. (Some locations may have buttons that summon an entity, which wouldn't be passive Summoning, others may have a Plant that lets out Powder that Poisons you if you touch it, which also wouldn't be Passive Poison Manipulation). Instead I believe that the section should be renamed to "Notable Effects"

• Looking back through, this subject also wasn't ever addressed. So it's likely that the "Passive Effects" section should be simply changed back to the original "Powers & Abilities"

Conclusion:
To fix the situation:

• The following should be taken off of the current Format:
  1. "Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis."
  2. "Locations with extremely inconsistent structures with no canonical reasoning are not allowed."
  3. "Locations that are already covered by another profile are subject to heavy scrutiny in regards to their necessity."
  4. "If a location is better represented by another profile format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above format."
• The following should be added to the current Format:
  1. Regarding Inconsistent Locations:
     • "If a Location is randomly generated or differs each time it is seem, but still retains the same notable features, then compositing the page is allowed, as while they may differ in shape, this is the only difference found, all notable features are still the same."
       • Examples: The Nether (Minecraft), The End (Minecraft), Arenas (GORN), Springfield (The Simpsons), etc.
     • "If Locations differ between incarnations, to the point they cannot be considered the same location, then compositing the location is not allowed. Different profiles between incarnations must be made, as compositing pages like this creates a bad precedent and overall pointlessly messy pages.
       • Examples: Peach's Castle (Mario Bros), Hyrule (Legend of Zelda)
  2. Regarding the Hazards Section:
     • The "Hazards" subsection should be added to the "Notable Features" section of the Format.
       • "Hazards: Any physical Hazards present in the Location (Such as Spikes, Saws, Chains, Traps, and more)"
  3. Regarding 'Mundane' Locations:
     • "Fictional incarnations of Real World Locations are not allowed. These often differ in little to no ways from their Real World counterparts, so are considered redundant."
       • Examples: New York City (Marvel Comics), Japan (Godzilla), etc.
     • "Locations for regular cities, buildings, etc, are permitted if they act to benefit another profile as a form of Standard Equipment"
       • Examples: Avengers Tower (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Wakanda (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
     • "In the same manor, Locations with absolutely no notable features are strictly disallowed. These include the likes of random buildings from fiction, much like we strictly disallow profiles for extras, or regular humans."
  4. Regarding Merging Formats:
     • "If a Location is also considered another form of Profile, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is most reliable to simply merge the page formats, allowing for information of each format to be present on the Profile. (Attack Potency, Notable Inhabitants, Wielders, etc)."
       • "Please see the following profiles for examples on such a profile: Hell (Doom), Ego (Marvel Cinematic Universe), The Death Star, etc." (These will have their formats merged once this goes through)
       • "Please attempt to keep relevant statistics in the correct area on a merged profile relevant to one another. This means ensuring that the Tier section stays at the top of a page, and that Attack Potency stays above Speed, etc."
       • IF the notes here don't seem like enough for some reason, then a very early draft of the order every statistic should be in is here, with an explanation of their placement.
  5. Regarding the Passive Effects section:
     • The "Passive Effects" section should be renamed to either "Notable Effects" or preferably back to "Powers & Abilities" on the format as not all effects would be passive. We changed it on the count of "Powers & Abilities sounds weird" which does not override the fact that it's impractical to change it. If we are changing it though, something similar to "Notable Effects" would be better than "Passive Effects"
  6. Regarding Examples:
     • I didn't give this a full section of it's own because it's genuinely a super small, not so important thing... But the examples could generally be better in my honest opinion. As while each of them is noticeable in it's own verse, a lot of users may not know all of them for one reason or another.
       • They should probably be along the lines of:
         • Tatooine (Star Wars)
         • Gotham City (DC Comics)
         • Wakanda (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
         • Green Hill Zone (Sonic the Hedgehog)
         • The Nether (Minecraft)
         • The Lookout (Dragon Ball)
       • These locations are easily recognizable to anyone, even those that aren't knowledgeable on the series they're from, so would likely be better.
• Other things that need changing:
  • An Optional Section on the Standard format for Characters, Weapons, and Civilizations, called "Standard Arena", which will simply mention the arena a character/weapon/civilization most commonly fights or is found in, if applicable. Preferably having a link to a Location Profile of the area.
    • Rejected

So with that, we have a lot to go over. All of this would be concluded by now if we'd have just waited until we were done with the last thread. But here we are. We cant change that now, we have to fix it afterwards. So let's discuss.

I assume we would like this thread to be concluded as quickly as possible, to avoid as much trouble as possible. If this thread takes long I assume we're well aware that many different Location Profiles may be made in the meantime, which will cause unnecessary, pointless work for our staff members. With the amount of Location Profiles as low as it is currently, the job isn't too major, so let's get this over with as quickly and reliably as possible.

Once this subject is complete I want nothing further to do with it. Passion for something I thought would be nice is gone. Thank you for that.

