Fixing the Situation With Locations...

[KingTempest]

Ok, that is fine.
@KingTempest I am currently under the impression that you all agree with the OP, is this correct?

Yup

 

[ElixirBlue]

Since the OP still has Green Hill Zone as an example for “"Locations with extremely inconsistent structures with no canonical reasoning are not allowed.", I do not agree with the OP ;P

 

[DaReaperMan]

Since the OP still has Green Hill Zone as an example for “"Locations with extremely inconsistent structures with no canonical reasoning are not allowed.", I do not agree with the OP ;P

Right, gotta please all of the sonic fans lol

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @Dino_Ranger_Black @JustSomeWeirdo @LordGriffin1000 @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @The_Impress @QuasiYuri

Can you offer input here please?

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Ok, that is fine.
@Colonel_Krukov @Therefir @KingTempest @ElixirBlue I am currently under the impression that you all agree with the OP, is this correct?

I agree with most of the points.

 

[Starter_Pack]

My original post still stands true to my feelings on this subject.

I agreed with any corrections you made on my original post, so I am pretty sure I'm mostly in agreement with everything here.

 

[KieranH10]

Since the OP still has Green Hill Zone as an example for “"Locations with extremely inconsistent structures with no canonical reasoning are not allowed.", I do not agree with the OP ;P

Lol, my bad, I must have forgot to change it. Thank you. ^_^

I agreed with any corrections you made on my original post, so I am pretty sure I'm mostly in agreement with everything here.

Thank you too!

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm with AKM sama on functionally identical locations being unnecessary.

It makes sense to not allow extremely inconsistent locations. Although "extremely inconsistent" means to a degree that it makes a difference in a battle.

Don't care about which examples we use.

Moving the Hazards is ok, I guess.

Neutral on the rest.

 

[KieranH10]

As am I. Mots Locations are not functionally identical though if we consider all of the relevant reasons for their creation.

Yes. "Extremely inconsistent" sometimes by definition means that they have different enough incarnations to be separated profile-wise. How do you feel about the rules below? I feel it's much more reasonable than simply disallowing any profiles that aren't consistent in structure, properties, etc.

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), Green Hill Zone (Sonic the Hedgehog), Hyrule (Legend of Zelda)

As for the rest
Should I put you as generally Neutral?

 

[DontTalkDT]

As am I. Mots Locations are not functionally identical though if we consider all of the relevant reasons for their creation.

On the grand scale most fictional locations definitely are functionally identical. Like, most locations in fictions are literally normal cities or towns. Not really important for the rules, though, as long as we put down that they must be different to a battle relevant extent.

Yes. "Extremely inconsistent" sometimes by definition means that they have different enough incarnations to be separated profile-wise. How do you feel about the rules below? I feel it's much more reasonable than simply disallowing any profiles that aren't consistent in structure, properties, etc.

The same notable features, but different layouts can still be troublesome IMO. Say, for example, if in one generation a weapon locker is right at the starting point and in another, it's 200m away.

Personally, I would either want to say that profiles should be consistent to the degree that the difference in layout barely matters for battles or that profiles that aren't that consistent are made to be that consistent by specifying one particular layout. (i.e. they say 'weapon locker is assumed to stand at the spawn point' or something)

Given, I assume that are edge cases.

As for the rest
Should I put you as generally Neutral?

For the rest of the points I'm neutral I guess.

 

[KieranH10]

On the grand scale most fictional locations definitely are functionally identical. Like, most locations in fictions are literally normal cities or towns. Not really important for the rules, though, as long as we put down that they must be different to a battle relevant extent.

Visually, perhaps. For battles, also probably yes.
Locations have many more reasons for creation than battles though, helping character profiles as equipment or attacks, cosmologies, and much more were gone over in the previous thread, each of these must also be considered for what qualifies too. As they are just as, if not more important than battles, since they would actually influence our other profiles directly in some cases.

The same notable features, but different layouts can still be troublesome IMO. Say, for example, if in one generation a weapon locker is right at the starting point and in another, it's 200m away.

