Fixing the Situation With Locations...

[Promestein]

We evidently disagree on what qualifies as a good reason.

 

[KieranH10]

I believe that if it helps give more information to our other profiles (Including Character Profiles), then it should absolutely be allowed. If not we're simply rejecting information on the basis that "A location looks like another" or something similar.

 

[Promestein]

It's not 'looks like another' it's 'essentially functionally identical'. Notable areas in themselves aren't anything special. The location has to have something to offer with interesting effects or hazards or an unconventional environment.

 

[Antvasima]

It's not 'looks like another' it's 'essentially functionally identical'. Notable areas in themselves aren't anything special. The location has to have something to offer with interesting effects or hazards or an unconventional environment.

Agreed.

 

[KieranH10]

It's not 'looks like another' it's 'essentially functionally identical'. Notable areas in themselves aren't anything special. The location has to have something to offer with interesting effects or hazards or an unconventional environment.

I don't believe this is the case even under the current rules. I also don't believe it should be.
Batman is aware of his surroundings in the likes of Gotham City, and the Batcave would come under his equipment in one way or another.
Wakanda is the home turf of the Civilization, and not only gives tactical advantages in a battle. It also allows us to emphasize how abilities are treated (Such as the Forcefield)
Avengers Tower has the likes of Jarvis, and the Iron Legion, likely among others that I'm not remembering.

I still strongly agree that our standards regarding profiles that simply exist to further explain things that would clog up other profiles should be absolutely fine personally.

 

[Arceus0x]

I am sorry for barging in but i have a wee question.

Let's say i have a location that is a hole. Can i add the depth of that hole to the size of the location? basically, are the dimensions of an area generally customizable?

another thing i wanna ask, can we make it look good?
I saw the green hill zone profile and it just has a measly line of text talking about it's size.
Could we do something like
Size:
-Length:
-Width
-Height:
-Girth:

and so on and so forth?
cause just saying "oh it's prolly like 20 feet" is kinda boring compared to having a nice list of statistics.

 

[KieranH10]

Yes, the current Standard Format mentions that any the dimensions of the Location (Length, Width, Height) may be added to the profile. Generally a link to confirm that size would obviously be preferred.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Ugh...this is a lot to unpack. Let me look over every point and see what is agreeable or not.

Removing mundane locations from Format: I would rather keep that one, if you don't mind. You and the various mods keep throwing around locations like Avengers Tower and Wakanda, which I do believe would and should not be deleted. However, you may end up having people who create profiles for entire towns, when in reality there are only one or two notable places within that said town that should be noted down. Case in point, Hurricane, Ohio from the FNAF novels, which really only has Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria and Charlie's childhood home as the most notable things, with the rest of the town just being a standard Mid-Western town with nothing out of the ordinary about it. Call it a safeguard rule, if you will, especially since we would judge any future profiles on a case-by-case situation, as is described in the rule.

Removing inconsistent structures from Format: Having been the one to personally create Green Hill Zone, I can agree to the removal of this one. It made things insanely difficult for me to index this location, having to get an actual pixel measurement of the Zone itself from Sonic on the Mega Drive to make it "not inconsistent."

Removing heavy scrutiny for profiles covered by other profiles: Let's look at Fortnite now. If someone was to make a profile for the entire Fortnite Battle Arena map, followed by making a profile for, say, Tilted Towers, would the latter not already be covered by the former? Both have the same types of drops and conditions, but one is simply a specific area within the entire Fortnite map. It would be redundant to have this, when we could simply list Tilted Towers under the Areas section of the Notable Features portion of the Format. As for Locations being flagged under any other category, well...

Removing Locations being reformatted to Weapons or Characters when applicable: I do agree that redundancy is redundant, and this is basically the same thing as the last one. And if you can re-tool your merged profiles to fit more with the current format, create a blog per profile type to explain how to merge said profiles instead of leaving users to figure it out as they go, then it should be fine. Unless I misread something about your plans, in which case, feel free to correct me.