With that said...
Nothing on this thread should be applied until the thread is 100% concluded, else more pointless confusion and arguments will arise, and I am not going through that again. As the OP, I will be the one applying what needs applying.

 

[Antvasima]

I am sorry that you feel so bad about the previous threads. For what it is worth, I consider you a good and valuable part of our staff.

Let's all try to be nice, polite, and respectful to each other here.

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Dino_Ranger_Black @JustSomeWeirdo @LordGriffin1000 @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @The_Impress @QuasiYuri @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Jasonsith @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @Amelia_Lonelyheart

Would you be willing to help out here please?

 

[Antvasima]

Here is the current version of the page:

Standard Format for Location Profiles

Insert a landscape picture that represents the location, preferably in its entirety, or an iconic shot in lack of a better option. Standard size is 400px aligned to the center. If the best available image is vertical, its width should usually be around 365px, and the alignment should be to the...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[KieranH10]

I'll get over it. I just want this subjects over at this point. Thank you for helping out though.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. Just please remember that if people, including me, disagree with you, it is not meant as a personal attack against your character.

 

[KieranH10]

I understand that lol. I'm not mad that people disagreed with me, that comes with anything. I'm honestly not even really mad that random insults were thrown either, I take no notice of random stuff like that, but it did happen.

I don't want to derail this thread with that stuff anyway. I'd like this thread to be concluded as soon as possible to lower editing work for our staff, and we have a lot to go over. So it's best to stay on topic.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good then.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

This is weird... I mean locations having profiles is a bit strange, but I’m not particularly against it, I just can’t think of any notable locations for any of my verses that would require a location profile

 

[KieranH10]

The concept itself was agreed upon in the last thread. This thread is more so to do with fixing some issues that were caused both since, and during that last thread.
More information on why the idea was proposed is in that last thread, which pretty much details all of the pros and cons to them, if you're interested.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I have always thought Kieran was making some very strong points.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Contradictions in the Uploaded Draft:
The current page goes on to say "Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis." Basically, "Don't make stuff which has little reasoning to be indexed" which actually was accepted, so I have nothing to say in that regard. But:

• The examples provided then go on to list The Hidden Leaf Village, and Hyrule. Which absolutely would not fit under our standards, as they seem to be very mundane areas from images provided.

Sorry, tho, I don’t see how Hyrule and The Hidden Leaf Village are examples of “Real World Locations”, especially Hyrule.

Hyrule itself has 5 unique biomes in very close vicinity to each other in Ocarina, with large dungeons, unique races and Guardian deities inhabiting the land. Not possible to replicate in the real world. Not at all similar or mundane by real world standards.

"Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations will likely be deleted”

I’m not seeing how Hyrule qualifies to be a contradiction, let alone the Leaf Village, containing a village of magical ninja which aren’t mundane to the real world.

The current page also mentions "Locations with extremely inconsistent structures with no canonical reasoning are not allowed."

• But Hyrule has to specifically mention "Ocarina of Time", because it changes structure between games. (See Ocarina of Time vs Breath of the Wild)
• Green Hill Zone is another example of this, probably moreso than Hyrule. But it was included in the list, and already has a profile of its own. Because of un-thought out rules.

The main “canon” explanation given by developers is that centuries pass between each game that changes the land, while the main WoG reason is because they don’t want to be tied down to making the locations the same for each game. It’s inconsistencies that have purpose throughout the centuries but are recognizable in their own era.

"If Locations differ between incarnations, to the point they cannot be considered the same location, then compositing the location is not allowed. Different profiles between incarnations must be made, as compositing pages like this creates a bad precedent and overall pointlessly messy pages.

• Examples: Peach's Castle (Mario Bros), Green Hill Zone (Sonic the Hedgehog), Hyrule (Legend of Zelda)

Er, no, Green Hill Zone wouldn’t fall under this example. Green Hill mainly differs cause Sonic is taking different routes throughout the location.

Hyrule’s reasoning has an explanation above.

Mario, however, doesn’t seem to have Zelda’s explanation for why Peach’s castle (and especially the wider Mushroom Kingdom) differs between each game.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Regarding Examples:

• I didn't give this a full section of it's own because it's genuinely a super small, not so important thing... But the examples could generally be better in my honest opinion. As while each of them is noticeable in it's own verse, a lot of users may not know all of them for one reason or another.
  • They should probably be along the lines of:
    • Tatooine (Star Wars)
    • Gotham City (DC Comics)
    • Wakanda (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
    • Hell (Doom)
    • The Nether (Minecraft)
    • The Lookout (Dragon Ball)
  • These locations are easily recognizable to anyone, even those that aren't knowledgeable on the series they're from, so would likely be better.

Green Hill Zone is very recognizable, thank you very much

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There's actually mythology about Hyrule going through massive changes in the environment iirc. Or at least, there were some details about why Hyrule has a grossly inconsistent geography.