Personally, I would either want to say that profiles should be consistent to the degree that the difference in layout barely matters for battles or that profiles that aren't that consistent are made to be that consistent by specifying one particular layout. (i.e. they say 'weapon locker is assumed to stand at the spawn point' or something)

The first idea seems to indicate that battles are the only point for the profiles, which I have addressed above. However, the layout of a location often generally would not matter from what I have heard, notable features and more would contribute to battles more so than the shape of a location for example.

With the second idea, by "Specifying one particular layout" do you mean naming the pages separately? Such as Peaches Castle (Super Mario 64) and Peaches Castle (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story) for example. If this is what you're proposing then I agree with this, different incarnations of the same location which are different enough to qualify as separate profiles would definitely get their defining name.

For the rest of the points I'm neutral I guess.

Ok, I will count you as Neutral for now.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Visually, perhaps. For battles, also probably yes.
Locations have many more reasons for creation than battles though, helping character profiles as equipment or attacks, cosmologies, and much more were gone over in the previous thread, each of these must also be considered for what qualifies too. As they are just as, if not more important than battles, since they would actually influence our other profiles directly in some cases.

If a location is relevant for the attacks and stuff of a character that's fine with me. For the sake of explaining cosmologies I'm against creating them. We allow explanation pages and cosmologies are way better explained there, than by making like ten separate pages for parts of the cosmologies.

The first idea seems to indicate that battles are the only point for the profiles, which I have addressed above.

Yeah, those considerations don't apply if the profile serves to explain character abilities.

However, the layout of a location often generally would not matter from what I have heard, notable features and more would contribute to battles more so than the shape of a location for example.

Well, as I said, if the shape doesn't really matter it's fine. If the shape does matter for a location profile with primary battle purpose, then it's not so fine IMO.

With the second idea, by "Specifying one particular layout" do you mean naming the pages separately? Such as Peaches Castle (Super Mario 64) and Peaches Castle (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story) for example. If this is what you're proposing then I agree with this, different incarnations of the same location which are different enough to qualify as separate profiles would definitely get their defining name.

Nah. That things with different iterations should be separate pages/keys goes without saying. I mean something else, but it probably is needlessly convoluted anyway, so just ignore the idea.

 

[KieranH10]

If a location is relevant for the attacks and stuff of a character that's fine with me.

Ok, thank you.

For the sake of explaining cosmologies I'm against creating them. We allow explanation pages and cosmologies are way better explained there, than by making like ten separate pages for parts of the cosmologies.

I don't feel I got that point across so well, so I'd like to elaborate.
Location Profiles for Cosmology stuff aren't going to replace Cosmology Blogs, they would work hand-in-hand with them. Cosmology Blogs may go into detail about how exactly a Cosmology would work, Location Profiles would be more so for actually applying said scaling to a character profile. For example:

• Darkseid's profile may go something like this
  • Low 1-C(Exists within the Sphere of the Gods [With the Sphere of the Gods linking to a page of the realm, which would give a summary of relevant information regarding the realm and scaling about it])
    • While a Cosmology Blog would go into deep detail about the realm, it cannot as easily be linked to as a Profile.

Yeah, those considerations don't apply if the profile serves to explain character abilities.

I'm fine with this then.

Well, as I said, if the shape doesn't really matter it's fine. If the shape does matter for a location profile with primary battle purpose, then it's not so fine IMO.

That also seems fair.

Nah. That things with different iterations should be separate pages/keys goes without saying. I mean something else, but it probably is needlessly convoluted anyway, so just ignore the idea.

I see, sorry for misunderstanding lol. If you wish to bring it back up at some point this thread is open to ideas. Or dm me, I only want for these profiles to be as good as they can. So I'd be happy to discuss.


Now that it has been elaborated, It seems we generally agree on most subjects. I'm fine with your view on how profiles should be treated, as it seems generally similar to what I thought would work.
Would you like me to put you down for agreement?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Ok, that is fine.
@Colonel_Krukov @Therefir @KingTempest @ElixirBlue I am currently under the impression that you all agree with the OP, is this correct?

@Mr._Bambu @Starter_Pack @Sir_Ovens @DarkDragonMedeus Could you confirm that your current stance is neutral towards the OP.


@Antvasima could you bring some staff members here that may be able to help please. I'm unsure of who to call.

Neutral as in, I am in agreement insofar as the points I did not object to, and actively in disagreement with the points I did.