Adding random Locations: This seems fine.

Adding differing incarnation Locations: Promestein makes the most sense on this subject.

Adding Hazards: This seems fine.

Adding Mundane Locations: Everything seems reasonable for the reasons I stated earlier.

Adding Merged Profile note: See above.

Renaming Passive Effects: This seems fine.

Changing Examples: This seems fine.

Adding Standard Arena: Hard disagree. As was stated by Promestein, not many characters can fit neatly into that category (characters like Goku and Luffy immediately come to mind), and I feel that the Inhabitants section more than does the job here. This seems superfluous at best, and I would rather not deal with it.

 

[KieranH10]

I would rather keep that one, if you don't mind. You and the various mods keep throwing around locations like Avengers Tower and Wakanda, which I do believe would and should not be deleted. However, you may end up having people who create profiles for entire towns, when in reality there are only one or two notable places within that said town that should be noted down. Case in point, Hurricane, Ohio from the FNAF novels, which really only has Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria and Charlie's childhood home as the most notable things, with the rest of the town just being a standard Mid-Western town with nothing out of the ordinary about it. Call it a safeguard rule, if you will, especially since we would judge any future profiles on a case-by-case situation, as is described in the rule.

Later in the thread I mentioned that Fictional Incarnations of actual Real World locations would not be allowed. So the likes of Ohio wouldn't be allowed anyways. Freddy's Pizzeria likely would however.

Having been the one to personally create Green Hill Zone, I can agree to the removal of this one. It made things insanely difficult for me to index this location, having to get an actual pixel measurement of the Zone itself from Sonic on the Mega Drive to make it "not inconsistent."

Ok, thank you.

Let's look at Fortnite now. If someone was to make a profile for the entire Fortnite Battle Arena map, followed by making a profile for, say, Tilted Towers, would the latter not already be covered by the former? Both have the same types of drops and conditions, but one is simply a specific area within the entire Fortnite map. It would be redundant to have this, when we could simply list Tilted Towers under the Areas section of the Notable Features portion of the Format. As for Locations being flagged under any other category, well...

No. Tilted Towers would be linked on the "Full Island" page in this example. If we were to add every location as it's own section on one singular page, it would clog up the page totally. So a form of sub-pages would be in order.
This was part of the original thread, and was generally considered fine iirc.

I do agree that redundancy is redundant, and this is basically the same thing as the last one. And if you can re-tool your merged profiles to fit more with the current format, create a blog per profile type to explain how to merge said profiles instead of leaving users to figure it out as they go, then it should be fine. Unless I misread something about your plans, in which case, feel free to correct me.

I have a Sandbox regarding the subject in the OP regarding the order in which Statistics should be placed in a merged profile, it's very basic as of now as it's just an initial proof of concept draft. But the only confusing information I can think would be caused by merging profiles would be the order, which is easily fixed in a page like the one I have mentioned.

Promestein makes the most sense on this subject.

I will wait for Promestein to reply then.

Hard disagree. As was stated by Promestein, not many characters can fit neatly into that category (characters like Goku and Luffy immediately come to mind), and I feel that the Inhabitants section more than does the job here. This seems superfluous at best, and I would rather not deal with it.

Very well. This idea seems to have been generally rejected then. I will cross it out of the OP.

Thank you for commenting.

 

[KieranH10]

Bump.
I have updated my original Sandbox as to how this CRT would change the current page to.

 

[KieranH10]

Bump.

@Promestein @AKM sama @Mr._Bambu @Starter_Pack
I have replied to all of your comments, and would like this concluded as soon as possible.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

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.

This is... no offense, a terrible point. The stomach is indeed the character. Much like a section of a sentient demiplane is the character, as is the stomach a part of Jabu-Jabu. I think this highlights the exact reason I won't accept living places as places- they are simply very large creatures.

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.