 

[KieranH10]

Hyrule itself has 5 unique biomes in very close vicinity to each other in Ocarina, with large dungeons, unique races and Guardian deities inhabiting the land. Not possible to replicate in the real world. Not at all similar or mundane by real world standards.

Under the current accepted rules. The only thing that would be valid there is the biomes and dungeons. As of now, Inhabitants seemingly mean nothing to the creation of location profiles. The leaf village from the sight of it, aside from the mentioned ninjas seems to be a somewhat regular village.

The main “canon” explanation given by developers is that centuries pass between each game that changes the land, while the main WoG reason is because they don’t want to be tied down to making the locations the same for each game. It’s inconsistencies that are have purpose between it through the centuries but are in their own era.

Er, no, Green Hill Zone wouldn’t fall under this example. Green Hill mainly differs cause Sonic is taking different routes throughout the location.

If there's lore to them then they're bad examples on my behalf. But I believe my overall point still stands.
Could I have a source for Green Hill Zone being that way, I don't recall that being mentioned personally.

Green Hill Zone is very recognizable, thank you very much

I was originally going to keep Green Hill Zone on there. But I thought having too many examples would clog up the section, and I wanted to get a mix of different types of media in there. It could be added back though if we wish.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Could I have a source for Green Hill Zone being that way, I don't recall that being mentioned personally.

For Green Hill, Sonic taking different routes in a 2D plane is supported by Sonic Mania, which used unground caverns introduced in Sonic Generations. Even in Sonic Generations, Classic Sonic and Modern Sonic are shown to be taking different routes in the same space.

Sonic Forces also takes you to a desert section of Green Hill. While nothing contradicts, it’s a relatively new feature shown in the Zone.

was originally going to keep Green Hill Zone on there. But I thought having too many examples would clog up the section, and I wanted to get a mix of different types of media in there.

UwU The Nether already takes care of the role for Doom’s Hell. Green Hill Zone is great as a “platform-game type”.

 

[KieranH10]

For Green Hill, Sonic taking different routes in a 2D plane is supported by Sonic Mania, which used unground caverns introduced in Sonic Generations. Even in Sonic Generations, Classic Sonic and Modern Sonic are shown to be taking different routes in the same space.

Sonic Forces also takes you to a desert section of Green Hill. While nothing contradicts, it’s a relatively new feature of the Zone.

That's fair enough then. Do you still believe the overall point is correct, away from the examples given?

UwU The Nether already takes care of the role for Doom’s Hell. Green Hill Zone is great as a “platform-game type”.

That's an even better point. Ngl I thought I took Hell off there when I added the Nether.
I'll swap Hell for Green Hill Zone then.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Read the OP. On the one hand, I understand the logic of banning places that are far too similar or mundane. It isn't our intent to have 89 cities that are exactly the same except with a different name. I dislike that the OP assumes every staff member is incapable of reading and was unaware of what we were accepting.

On the other hand, I'm generally in favor of allowing profiles to be made of whatever, so I guess I agree with the majority of the OP. Points I do still disagree with, though:

- If a location is better represented as a weapon or entity, I think it's better to make them one of those. I wouldn't make a profile for, say, the entirety of the Abyss from D&D- it is an entity in of itself, which brings about the obvious rule break of "there are no creatures allowed from this location".

- Don't know if I fully agree with the section regarding locations meant to be in the real world only being allowed if they were beneficial to certain characters, if only because the two examples given are legitimately fantastic in nature.

- The merging formats thing seems like it will lead solely to confusion but eh. I think locations that are weapons (such as the Death Star) can just be made into a location profile. What the OP suggests is incredibly unwieldy in this regard.

- As per my bit about disallowing sentient locations (as they should be standard profiles instead), dunno if I agree with the change from "passive effects", since an inanimate profile wouldn't be able of enacting the effect otherwise. It is a passive.

- Extremely hesitant in regards to "Standard Arena".

 

[ElixirBlue]

That's fair enough then. Do you still believe the overall point is correct, away from the examples given?

Yes, on things I’m certain on

"The end is too variable"

• No, that's like disallowing a profile for Spinda because of it's massive amount of different patterns, or Galactus because every species sees him differently, every end has exactly the same notable structures, just in different places. the end can very, very easily be composited with absolutely no negative implications, it generally looks the same, is made out of the same stuff, and has the same structures and entities, every. single. time.
• We can take steps like this with profiles if cases like this occur, just like we do with every other profile, not allowing an entire dimension from a verse because an island in it has a different shape for different people is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree this point could use more wiggle room. The End having randomized objects still holds value on being a location. I doubt even for locations like inside Attack on Titan’s Walls, we would be scrutinizing the distance between each building, structure and their each own length and width.