 

[KieranH10]

.

@Mr._Bambu just ensuring you saw this. Are you still in the same opinion?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't feel I got that point across so well, so I'd like to elaborate.
Location Profiles for Cosmology stuff aren't going to replace Cosmology Blogs, they would work hand-in-hand with them. Cosmology Blogs may go into detail about how exactly a Cosmology would work, Location Profiles would be more so for actually applying said scaling to a character profile. For example:

• Darkseid's profile may go something like this
  • Low 1-C(Exists within the Sphere of the Gods [With the Sphere of the Gods linking to a page of the realm, which would give a summary of relevant information regarding the realm and scaling about it])
    • While a Cosmology Blog would go into deep detail about the realm, it cannot as easily be linked to as a Profile.

An explanation page can easily be linked to a profile. E.g. Ichiban Ushiro no Daimao has an explanation page and for information about Non-virtual alternate dimensions one would simply link [[Ichiban_Ushiro_no_Daimaou_Explanation_Page#Non-virtual_Alternate_Dimensions|Non-virtual Alternate Dimensions]] which directly leads to the relevant explanation.

Location profiles aren't suited in layout to explain tiering and lack the structures to put them in the context of other relevant locations in the cosmology. So I maintain my position that cosmologies should be explained on explanation pages and location pages should not be created for that purpose.

Now that it has been elaborated, It seems we generally agree on most subjects. I'm fine with your view on how profiles should be treated, as it seems generally similar to what I thought would work.
Would you like me to put you down for agreement?

I believe my position isn't exactly in agreement with the OP?

 

[Antvasima]

An explanation page can easily be linked to a profile. E.g. Ichiban Ushiro no Daimao has an explanation page and for information about Non-virtual alternate dimensions one would simply link [[Ichiban_Ushiro_no_Daimaou_Explanation_Page#Non-virtual_Alternate_Dimensions|Non-virtual Alternate Dimensions]] which directly leads to the relevant explanation.

Location profiles aren't suited in layout to explain tiering and lack the structures to put them in the context of other relevant locations in the cosmology. So I maintain my position that cosmologies should be explained on explanation pages and location pages should not be created for that purpose.

I agree with this.

 

[KieranH10]

An explanation page can easily be linked to a profile. E.g. Ichiban Ushiro no Daimao has an explanation page and for information about Non-virtual alternate dimensions one would simply link [[Ichiban_Ushiro_no_Daimaou_Explanation_Page#Non-virtual_Alternate_Dimensions|Non-virtual Alternate Dimensions]] which directly leads to the relevant explanation.

Location profiles aren't suited in layout to explain tiering and lack the structures to put them in the context of other relevant locations in the cosmology. So I maintain my position that cosmologies should be explained on explanation pages and location pages should not be created for that purpose.

That seems fair enough.

I believe my position isn't exactly in agreement with the OP?

What you are describing sounds very similar to what the OP is trying to say.
Is there anything specific that you would change in the wording? Perhaps the OP needs rewording slightly?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Mr._Bambu just ensuring you saw this. Are you still in the same opinion?

I did, it didn't really satisfy my issues.

 

[KieranH10]

Ok. I will keep you as neutral then. Since you agree with some points but not others.

 

[Antvasima]

@Promestein @AKM sama @The_Impress

Are there any suggestions here that you think might be worthwhile to apply to the page?

 

[The_Impress]

Late to the party, may as well input on what I care for.

"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.

You don't know what that rule means, considering later points, guess I should've been clearer in wording

This was to counter matroyshka-filemaking, where sub-locations within an already listed location would get another page.

"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...

I love the confidence here actually.

"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

I'll actually go by the Galactus example given since I know the verse, it's incomparable.

The End isn't a place canonically able to change its structure like Galactus, who has the power to, this in fact is, me making a "Galactus (Composite)" page since we're taking different versions (seeds) of a location and putting it in the same file because I really want it.

We don't allow composites.

• 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.

Entire equipments change, entire island compositions change, and the arrival island can be anywhere.

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.

...do you recognize you're making a location file FOR AN ENTIRE COUNTRY? With a bajillion sublocations and whatnot?

Pick a Wakandan city, pick the battlegrounds, pick the palaces, but no, you chose an entire damn country.