Sure, but this is adding a layer of, in my opinion, unnecessary confusion to the mix. Creating a complicated method of hybridizing profiles in the name of some niche process of the wiki seems impractical.

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.

We are not dealing solely in the realm of bosses from video games. In fact, I think most of our most popular profiles would have no obvious favored arena. This of course goes for our less popular profiles too, mostly, but that should show that we don't really need that. A profile shouldn't be dependent on a location, I feel.

 

[Promestein]

There's not really anything for me to respond to, though. These locations and their equipment can just be accessed with prep and shit. I don't see the need to make location pages for them. Like... I dunno, maybe, those aren't the worst page ideas but I'm still pretty eh about it.

 

[KieranH10]

This is... no offense, a terrible point. The stomach is indeed the character. Much like a section of a sentient demiplane is the character, as is the stomach a part of Jabu-Jabu. I think this highlights the exact reason I won't accept living places as places- they are simply very large creatures.

The stomach is part of the character, yes. But the character is not the stomach, the character is the fish. With a case like hell, we cant separate location from character in any way because it literally is the location, not a small part of it, the entire thing.

Sure, but this is adding a layer of, in my opinion, unnecessary confusion to the mix. Creating a complicated method of hybridizing profiles in the name of some niche process of the wiki seems impractical.

I'm unsure how it is impractical. The examples given were relatively simple to create, as long as we give rules to how they're handled I don't see how any notable confusion will arise.

We are not dealing solely in the realm of bosses from video games. In fact, I think most of our most popular profiles would have no obvious favored arena. This of course goes for our less popular profiles too, mostly, but that should show that we don't really need that. A profile shouldn't be dependent on a location, I feel.

That makes sense. Standard Arenas seem to have been further rejected then.

These locations and their equipment can just be accessed with prep and shit. I don't see the need to make location pages for them. Like... I dunno, maybe, those aren't the worst page ideas but I'm still pretty eh about it.

Because giving them a profile gives a lot more information about a Location than just writing a short sentence on it for example, and will give a much better idea for how and where characters flourish in certain areas.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I feel like the problem with hybridizing profiles is the fact that we would be flouting our standard profile formats and implementing a more loose style with these profiles, which isn't fantastically helpful to a character indexing wiki such as ourselves.

While I can see it working, I can also see the points of why it could be distracting and annoying to manage at the very least.

 

[KieranH10]

The last thread brought up a few ways to handle interlocking profiles. But merging was the most widely accepted, and was the most reliable and clean way in the suggested set of ideas. (Another was to simply make multiple profiles for the same thing, for example, which was rejected for obvious reasons.)

 

[Antvasima]

I am also not at all a fan of hybrid profiles for locations that are also sentient characters.

 

[KieranH10]

We have already done it with Dooms Hell with no confused users though?
No confusion will arise because we'll give rules, in pretty much the same place that we put the welcome message and more.

The format looks fine. Works well. And will have rules and standards regarding it. I see nothing wrong with it personally.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, as I keep saying, several wrongs do not make a right.

 

[KieranH10]

Why do you not believe that it is a good idea?

 

[Antvasima]

Because mixing different formats instead of sticking to separating them is messy, incoherent, and disorderly, whereas much of the entire point of this wiki is to stick to certain defined structures.

 

[KieranH10]

There are multiple examples that disprove it being all of those though? Which look and work fine for our purposes.

 

[Antvasima]

I disagree. Locations should preferably be locations and characters characters. My apologies.

 

[KieranH10]

Then how else would we tackle the issue? Because it is an issue and some examples would be considered both a Location and a Character, or a Weapon, it's much more common in fiction than any of our other types of profiles. We cannot ignore the problem.
Our options are either Merge the Formats, or make 2 profiles for the exact same thing.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If you take a civilizations profile for example, it is noted that there are some character statistics allowed on those pages as optional ratings. Though, I pretty much agree that location profiles that double as a character should stick as a more character format. As adding multiple optional stats to character profile formats can often get super messy since it's a character profiles especially that have strict guidelines. Verses and Civilizations not as much. Weapons and vehicles that double as characters also count more so as characters and we don't really include some vehicle exclusive stats on those profiles tbh.