Regarding the Passive Effects section:

• The "Passive Effects" section should be renamed to either "Notable Effects" or preferably back to "Powers & Abilities" on the format as not all effects would be passive. We changed it on the count of "Powers & Abilities sounds weird" which does not override the fact that it's impractical to change it. If we are changing it though, something similar to "Notable Effects" would be better than "Passive Effects"

Agree

Other things that need changing:

• An Optional Section on the Standard format for Characters, Weapons, and Civilizations, called "Standard Arena", which will simply mention the arena a character/weapon/civilization most commonly fights or is found in, if applicable. Preferably having a link to a Location Profile of the area.

Not sure about the name being changed, but I don’t like a two word description. Characters, Weapons, and Civilization, are all simple, one word descriptors. Having “Locations” changed to a two word descriptor disrupts the flow.

Regarding the Hazards Section:

• The "Hazards" subsection should be added to the "Notable Features" section of the Format.
  • "Hazards: Any physical Hazards present in the Location (Such as Spikes, Saws, Chains, Traps, and more)"

I agree but I would like it worded in a way that encourages users to mention whether the location can be harmful to the opponents or not.

Regarding 'Mundane' Locations:

• "Fictional incarnations of Real World Locations are not allowed. These often differ in little to no ways from their Real World counterparts, so are considered redundant."
  • Examples: New York City (Marvel Comics), Japan (Godzilla), etc.
• "Locations for regular cities, buildings, etc are permitted if they act to benefit another profile in some way (Such as Avengers Tower benefiting certain characters as a form of Standard Equipment"
  • Examples: Avengers Tower (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Wakanda (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
• "In the same manor, Locations with absolutely no notable features are strictly disallowed. These include the likes of random buildings from fiction, much like we strictly disallow profiles for extras, or regular humans."

Agreed.

That’s what I have to support the thread for now.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I disagree with some things, but can't devellop rn.
For now just count me as having the same opinion as Bambu, since I share his view on the topic he talked about

 

[KieranH10]

@Mr._Bambu

Read the OP. On the one hand, I understand the logic of banning places that are far too similar or mundane. It isn't our intent to have 89 cities that are exactly the same except with a different name. I dislike that the OP assumes every staff member is incapable of reading and was unaware of what we were accepting.

This is all fair. For the record I was only referring to a select few when I wrote that, if it doesn't apply to you, then it wasn't referring to you.

On the other hand, I'm generally in favor of allowing profiles to be made of whatever

As am I.

If a location is better represented as a weapon or entity, I think it's better to make them one of those. I wouldn't make a profile for, say, the entirety of the Abyss from D&D- it is an entity in of itself, which brings about the obvious rule break of "there are no creatures allowed from this location".

I believe that via SBA, if we were to use a sentient location as a battle arena in a versus thread, by default it wouldn't be able to directly contend in the battle.

Don't know if I fully agree with the section regarding locations meant to be in the real world only being allowed if they were beneficial to certain characters, if only because the two examples given are legitimately fantastic in nature.

I personally think this is just one reason to include them. I believe I went over a couple of others in the last thread, but these examples provided were certainly disallowed by the current accepted rules.

The merging formats thing seems like it will lead solely to confusion but eh. I think locations that are weapons (such as the Death Star) can just be made into a location profile. What the OP suggests is incredibly unwieldy in this regard.

I personally disagree with this. While I didn't present them here, some examples of merged formats were given in the last thread. They are here if you wish to view them (On the old template, granted). Many people had agreed that they work well and don't look messy, Hell (Doom) would be among the most extreme cases of merging, but the example profile in the sandbox still retains order.

As per my bit about disallowing sentient locations (as they should be standard profiles instead), dunno if I agree with the change from "passive effects", since an inanimate profile wouldn't be able of enacting the effect otherwise. It is a passive.

The name seemed strange to me, would the examples given in the OP be considered Passive? Somebody in the location pressing a button to cause something isn't a passive ability in my opinion. But I suppose this is one of the smaller subjects, and I don't honestly mind keeping the name as this subject was up for discussion in the first thread anyways.

Extremely hesitant in regards to "Standard Arena".

It was agreed in the first thread already? It simply needs applying.

@ElixirBlue

Not sure about the name being changed, but I don’t like a two word description. Characters, Weapons, and Civilization, are all simple, one word descriptors. Having “Locations” changed to a two word descriptor disrupts the flow.

I'm unsure if you understand this point? I do not mean to change the name of "Location Profiles" to "Standard Arena Profiles". I mean that as an optional section (Like Optional Equipment, etc), we have "Standard Arena" as some characters are only ever shown fighting in a certain arena (Such as the Ender Dragon, and more)

I agree but I would like it worded in a way that encourages users to mention whether the location can be harmful to the opponents or not.