The example you should think of, is Human Women (Marvel Comics) don't justify a profile.

...c'mon dude.

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.

No, I still think it's 100% unnecessary by my previous points

• "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.

I like that you never bring up the Nether, which is a far harder argument to make for.

The Nether for the record, is laughably variable in contrast to something like the End, structures can spawn in many biomes, shapes and sizes, and terrain is completely randomly generated, but you want to composite it, because you feel like it.

Springfield just has laughably inconsistent location, city size (it has been claimed to be the size of Alaska, deadass, and then be a small town, and then be a city) and layout (with the Springfield Nuclear Plant changing location like what, every episode?)

And honestly, at this point, just read the Composite Deletion thread, both of them share points; you're lisitng crap invalidly and impractically.

 

[Antvasima]

Can we all try to be polite here please? The "deadass" comment was uncalled for.

 

[KieranH10]

You don't know what that rule means, considering later points, guess I should've been clearer in wording

This was to counter matroyshka-filemaking, where sub-locations within an already listed location would get another page.

Creating sub-locations is massively more reliable than making massive, messy, incomprehensible pages.

I love the confidence here actually.

This doesn't help. But thank you I guess.

I'll actually go by the Galactus example given since I know the verse, it's incomparable.

The End isn't a place canonically able to change its structure like Galactus, who has the power to, this in fact is, me making a "Galactus (Composite)" page since we're taking different versions (seeds) of a location and putting it in the same file because I really want it.

We don't allow composites.

Why are you detailing it if it's incomparable, instead on commenting on the actual point? If you have nothing to say on the point itself, just mention that the example is incorrect, like others have already.
If Spinda is a more comparable example, explain to me why a Spinda profile would not be allowed.

Entire equipments change, entire island compositions change, and the arrival island can be anywhere.

Equipments do not change, and island compositions do not change... Literally just the layout of the realm is different. The end isn't gonna be made out of Netherack in somebodies world...

...do you recognize you're making a location file FOR AN ENTIRE COUNTRY? With a bajillion sublocations and whatnot?

Pick a Wakandan city, pick the battlegrounds, pick the palaces, but no, you chose an entire damn country.

The example you should think of, is Human Women (Marvel Comics) don't justify a profile.

...c'mon dude.

This also wasn't anything like the point as to why those examples were disallowed. Please read the OP again and comment on the points being brought up in those scenarios. If you wish to make another point, bring it up separately rather than quoting unrelated parts of the OP.

No, I still think it's 100% unnecessary by my previous points

What were those again? The section does not easily fit into any of the sections, the fact that there was debate about which section it should fit into proves that people will be confused. It's much easier to make it it's own.

I like that you never bring up the Nether, which is a far harder argument to make for.

The Nether for the record, is laughably variable in contrast to something like the End, structures can spawn in many biomes, shapes and sizes, and terrain is completely randomly generated, but you want to composite it, because you feel like it.

The Nether is exactly the same case, I wasn't going to repeat myself. It's exactly the same size every time, has exactly the same biomes every time, exactly the same inhabitants every time, exactly the same loot pool every time, and exactly the same structures every time. The only difference is the layout.

Springfield just has laughably inconsistent location, city size (it has been claimed to be the size of Alaska, deadass, and then be a small town, and then be a city) and layout (with the Springfield Nuclear Plant changing location like what, every episode?)

This is also just commenting on examples rather than the actual topic they're based on. So isn't helpful.

And honestly, at this point, just read the Composite Deletion thread, both of them share points; you're lisitng crap invalidly and impractically.

I dunno what this has to do with this. I'm implying essentially the same rules we have for other profiles. Not allowing the end or nether is like not allowing Spinda or any character who has an inconsistent size for example.

 

[AKM sama]

Can we all try to be polite here please? The "deadass" comment was uncalled for.

While Impress can definitely be more polite here, just so there is no confusion, "deadass" is slang for "seriously" or "not kidding", not an insult (which I think you understood it as). For example, "I'm deadass not lying to you."

 

[Antvasima]

Aha. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[The_Impress]

Creating sub-locations is massively more reliable than making massive, messy, incomprehensible pages.

It's also leading to repetitive filemaking, so there should be scrutiny in regards to it. Point stated that.