 

[KieranH10]

If you take a civilizations profile for example, it is noted that there are some character statistics allowed on those pages as optional ratings. Though, I pretty much agree that location profiles that double as a character should stick as a more character format.

This is pretty much what i'm suggesting though? We simply add relevant justifiable statistics to the profiles optionally. I'm not stating that every single profile that can be considered as both must be a merged profile. It would be an optional thing.

As adding multiple optional stats to character profile formats can often get super messy since it's a character profiles especially that have strict guidelines.

I'm unsure how it could get any more messy than our normal profiles since we would have regulations regarding it which would make it clear how to merge them.

Weapons and vehicles that double as characters also count more so as characters and we don't really include some vehicle exclusive stats on those profiles tbh.

Weapons that double as characters are generally something like a robot, which essentially only needs character stats, as "wielders" for example wouldn't really make sense on such. Location Profiles detail incredibly different, but still important statistics.

 

[AKM sama]

We are not only a wiki to index characters, we already have Weapons and Civilizations.

Weapons and civilizations are fine. Weapons have AP and are directly connected to characters who use them, and as such they help us rate characters, which are the main focus. We don't spam civilization profiles either, we have rules for them too, and they are also related to characters. Locations are not. We do have pages for real life vehicles, etc, but again they are very less in the grand scheme of things. I don't mind them, as long as we don't spam them. Characters is still the main focus.

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.

That is the only reason compelling enough for me to allow them.

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.

We can make location profiles, but with strict control and not spamming essentially similar kinds of location pages, we can prevent the issue from alleviating.

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.

Yes...?

Why?

Locations are locations, characters are characters.

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.

Jarvis is AI and treated as a character. Plus, they can come with Tony's optional equipment. We don't need to make a location profile for that. Just explain what Iron Legion and Jarvis is in Tony's page.

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.

We clearly disagree on this.

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

I mean, when nobody agreed with it, it is concluded. I don't even know why you included this part in this thread again.

I have replied to all of your comments, and would like this concluded as soon as possible.

I still prefer Zark's version and I don't want location profiles to be spammed that have nothing or very little intrinsic properties and are almost similar to any other real life location, like Gotham City or Avengers Tower or Wakanda. I've already stated my reasons for disagreeing in the last thread, and I am standing by it.

 

[KieranH10]

Weapons and civilizations are fine. Weapons have AP and are directly connected to characters who use them, and as such they help us rate characters, which are the main focus. We don't spam civilization profiles either, we have rules for them too, and they are also related to characters. Locations are not. We do have pages for real life vehicles, etc, but again they are very less in the grand scheme of things. I don't mind them, as long as we don't spam them. Characters is still the main focus.

Some locations also benefit characters in the exact same ways. I have already mentioned this.

That is the only reason compelling enough for me to allow them.

You did not allow them. This is a collaborative subject. It also seems to be the only reason you care about, which contradicts your attitude to this reason entirely. As you don't believe battles are important, but believe that they're the only reason these profiles should be allowed. You are contradicting yourself.

We can make location profiles, but with strict control and not spamming essentially similar kinds of location pages, we can prevent the issue from alleviating.

Profiles are going to continue to be made regardless of Locations, this has very little to do with them in general.

Yes...?

My point is that you are wrong to have that attitude towards them.

Locations are locations, characters are characters.

But they're the exact same case. Pointless double standards are incredibly unreliable in general.

Jarvis is AI and treated as a character. Plus, they can come with Tony's optional equipment. We don't need to make a location profile for that. Just explain what Iron Legion and Jarvis is in Tony's page.

Which would lead to large walls of text with a lot of characters. Which is not a good thing.