That's fine, I will work on something more apt for the description then.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I'm unsure if you understand this point? I do not mean to change the name of "Location Profiles" to "Standard Arena Profiles". I mean that as an optional section (Like Optional Equipment, etc), we have "Standard Arena" as some characters are only ever shown fighting in a certain arena (Such as the Ender Dragon, and more)

Ah, I see. Then yes, I approve of the idea but have different reason of disliking the name (Standard Arena).

How we treat the word “Standard” as something that can’t be taken away, like users not allowed to take away Standard equipment in vs debates.

Listing “Standard Arena” alongside “Standard Equipment” gives off the impression that character can only fight in that location. Then the issue would occur between two characters with “Standard Arena” facing off.

There doesn’t seem like there is room for a neutral location between the two under the name.

 

[KieranH10]

That is also a good point. Perhaps something along the lines of "Typical Arena" would be better, to not cause confusion with our current usage of "Standard"

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'll only reply to the bits that warrant it.

I believe that via SBA, if we were to use a sentient location as a battle arena in a versus thread, by default it wouldn't be able to directly contend in the battle.

...but they are the literal location? Like... alright, let me make an example you might be more familiar with. Per your suggestions, Jabu-Jabu from Ocarina of Time would be a viable location profile, even though it is literally just the thing's stomach. I remain staunchly opposed to this.

I personally think this is just one reason to include them. I believe I went over a couple of others in the last thread, but these examples provided were certainly disallowed by the current accepted rules.

If these specific locations were disallowed by those rules, those were poorly implemented rules.

I personally disagree with this. While I didn't present them here, some examples of merged formats were given in the last thread. They are here if you wish to view them (On the old template, granted). Many people had agreed that they work well and don't look messy, Hell (Doom) would be among the most extreme cases of merging, but the example profile in the sandbox still retains order.

I believe there is a profound difference between what staff members and experienced users are capable of understanding versus what casual users are capable of understanding. Ideally, both should be equal, which obviously will probably never be the case, but this change seems to mostly just make the divide bigger. Certain profiles for characters having random stats for locations as well doesn't confuse me- my concern is for the vast majority of our userbase.

The name seemed strange to me, would the examples given in the OP be considered Passive? Somebody in the location pressing a button to cause something isn't a passive ability in my opinion. But I suppose this is one of the smaller subjects, and I don't honestly mind keeping the name as this subject was up for discussion in the first thread anyways.

Fair, I guess? I agree this is a minute point so consider me neutral.

It was agreed in the first thread already? It simply needs applying.

Aye, and it was brought up again here, in a thread meant to discuss bits of the old thread, no? I am still hesitant.

 

[Antvasima]

I am extremely busy with work, so this is just a note that I think that we should only feature locations that are at least reasonably iconic and distinctive, not generic cities, for example.

 

[AKM sama]

If we don't start changing our view on them, were gonna end up with no more than like 50 of the profiles, absolute tops. Making this entire project absolutely pointless.

Who said we wanted more than 50 location profiles? It's a wiki to index characters not locations. The only reason it is being allowed is to make matches interesting, which itself is a secondary reason for this wiki's existence, not the primary. I disagreed with this notion in the last thread and I disagree with it now. We have almost 30,000 character pages already and not enough resources to even handle them properly. Any big revision project takes months or even years to complete and some are just disregarded because of infeasibility. Adding 10,000 more location profiles on top of that is something I am strongly against.

Gotham City has notable inhabitants, notable areas and much more, which in terms of a location, are similar in importance to the likes of speed or durability for a character. Making it more than valid for a profile.

No. Gotham City has normal buildings which is not very different than your real life cities or any other location on Earth. It has no special property of its own. So it wouldn't matter if the match is being held in Gotham City or any similar real life city. A profile for it would be totally redundant. We don't need that.

Like seriously, if we were to incorporate some of the rules being suggested here into our other profile formats, many verses would become considerably less reliable, much lower quality, and much harder to understand.

Except this is being enforced upon location profiles and not on characters or verses because, and I quote:
"The purpose of this wiki is to index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises."

These cases are almost identical, all of them have force fields and conceal themselves becoming effectively invisible to the outside world, but Wakanda isn't allowed because of it's terrain and supposedly isn't original enough to qualify. Which is like saying Invisible Woman and Violet should not have profiles because they're humans and there's a lot of humans in fiction and we know what humans are...

Again, Wakanda is a location. Susan and Violet are characters. They aren't comparable. We aren't treating location profiles the same way we do characters.

My point regarding the Iron Legion in Avengers Tower in the first thread is very applicable to characters like Iron Man, as he would utilize them in a battle if he were there, and it would not be outside help as they are his equipment.

If it is part of his equipment, all you need to do is announce on the thread that Iron Man has access to his Iron Legion. Voila! A location profile for an almost normal building isn't necessary. It's spammy and redundant.

Then make a profile for each notable one between games and mark it as so, exactly like how we do with every other kind of profile. If they vary between games, then they're clearly distinguishable enough to be separated. It's exactly what we do with other types of profiles already, why should it be different here?