In general I think the input of someone like @Antvasima can be considered relevant, since I doubt he'll prefer, let's say, supervising 20 different files of what had already been covered in a single one. Logic being that multiple files in the structure "Continent" > "Countries" > "Regions" > "Cities" > "Landmarks" are completely valid.

Why are you detailing it if it's incomparable

So it's understood.

Instead on commenting on the actual point? If you have nothing to say on the point itself, just mention that the example is incorrect, like others have already.

...But I did

this in fact is, me making a "Galactus (Composite)" page since we're taking different versions (seeds) of a location and putting it in the same file because I really want it.

We don't allow composites.

If Spinda is a more comparable example, explain to me why a Spinda profile would not be allowed.

Idk the verse so idk the basis of this comparison. Hence no comment, like I said.

Equipments do not change

Factually incorrect, loots in End Cities are variable

and island compositions do not change

...mate 1000 blocks onwards the entire map is randombly generated, you're just saying incorrect claims

... Literally just the layout of the realm is different.

Which is extremely relevant.

This also wasn't anything like the point as to why those examples were disallowed. Please read the OP again and comment on the points being brought up in those scenarios. If you wish to make another point, bring it up separately rather than quoting unrelated parts of the OP.

Please make a better OP with examples that make sense next time, because I don't see what your point is, then, if that doesn't address it.

What were those again? The section does not easily fit into any of the sections

Spike Pits and Lava Pits were was Notable Areas, any of the rigid singular hazards you mentioned, were Notable Objects.

We're not bulking up the format because you don't want to understand basic terminologies, Kieran, Hazards is covered by the current standards, this is something actually established prior.

The fact that there was debate about which section it should fit into proves that people will be confused. It's much easier to make it it's own.

This is a dumb point tbh, like... do you know people can be confused what to put in Striking Strength? Have we removed that category? We haven't.

The Nether is exactly the same case, I wasn't going to repeat myself. has exactly the same biomes every time, exactly the same inhabitants every time, exactly the same loot pool every time, and exactly the same structures every time. The only difference is the layout.

And the layout matters alot.

If I don't know where the hell my characters are put in respect to important resources, or even basic terrain they're present in, you're making an irrelevant file in terms of Vs. Debating.

I can just... not use the Nether in any relevant sense, as a location.

This is also just commenting on examples rather than the actual topic they're based on. So isn't helpful.

Actual topic is better explained through examples. Debating basics, so like... are you not noting a single point proven in these example comments.

I dunno what this has to do with this. I'm implying essentially the same rules we have for other profiles. Not allowing the end or nether is like not allowing Spinda or any character who has an inconsistent size for example.

Okay so

We're focused on listing characters, not locations. Stop acting like locations are a priority file and thus comparable 1-to-1 to character files, character inconsistencies we're forced to account for.

By contrast, locations have 4 files total, which can be deleted by single admin under 30 minutes, they're not priority, and if certain files are derailing to wiki focus, guess what? We don't list 'em.

In respect to Vs. Debating, the point of the wiki, locations are a VASTLY separate concept than characters:
If a location doesn't even have a consistent layout, I repeat, how will I judge my character can reach resources they require, and how will I judge basic combat notions like cover, locale advantages, and even exits for that matter. Answer: I can't, I'm stuck with a poor representation of the location that ignores all the above stated advantages, and honestly defeats the purpose of a location file to begin with.

Your suggestion is instead compositing the Nether, which as we have established, leads to poor representation of the file, since it's the ideal version of a variable terrain i.e. your headcanon.

Also unless you're getting promoted to content moderator and willing to verify all the files such as that posted, you're bulking up the wiki and by proxy, content mod workload, with files unusable for matches, honestly also for stat indexing, all because YOU want it, so no, it's not as negligible a task when you're getting other people to work on yoru behalf.

Can we all try to be polite here please? The "deadass" comment was uncalled for.

I mean I haven't made an insult towards Kieran, nor am I being aggressive from what I can tell. So idk what warrants this.

 

[Antvasima]

I thought that it was some kind of insult. My apologies.

 

[KieranH10]

It's also leading to repetitive filemaking, so there should be scrutiny in regards to it. Point stated that.