We clearly disagree on this.

This does not help further the discussion.

I mean, when nobody agreed with it, it is concluded. I don't even know why you included this part in this thread again.

I was not done talking about it, other members moved the thread on so it was assumed concluded by those who disagreed with it. It was brought back up because I still believe it is wrong.

I still prefer Zark's version and I don't want location profiles to be spammed that have nothing or very little intrinsic properties and are almost similar to any other real life location, like Gotham City or Avengers Tower or Wakanda. I've already stated my reasons for disagreeing in the last thread, and I am standing by it.

I have stated my disagreements with your points. But you do not seem to take into consideration what I am saying.

Currently you are arguing:
"Weapons are allowed because they relate to and help us document characters, Locations (Which do the same) are not"
"We cant spam similar profiles, but profiles that differentiate from one another too much to be composited are also not allowed"
"There is only one reason that I think they should be made, but that reason is very minute and unimportant to the wiki"
"A character with abilities is allowed, but a location with the exact same abilities is not"
Among much more with similar arguments.

None of this makes sense to me personally, and it all seems illogical in my opinion.
Also, please actually quote messages when replying, it makes it easier for others to understand what you're replying to.

 

[Promestein]

"Weapons are allowed because they relate to and help us document characters, Locations (Which do the same) are not"

You don't understand. These should both be maintained and treated differently than character profiles. Locations are also a whole different beast, a more complex one - a weapon is a bit of equipment, often essential to a character's approach, and a location like the ones you're arguing for is an environment. One is, at the end of the day, essentially a part of the character. The other isn't. The other inherently skews things away from one side and towards the other.

No one's stopping you from putting a Batman fight in Gotham even without a page, too.

Locations are locations and characters are characters. You can't just dismiss that point or say they're the same. They're not and they shouldn't be.

Because giving them a profile gives a lot more information about a Location than just writing a short sentence on it for example, and will give a much better idea for how and where characters flourish in certain areas.

That's a page being bad. No page should give a single short sentence on an important part of a character's arsenal. If it does, it's a shit page and it's conveying information poorly. Make better pages with extensive, proper explanations, instead of making more pages and scattering less information over a greater range.

 

[KieranH10]

You don't understand. These should both be maintained and treated differently than character profiles. Locations are also a whole different beast, a more complex one - a weapon is a bit of equipment, often essential to a character's approach, and a location like the ones you're arguing for is an environment. One is, at the end of the day, essentially a part of the character. The other isn't. The other inherently skews things away from one side and towards the other.

As stated in the first thread. Locations also give similarly important information to a character, sometimes moreso than even a weapon profile. If a character can make a Location (Such as Scarlet Witch (MCU) making Westview), then it's much better of an approach to make it's own profiles for it.

No one's stopping you from putting a Batman fight in Gotham even without a page, too.

I'm not doing this for battles. I'm doing this to make indexing more accurate and convey more information efficiently without walls of text on a single profile. I don't partake in VS Threads.

Locations are locations and characters are characters. You can't just dismiss that point or say they're the same. They're not and they shouldn't be.

I never denied they were different. But locations are being treated much more strictly than literally every other format we have, even weapons and civilizations.

That's a page being bad. No page should give a single short sentence on an important part of a character's arsenal. If it does, it's a shit page and it's conveying information poorly. Make better pages with extensive, proper explanations, instead of making more pages and scattering less information over a greater range.

If a Location Page was made with one sentence on it, then it wasn't made correctly. It would not be scattering information, it would be placing that information in a more readable format than wouldn't be a massive wall of text which overwhelms viewers.


With the standards currently being argued literally any profile can be argued against in some way. Even something as wild as Westview (The MCU town in total control by Wanda Maximoff which transmutes anything entering its borders and much more) could be argued against because "It's a simple town with normal people, Wanda's influence doesn't mean anything because that's her abilities, not the towns, so it isn't valid"

 

[Promestein]

If a character can make a Location (Such as Scarlet Witch (MCU) making Westview), then it's much better of an approach to make it's own profiles for it.