Or avoid making them because they are inconsistent and we don't really need them. We don't need to spam the wiki with tons of similar location profiles since that's not our purpose.

Aight, firstly, then let's get rid of all of the Godzilla's, sonics, marvel and dc characters who are in more than one media, every superman ripoff, and many more profiles. On the count of being "similar to one another."

No because making those profiles is what this wiki is for...

I appreciate that you're took the time to make this thread. But I am sticking with Impress' version. Almost the entire "what needs revising from the last thread" section is something that doesn't need to be revised. It was already agreed that we are not going to do that. You're just rehashing the same arguments here knowing that none of the bureaucrats agreed with it the last time.

The main problem is that you're trying to change the fundamental aspect of the wiki. You're thinking locations have the same priority as character profiles and we should treat locations the same way we treat characters. That we should basically become a wiki that indexes statistics of characters and properties of locations.

But no. Nobody agreed on that. And it's not going to happen. I am very content with 50 or even fewer location profiles being added so that matches can be interesting, and that's all. Matches aren't our main concern, and locations aren't our main concern. We barely manage to handle the 30,000 character profiles, we don't need the wiki to be spammed by thousands of redundant location profiles.

 

[KieranH10]

...but they are the literal location? Like... alright, let me make an example you might be more familiar with. Per your suggestions, Jabu-Jabu from Ocarina of Time would be a viable location profile, even though it is literally just the thing's stomach. I remain staunchly opposed to this.

I'm unfamiliar with Zelda but I understand what you're trying to say. I don't believe that the stomach of a character would be regarded as a sentient location thought.
I do agree that the stomach of a character should in no way be regarded as an actual Location Profile unless serious evidence is given to support it (Kirby would be an example of potential validity off the top of my head)

If these specific locations were disallowed by those rules, those were poorly implemented rules.

I agree.

I believe there is a profound difference between what staff members and experienced users are capable of understanding versus what casual users are capable of understanding. Ideally, both should be equal, which obviously will probably never be the case, but this change seems to mostly just make the divide bigger. Certain profiles for characters having random stats for locations as well doesn't confuse me- my concern is for the vast majority of our userbase.

With the rules in place on the Standard Format, this likely wont be a large problem. If a user does not wish to look at how our profiles work to understand, I don't believe it is our problem if they become confused, as they have been given the information required.

Fair, I guess? I agree this is a minute point so consider me neutral.

Ok.

Aye, and it was brought up again here, in a thread meant to discuss bits of the old thread, no? I am still hesitant.

That's fair. May I ask why you are hesitant? Much like the first thread this is still open to make changes to aspects of the format. If you believe there is a better way to handle it, then feel free to give some suggestions.

I think that we should only feature locations that are at least reasonably iconic and distinctive, not generic cities, for example.

Many locations like this benefit a lot of our other profiles in many way too however. As has been said in the OP. The last thread covered some subjects regarding it too iirc. There is still a large amount of reasons to create these Profiles, as they can generally help us better index the verses we have in higher detail and help us understand our profiles more clearly.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm unfamiliar with Zelda but I understand what you're trying to say. I don't believe that the stomach of a character would be regarded as a sentient location thought.
I do agree that the stomach of a character should in no way be regarded as an actual Location Profile unless serious evidence is given to support it (Kirby would be an example of potential validity off the top of my head)

Okay, so how is some other sentient location different? Ultimately the stomach has unique traits about it (unfortunate that you aren't familiar, I assumed you had been due to the Hyrule discussion) compared to other stomachs. So why is it invalid (which I agree with!) but a sentient hellscape isn't? I don't understand the logic here.

With the rules in place on the Standard Format, this likely wont be a large problem. If a user does not wish to look at how our profiles work to understand, I don't believe it is our problem if they become confused, as they have been given the information required.

I believe it is absolutely our problem if the profiles are unwieldy and require esoteric knowledge to even begin to understand. Sure, veterans may get it- but our site is not solely dedicated to our veterans.

That's fair. May I ask why you are hesitant? Much like the first thread this is still open to make changes to aspects of the format. If you believe there is a better way to handle it, then feel free to give some suggestions.

I feel the vast majority of profiles won't benefit from it. I realize that it's optional, but hear me out: it seems more likely to me that more profiles would benefit from having a section known as "Preferred Martial Arts Style" or something than "Standard Arena". I believe such a small percentage of profiles would benefit that adding it as a standard, even an optional one, seems like needless focusing in on location profiles.

 

[Antvasima]

AKM mostly makes sense to me.

 

[Promestein]

Even 10 location profiles will diversify versus threads quite a bit if they're interesting and worth using.

Notable Effects sounds fine, page merging isn't necessarily wrong in some cases but is dumb in others, we definitely don't need pages for the same locations, it's simply not comparable to different versions of the same character. Though it's not like people haven't argued against having so many pages for these characters anyways.