In general I think the input of someone like @Antvasima can be considered relevant, since I doubt he'll prefer, let's say, supervising 20 different files of what had already been covered in a single one. Logic being that multiple files in the structure "Continent" > "Countries" > "Regions" > "Cities" > "Landmarks" are completely valid.

Everybody's point is considered valid. If bureaucrats wish to respond again with more points regarding the situation they can, but upon asking, they haven't, and have said that they have nothing more they wish to say. So the current consensus is what has since been agreed.

...But I did

While quoting something completely irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

Factually incorrect, loots in End Cities are variable

It is not. They all pick from the exact same loot pool. We are well aware of what can specifically spawn in end cities.

...mate 1000 blocks onwards the entire map is randombly generated, you're just saying incorrect claims

I'm not though? 1000 blocks away it's still made of Endstone... Hence composition is exactly the same, you are never going to find an End made of Dirt, or any other Block...

Which is extremely relevant.

Not really in the terms of how we treat the profiles. There isn't a "Layout" section, we don't need to detail that "There's a chest 3cm from the second most south-east door"
I don't see how this is your point when the perfect template you've tried so desperately to keep up also doesn't account for this at all, let alone in this level of detail.

Please make a better OP with examples that make sense next time, because I don't see what your point is, then, if that doesn't address it.

So many people have understood the OP until now. Please read it again.

Spike Pits and Lava Pits were was Notable Areas, any of the rigid singular hazards you mentioned, were Notable Objects.

We're not bulking up the format because you don't want to understand basic terminologies, Kieran, Hazards is covered by the current standards, this is something actually established prior.

Why are you actually talking like this? It's not that I "don't want to understand" anything, when you make a point, I will understand it.
Also, prior to what?

This is a dumb point tbh, like... do you know people can be confused what to put in Striking Strength? Have we removed that category? We haven't.

You realize what you just said proves my point not yours right? Thanks. People don't understand Striking Strength (Like Hazards), So we have kept it (Like we should with Hazards)

And the layout matters alot.

If I don't know where the hell my characters are put in respect to important resources, or even basic terrain they're present in, you're making an irrelevant file in terms of Vs. Debating.

I can just... not use the Nether in any relevant sense, as a location.

For starters many people would disagree with you there, and have actually said so in this very thread. Not many battles go that far into detail about a fight, and not many people would be interested in a battle that detailed, you might, but nobody else would...

Actual topic is better explained through examples. Debating basics, so like... are you not noting a single point proven in these example comments.

There hasn't been a single proven point that I see, no.
All i'm seeing is you talk about Galactus and then say "We don't make composites", but failed to add the "But if the character is just randomly inconsistent in size it's fine" which would apply to this.

Okay so

We're focused on listing characters, not locations. Stop acting like locations are a priority file and thus comparable 1-to-1 to character files, character inconsistencies we're forced to account for.

.I'm not acting like they're a priority file lol. But if we can account for Character inconsistencies, we can just as easily account for Locations, it isn't a hard thing to do.

By contrast, locations have 4 files total, which can be deleted by single admin under 30 minutes, they're not priority, and if certain files are derailing to wiki focus, guess what? We don't list 'em.

Are you implying Locations should stay at 4 Files? Are you implying that Locations should be treated like garbage because there's 4 of them so it's easy for Mods to remove them? I genuinely don't see your point here. What does this have to do with anything I'm saying? None of what is being proposed is "Derailing" to anything.

In respect to Vs. Debating, the point of the wiki, locations are a VASTLY separate concept than characters:
If a location doesn't even have a consistent layout, I repeat, how will I judge my character can reach resources they require, and how will I judge basic combat notions like cover, locale advantages, and even exits for that matter. Answer: I can't, I'm stuck with a poor representation of the location that ignores all the above stated advantages, and honestly defeats the purpose of a location file to begin with.

You (Like many others have) are acting like Battles are the only reason for Locations to exist. This point doesn't apply when you account for the other reasons.

Your suggestion is instead compositing the Nether, which as we have established, leads to poor representation of the file, since it's the ideal version of a variable terrain i.e. your headcanon.

What is headcanon about it? If this was headcanon literally every page we have on the wiki would be headcanon in one way or another...
You are currently arguing to disallow a profile because it looks like this, but sometimes looks like this... Or this area because sometimes it looks like this...

