• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Fixing the Situation With Locations...

AKM sama said:
If it's 5 against 4, that's not nearly enough agreement to change anything. You'd need a considerable staff support in order to push for some change. I'd argue that some of the people in the neutral list are also more along the lines of disagreement.
Click to expand...
It's also not nearly enough to accept this as rejected. I would like more staff input.
Three of four neutrals have implied or even stated they agree with a portion of the OP, but would like to be considered neutral, if they were leaning towards disagreement they would be in disagreement section.
AKM sama said:
This is a matter of wiki policy. Bureaucrats are the highest authority on the site to decide which policies to implement. If all of them share the same opinion on something like this and when there is no overwhelming support on the other side, I'm afraid there's nothing much to do about it. Not to take anything away from staff members or even regular users, but ranks and authority are there for a reason.
Click to expand...
This does not mean their word is absolute in any way, with respect.
AKM sama said:
You're asking people to either agree with you, or keep debating with you until they give up and agree with you. You just have to accept that not all things get accepted.
Click to expand...
I never once said this. This is what the opposition is doing if anything. I'm just asking for actual points to be made. I've removed portions of the OP which disagreed with me, and have accepted points going against what I would argue for. I do not like being considered unfair, and would never try to be such, please do not imply that I'm doing this for selfish reasons.
Once actual valid reasons for rejection are given, and they heavily outweigh the reasons of acceptance, I will gladly remove parts of the OP, like I have already.
 
I still don't get why people who just came in to say "yeah I agree" are being counted and treated on the same level, rhetorically speaking, as actual debate and argument.
KieranH10 said:
Once actual valid reasons for rejection are given, and they heavily outweigh the reasons of acceptance, I will gladly remove parts of the OP, like I have already.
Click to expand...
See, this is the issue. You're hinging this purely on your own judgment on what's a valid reason to disagree, and only accepting it if it heavily outweighs your own reasoning. That's never going to happen. You're not going to capitulate; why should we keep engaging with someone who tells us our reasons for disagreeing aren't valid, based entirely off his own subjective judgments?
 
It's also not nearly enough to accept this as rejected. I would like more staff input.
Click to expand...
You can call for more staff input, that's not a problem. But you need considerable support to get something accepted. The reverse is not true. If considerable support is not there to accept something, nothing will change. Practically, it's as good as being rejected. That's how things work.

This does not mean their word is absolute in any way, with respect.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be rude, so I'm sorry if I'm causing offense. But from what I said, it means that it is absolute in cases related to wiki policies.

I'm just asking for actual points to be made.
Click to expand...
I've said this many times, but just because you don't acknowledge other people's reasons because they are not good enough actual reasons in your perspective, doesn't mean they are not reasons. Similarly, I am not seeing any good enough productive reasons from your side and hence why I am disagreeing, it doesn't mean I am not acknowledging them.
 
AKM sama said:
You're asking people to either agree with you, or keep debating with you until they give up and agree with you.
Click to expand...
Might I add Kieran loops his arguments ad infinitum unless you concede on it, or call him out on it. This isn't how you argue subjectives since neither of us can "debunk" each other, you're meant to appeal to the third party then, which in this case are the other staff members.
 
At the very least I'm glad this discussion has stayed reasonable and hasn't got heated. Thank you for this, as this subject in general has not been like this overall admittedly.

I do not believe that I am pushing my own opinion on relevance of the oppositions points, If I am I do not mean to.
I am simply stating that as of currently, people have agreed against the opposition. But the opposition has not given reason against the current points against themselves.
 
I will note you down, do you have a reason you'd like me to note?
 
From what I read, I think I disagree with the OP, from the likes of Promestein and AKM's points.
 
Last edited:
So can somebody write a summary of the differences between Impress' and Kieran's versions of the page please?
 
I was looking for a more point by point schematic overview explanation.
 
I will attempt to compile each point for and against each subject brought up then.
This may take a while though, this is a big subject with a lot of stuff that has been discussed.
 
I just want a concise easily understood list of the differences between the two versions of the locations page. That is all.
 
The OP details a summarized conclusion to the rest of the thread. This generally hasn't changed.
KieranH10 said:
  • 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."
      • "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.
    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."
      • "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"
      • "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.
Click to expand...
I have taken out what has been fully rejected (By points and majority)
 
Which other staff members have commented here so far?
 