"If a Location is randomly generated or differs each time it is seem, but still retains the same notable features, then compositing the page is allowed, as while they may differ in shape, this is the only difference found, all notable features are still the same."

I am fine with this, though, who the **** is gonna go through the nitty gritty details of any area? What matters is the general environment, hazards, notable areas, etcetera.

 

[KieranH10]

@AKM sama

It's a wiki to index characters not locations.

We are not only a wiki to index characters, we already have Weapons and Civilizations. We were just a wiki to index characters before these were introduced. Which was back in 2015 for Weapons.

The only reason it is being allowed is to make matches interesting, which itself is a secondary reason for this wiki's existence, not the primary.

This is also not the only reason these were allowed. The first thread goes over every reason we should have these profiles. Of which that is just 1.

I disagreed with this notion in the last thread and I disagree with it now. We have almost 30,000 character pages already and not enough resources to even handle them properly. Any big revision project takes months or even years to complete and some are just disregarded because of infeasibility. Adding 10,000 more location profiles on top of that is something I am strongly against.

Most of this is not going to change by us not making Location Profiles. These things are simply results of us being one of the larger wikis on Fandom. Unless we start mass deleting profiles, this will always be a problem for us due to the nature of our Wiki as a whole.

No. Gotham City has normal buildings which is not very different than your real life cities or any other location on Earth. It has no special property of its own. So it wouldn't matter if the match is being held in Gotham City or any similar real life city. A profile for it would be totally redundant. We don't need that.

You still act like battles are the only reason at all that these are being created though, which you yourself have admitted in that same comment are a secondary feature of our Wiki.

Except this is being enforced upon location profiles and not on characters or verses because, and I quote:
"The purpose of this wiki is to index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises."

That quote has also been there since 2011, way before we had multiple other Standard Formats on the wiki.

Once again, we're simply not just a wiki to index characters, or we wouldn't have any other Formats at all.

Again, Wakanda is a location. Susan and Violet are characters. They aren't comparable. We aren't treating location profiles the same way we do characters.

Why?

If it is part of his equipment, all you need to do is announce on the thread that Iron Man has access to his Iron Legion. Voila! A location profile for an almost normal building isn't necessary. It's spammy and redundant.

The Iron Legion is just one part of that building, what about Jarvis, who would likely also factor into a battle? I guarantee just saying "Oh yeah he has Jarvis and the Iron Legion" in a thread is going to give any idea of what that means to people unaware of the verse.

Or avoid making them because they are inconsistent and we don't really need them. We don't need to spam the wiki with tons of similar location profiles since that's not our purpose.

We don't really need Weapons or Civilizations, but we have those.
We also wouldn't be spamming similar profiles, because they're different enough to warrant separate profiles, since they have different areas, structures, and abilities.
As for the "Spam the wiki with similar profiles" point, that's addressed in the OP.

No because making those profiles is what this wiki is for...

It isn't anymore.

The main problem is that you're trying to change the fundamental aspect of the wiki. You're thinking locations have the same priority as character profiles and we should treat locations the same way we treat characters. That we should basically become a wiki that indexes statistics of characters and properties of locations.

You're saying that we should only care at all for Character Profiles because they're the only thing that matter. Which isn't correct.
We're a wiki that indexes statistics and properties of Characters, Weapons, and Civilizations already. We haven't been a "Character only" wiki since 2015.

But no. Nobody agreed on that. And it's not going to happen. I am very content with 50 or even fewer location profiles being added so that matches can be interesting, and that's all.

You are acting like this is already concluded because you said it is and you're happy with your version.

Matches aren't our main concern, and locations aren't our main concern.

I know. I never said that either of them were.

We barely manage to handle the 30,000 character profiles, we don't need the wiki to be spammed by thousands of redundant location profiles.

I have already commented on this.

@Mr._Bambu

Okay, so how is some other sentient location different? Ultimately the stomach has unique traits about it (unfortunate that you aren't familiar, I assumed you had been due to the Hyrule discussion) compared to other stomachs. So why is it invalid (which I agree with!) but a sentient hellscape isn't? I don't understand the logic here.

Because the character isn't the Stomach. The character has a stomach with unique abilities. Whereas in a case like Hell, It is the entire entity that is the location, the actual area itself is sentient, and isn't just a spacious area inside of a character.

I believe it is absolutely our problem if the profiles are unwieldy and require esoteric knowledge to even begin to understand. Sure, veterans may get it- but our site is not solely dedicated to our veterans.

Yes, but we make it easily accessible to view how our profiles work immediately upon entering the wiki in the form of our Guidelines bar, which is likely upon the first places a new or confused user will go. I believe they may be confused upon seeing a profile like that, but not for long before they read about it in the formats.