What? No it isn't. It's way more efficient to list the information on the page. Westview's not even relevant. You say "It's a simple town with normal people, Wanda's influence doesn't mean anything because that's her abilities, not the towns, so it isn't valid" like it's not true. It has no reason to exist.

I'm not doing this for battles. I'm doing this to make indexing more accurate and convey more information efficiently without walls of text on a single profile. I don't partake in VS Threads.

A single page is more efficient.

If a Location Page was made with one sentence on it, then it wasn't made correctly. It would not be scattering information, it would be placing that information in a more readable format than wouldn't be a massive wall of text which overwhelms viewers.

An unnecessary location page shouldn't be made at all, even if it's well-made. Viewers can get over themselves. If they want to properly understand what they're dealing with they're gonna have to use their brain and read shit. A wall of text can always be made more manageable by proper paragraph breaks. How much explanation does most of this stuff even need?

With the standards currently being argued literally any profile can be argued against in some way.

Honestly I think this is a good thing.

 

[KieranH10]

What? No it isn't. It's way more efficient to list the information on the page. Westview's not even relevant. You say "It's a simple town with normal people, Wanda's influence doesn't mean anything because that's her abilities, not the towns, so it isn't valid" like it's not true. It has no reason to exist.

That is honestly ridiculous in my opinion. Westview is the absolute worst case of something that wouldn't be allowed that I've heard. Why are we bothering to make Location Profiles if the literal only thing we're going to take into account is what they look like?

A single page is more efficient.

Not if it has walls of text on it. Which we generally try to avoid if it isn't necessary, which is what makes us different from most other wikis. We summarize information.

An unnecessary location page shouldn't be made at all, even if it's well-made. Viewers can get over themselves. If they want to properly understand what they're dealing with they're gonna have to use their brain and read shit. A wall of text can always be made more manageable by proper paragraph breaks. How much explanation does most of this stuff even need?

There's completely contradicting arguments being made in this thread. Some are arguing we need to focus on our new users and viewers to the page, you are arguing they don't matter at all. I'm trying to compromise but with arguments like this it's impossible.

Honestly I think this is a good thing.

You think it is good that no Location on the wiki will be 100% valid for a profile? Meaning non of them are legit and literally shouldn't exist by current standards.

I'm trying to actually make this project worth while. A lot of the points that people are bringing up against this subject have already been addressed in the OP. Please read through and see if your arguments are in there.

 

[Antvasima]

I still think that AKM and Promestein make sense.

 

[KieranH10]

They're simply bringing up points that have been brought up in the OP without giving much more though.

 

[Antvasima]

Just because you have mentioned them in the OP, that does not mean that they are required to agree with your conclusions.

 

[KieranH10]

I know. But they have not given much to disprove what they disagree with, because the points they are using are also addressed there.

 

[AKM sama]

I was not done talking about it, other members moved the thread on so it was assumed concluded by those who disagreed with it. It was brought back up because I still believe it is wrong.

The only thing I can say at this point is that it isn't some CRT where something is objectively correct and another thing is objectively incorrect. This is regarding what policies we want to have, and we can pick and choose on that. We both can agree to disagree on this idea, and I feel there was already enough disagreement on it in the first thread, and while you thought this needed another discussion because you were not satisfied and wanted to make another attempt to explain your position, sometimes we just have to accept that not everything goes the way we want in a community as big as this.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with AKM.

 

[Fastestthingalive50]

I agree with Kieran.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

As an aside, could we maybe make location profiles specifically for characters who's powers are intrinsically tied to them?

For example, certain Cuphead characters have no powers outside of the ones that they get from manipulating their boss arena. Or how in order to fight Castlevania Dracula, you must be inside his castle.

I think a small section or note should be made standard for such pages to indicate that certain characters can't fight outside these locations.