Also unless you're getting promoted to content moderator and willing to verify all the files such as that posted, you're bulking up the wiki and by proxy, content mod workload, with files unusable for matches, honestly also for stat indexing, all because YOU want it, so no, it's not as negligible a task when you're getting other people to work on yoru behalf.

Lmao. I've only tried to think about other staff in this subject and nobody cared anyway. Don't try and say I'm being selfish when every thread made has been open to change, fair for everyone, and has dropped subjects that have genuinely been debunked and therefor rejected. I've also tried stopping work for the mods by temporarily taking the format down, but you declined, wanting to keep your format up when it served no purpose at the time. On the basis that you weren't informed or something, rather than letting it stay down and potentially stopping work for the mods you're defending rn.

The actual point however also only assumes Locations are ever going to be made for matches, which is just blatantly incorrect.

 

[Promestein]

I generally agree with Zark and have expressed this already.

With this said, chill out.

 

[The_Impress]

Kieran is arguing subjectives with minimal elaboration (also factually incorrect claims and context-ignorant assertions), and honestly I feel like he has exhausted his points because alot of these were addressed in the prior revision and generally disagreed upon (Kieran would like to say otherwise, and act like general impressions by staff members in terms of the entire thread are comparable to point-by-point dissections, where all of Kieran's points were struggling to gain support.)

At this point put these specific topics to a vote, I've made my points, he's made his. We'll summarize both our opinions to a single paragraph per topic, and see what stays afloat, eh?

 

[Antvasima]

That might be a good idea.

 

[KieranH10]

Every single thing that was said in that paragraph is completely false...

 

[The_Impress]

Nice way of not responding to the proposition, and no, for the record.

 

[KieranH10]

The proposition is basically "Let's rush the thread along once again without discussing the points"
We also already have what the "votes" would be.

Agree: (13, 5 Staff) Keeweed, TheDivineHost, MidnightDawn1, Colonel_Krukov, Therefir, AbaddonTheDisappointment, XSOULOFCINDERX, Fastestthingalive50, KingTempest, Greenshifter, Emirp sumitpo, ElixirBlue, Starter_Pack

Disagree: (4, 3 Staff) AKM sama (Seems to generally disagree with the OP, and prefers Zarks version), Promestein (Seems to disagree with what should qualify for a profile), Antvasima (Agrees with AKM and Promestein), NomsNoms (Supposedly agrees with AKM, Prom, and Bambu)

Neutral: (4 Staff) Mr._Bambu (Agrees with some points, disagrees with others), Sir_Ovens, DarkDragonMedeus, DontTalkDT (Uncertain, opinions seemingly generally similar to what is being proposed, minor differences)

This has been consistently updated throughout the thread, and essentially all staff have confirmed their stance. I asked should this be used and Ant said no.

If you don't wish to discuss any further you aren't required to, but I'm not letting another thread be rushed along.

 

[Tllmbrg]

All the bureaucrats said no, I don't see how you're passing this thing considering final authority and all

 

[Tllmbrg]

For starters many people would disagree with you there, and have actually said so in this very thread. Not many battles go that far into detail about a fight, and not many people would be interested in a battle that detailed, you might, but nobody else would...

For the record I think this's a terrible point for allowing stuff like The Nether or End
Ain't our fault people chose to do a match and ignore important details in a fight there, and if you picked characters where said thing don't even matter why you even used this location?
In the end of the day Location pages are for match usage so having Location pages which we can't actually properly use in a match is pointless

 

[KieranH10]

In the end of the day Location pages are for match usage so having Location pages which we can't actually properly use in a match is pointless

This is simply not true.

 

[Tllmbrg]

This is simply not true.

We're vs battle wiki, we index stuff in relation to vs matches
If an arena can't be used at all in a match properly then we shouldn't index it, simple
And before you say anything, yes if a character can't be used in a vs match at all it should be deleted too

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

We're vs battle wiki, we index stuff in relation to vs matches
If an arena can't be used at all in a match properly then we shouldn't index it, simple
And before you say anything, yes if a character can't be used in a vs match at all it should be deleted too

You mean like Man-Thing? I thought we just Match Banned Characters like that?