Colonel_Krukov, Therefir, KingTempest, ElixirBlue, Starter_Pack, Elizhaa, AKM, Promestein, Zark, Mr._Bambu, Sir_Ovens, DarkDragonMedeus, and DontTalk have all given input here.
 
They have already given their input here?
I meant we should bring more staff into this thread. Who haven't commented yet.
 
I agree with the post.

I don't know what "the Lookout" is, contrary to the "even those who don't follow the series would know what that is" rule, but I'm sure it's fine to keep.
 
It's the only Dragon Ball location I myself knew of, so I assumed it would be popular enough to work.
If there are any other Locations from Anime that you may know of that would be a better example, feel free to mention them. I just wanted to have locations from various medias.
 
I'm really not knowledgeable when it comes to anime, but from what I know, either the Shadow Realm or Pallet Town is probably the best I could think of.
 
KieranH10 said:
They have already given their input here?
I meant we should bring more staff into this thread. Who haven't commented yet.
Click to expand...
Well, I did that previously, and these are the ones that were interested enough to reply.

Also, I wanted some clarifications regarding what is or isn't acceptable.
 
Yes, but we know their stances. Everyone has confirmed their stance in this thread upon being asked, and nobody seems to be ready to change. So we seemingly need more staff opinions.
 
Not really. We have received enough staff members who reply and should not pester those who are not interested any further. The most constructive solution is if we get clarifications from everybody who are already here regarding what they find acceptable, especially given that none of this will pass otherwise, given that the bureaucrats are opposed, and you need a clear consensus to pass significant wiki policy changes. Otherwise we might as well simply close this thread immediately, since nothing is going to happen here.
 
You yourself have said there isn't enough staff backing on this thread.
We already know the opinions of the staff here, as I have said. So we need more input here.
The other two Bureaucrats have said that their word is not absolute against our staff. Yes, because it is a wiki policy, so their word means a lot, but this thread is even as of now. There is a majority agreement but the disagreement are Bureaucrats so the thread has stayed open, which I have been fine with, but now you are attempting to close a thread because you disagree with it and do not want to get further staff involved. Which is not helpful.

DarkDragonMedeus said:
I also already gave my thoughts on the matter and otherwise still neutral.
Click to expand...
What were your thoughts? Are you referring to your statement that the OP making good points? I will keep you as neutral, but would just like to know.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I also already gave my thoughts on the matter and otherwise still neutral.
Click to expand...
Okay. I was thinking that maybe several staff members could go through the suggestions that I linked to point by point, to get some progress with this, as otherwise we will unfortunately likely have to close this thread instead.
 
KieranH10 said:
You yourself have said there isn't enough staff backing on this thread.
We already know the opinions of the staff here, as I have said. So we need more input here.
The other two Bureaucrats have said that their word is not absolute against our staff. Yes, because it is a wiki policy, so their word means a lot, but this thread is even as of now. There is a majority agreement but the disagreement are Bureaucrats so the thread has stayed open, which I have been fine with, but now you are attempting to close a thread because you disagree with it and do not want to get further staff involved. Which is not helpful.
Click to expand...
No, I am trying to get some structure regarding which specific points that people disagree with or find acceptable, as otherwise nothing will happen here, given that bureaucrats have the final say regarding wiki policy changes, and you also need a clear staff consensus in order to pass such revisions, as I said earlier.

I personally do not have strong opinions regarding all of these points. I mainly trust the judgements of the other bureaucrats, and am trying to find some sort of constructive conclusions.
 
I have given this already. We know the stances of our staff that have commented.
 
Well, I think that I already sent notifications to most of our staff, so unless people collaborate with me to get much more point by point specific, I doubt that much will happen here.
 
You sent it at the start of the thread before anything had happened. We have since had 3 pages of discussion and are waiting on a conclusion.
 
Okay.

@The_Impress

Would you be willing to help me out here, by writing a point by point evaluation of the points in the post linked below, so I can ask our remaining staff members what they think, with both sides evenly presented, please? I would appreciate the help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Locked
Slightly adjusting our rules for bolded "powers and abilities" links
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Flashlight237
  • Locked
About The "Others" Section
2 3
Replies
84
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DivinumAeterna
Regarding the standards of Team Profiles
Replies
4
Views
547
DivinumAeterna
DivinumAeterna
DMUA
Removing Power of the Verse from Verse pages
2 3 4
Replies
147
Views
19K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Jinx666
'Continuity' Section for Verse Pages
Replies
37
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top