I also believe that to an extent this point could already be made with our current formats. A user isn't going to immediately know how to format a regular character profile, until they look through our information.

I feel the vast majority of profiles won't benefit from it. I realize that it's optional, but hear me out: it seems more likely to me that more profiles would benefit from having a section known as "Preferred Martial Arts Style" or something than "Standard Arena". I believe such a small percentage of profiles would benefit that adding it as a standard, even an optional one, seems like needless focusing in on location profiles.

I suppose that makes sense. I believe that this is a common enough trope/stereotype in fiction that it would warrant noting. Almost every boss in every game for example has some form of Boss Arena.

@Promestein

Even 10 location profiles will diversify versus threads quite a bit if they're interesting and worth using.

That is true. But Versus threads are not the only reason we're making Location Profiles.

we definitely don't need pages for the same locations, it's simply not comparable to different versions of the same character.

I personally believe that it should be in certain cases. Making the likes of Peaches Castle (Super Mario 64) and Peaches Castle (mario & Luigi: Bowsers Inside Story) as a random example would be much better of an idea than Compositing it or simply not making it imo. Because they have so many differences that they cant really be compared in the same sentence.

I am fine with this, though, who the **** is gonna go through the nitty gritty details of any area? What matters is the general environment, hazards, notable areas, etcetera.

I agree.

 

[Promestein]

Making the likes of Peaches Castle (Super Mario 64) and Peaches Castle (mario & Luigi: Bowsers Inside Story)

Ridiculously bad idea for areas that aren't super special on their own anyways. What do they have to differentiate themselves besides different structures?

This wiki is about presenting and documenting character statistics, and it features civilization and weapon profiles as a supplement to character statistics and for the sake of versus debating. Location profiles will be a similar feature, not the central focus. Acting like people treat civ and weapon profiles equally to character profiles is just extremely inaccurate and dishonest. Maybe you do and want to, but we don't, and most users don't.

I think Standard Arena is just a bad idea that wouldn't apply to that many pages; sure, any given boss is gonna have an associated location you fight them in, but those locations are often pretty inconsequential as anything but the place that two people happen to run into each other in.

 

[Fastestthingalive50]

Who said we wanted more than 50 location profiles? It's a wiki to index characters not locations.

I mean, we also do vehicles and even natural events.

 

[KieranH10]

Ridiculously bad idea for areas that aren't super special on their own anyways. What do they have to differentiate themselves besides different structures?

Different inhabitants, abilities (64 Peaches castle has painting portals or whatever they are), notable areas, notable features, and other. It's case-by-case, but most profiles that warrant separating from one another, by definition, are different enough from one another to be considered separate.

This wiki is about presenting and documenting character statistics, and it features civilization and weapon profiles as a supplement to character statistics and for the sake of versus debating. Location profiles will be a similar feature, not the central focus. Acting like people treat civ and weapon profiles equally to character profiles is just extremely inaccurate and dishonest. Maybe you do and want to, but we don't, and most users don't.

We are an indexing wiki first and foremost.
For the record, Location Profiles also supplement characters stats or other, which was another one of the reasons brought up in the original thread.
We also should keep a standard for each type of profile similar. Otherwise problems may occur.

I think Standard Arena is just a bad idea that wouldn't apply to that many pages; sure, any given boss is gonna have an associated location you fight them in, but those locations are often pretty inconsequential as anything but the place that two people happen to run into each other in.

That is fair. But this is why I believe it should be optional, because it wouldn't apply to all characters.

 

[Promestein]

Yes, we're a character indexing wiki. I'm treating location profiles like civilization and weapon profiles; for the record, I think we probably have a lot of redundant weapon profiles!

 

[Antvasima]

Promestein also makes sense to me. Thank you for helping out.

 

[KieranH10]

Yes, we're a character indexing wiki. I'm treating location profiles like civilization and weapon profiles; for the record, I think we probably have a lot of redundant weapon profiles!

As I say, one point as to why Locations are being made is to help out with our characters and verses we create. The Original thread sums it up at the end of the OP if you wish to see the majority of reasons for them (There are even more beyond this that this thread has gone into a bit).

 

[Promestein]

I understand that they do help out with both, and agree. That's not what this is about. What this is about is the simple fact that, just like how we're not gonna be detailing sitcom characters, we're not gonna be detailing redundant and unnecessary locations.

 

[KieranH10]

To be fair. This could be argued for any type of profile, like you say. I don't believe that redundant or unnecessary profiles is something that strictly applies to Locations.

It seems like a bigger wiki problem than something that should be discussed here to me personally.

 

[Promestein]

It's one that's been brought up here in the specific context of location profiles, so we're discussing it here in the specific context of location profiles.

 

[KieranH10]

Very well.
Btw I agree redundant profiles shouldn't be allowed. But if they have a reason to be created (Be it uniqueness, it helps a character, helps a cosmology, or anything else), then it should not be considered redundant imo.