• 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.

Important: A new rule about References

The beauty of this thread almost brought a tear to my eye.

Some of the questions mentioned here (should novel number or chapter number be used for fan translations) are answered in the References page I didn't know existed until just now.

Looks like I'll even need to update my pages which already have references to better fit the standard format, but I'm just glad this is getting wider and wider adoption.
 
Been adding references to all my new pages, as for other pages, mostly just done the most popular characters of the verses, not really tackling entire verses right now, except isekai at peace, since pretty much all the characters have references.

That's gonna take a long time, honestly comes down to if i have time and feel like it.

Friday i will probably do Hajime Nagumo next.
 
Now I will note that doing a verse like Warhammer 40K... yeah not gonna happen. Way too damn many books to go through for everything.
 
DaReaperMan said:
Now I will note that doing a verse like Warhammer 40K... yeah not gonna happen. Way too damn many books to go through for everything.
Click to expand...
If no-one currently or will ever know what any of the sources for Warhammer 40K are or where they come from, that sounds like a massive issue.

Don't be so pessimistic. It doesn't have to be done all at once right this second.
 
Agnaa said:
If no-one currently or will ever know what any of the sources for Warhammer 40K are or where they come from, that sounds like a massive issue.

Don't be so pessimistic. It doesn't have to be done all at once right this second.
Click to expand...
Crabwhale is at least a bit knowledgeable, I think Wokistan is a bit knowledgeable as well, but I'm not in the WH40K revision discord so I don't know outside of that

Sorry for being pessimistic, and I know that
 
Tllm has already been progressively doing this for D&D pages- going back and patching them up. I suppose I can occasionally do so as well. We've been requiring References sections for quite some time, though, for the verse.
 
All I can say is, I'll prolly add references to the verses I know of, but that's about it, can't go beyond that.
 
Thank you to everybody who are helping out.
 
Thank you for helping out. There is no great hurry though.
 
So, I'm assuming we're extending this requirement to information pages, right? If so, then the gravitational binding energy page needs citations - not only for its planetary formula, but for its stellar formula as well. The first one should be trivial since we can just pluck it off of Wikipedia, but as for the other one, I can't find any citations for it on the Internet despite intensive searching. The fact that this allegedly more accurate method for calculating the GBE of a star isn't already widespread makes our values for High 5-A and upwards questionable due to the lack of a reference that our members can use.

What makes this even worse is that based on what I could find, nobody can agree on what the GBE of the Sun is: we give one value (5.693×10^41 J), Wikipedia presents another value (2.276×10^41 J), and a few scientific papers (don't have them on me RN) end with yet another value (3.8×10^41 J). While these values aren't dramatically different from one another, it still demonstrates a potentially major issue: namely, that the lack of a provided citation for our GBE formula for stars, combined with other sources coming up with multiple different values for the GBE of the Sun (whereas the GBE of Earth and Mercury are well-known), makes it look like we just pulled the formula out of thin air.

To top it all off, if it turns out that we are wrong about star GBE after all, we will have to revise tier 4 and tier 3 yet again, in which case we run the risk of putting stress on the calculation group as they scramble to update all of the relevant calculations and on other users (staff or not) as they find themselves having to search potentially thousands of pages for updates that need to be done. Plus, seeing as people are going back to school around this time of year, it would be unfortunate timing for such sweeping changes, to say the least.

I'm hopeful that it doesn't come to this and we can successfully cite where we got the formula for star GBE from without having to overhaul a sizable portion of the tiering system, but I didn't want this issue to be overlooked, either - it's something that I've noticed a while ago, and this seems like a good opportunity to bring it to the staff team's attention. I'd also like to apologize if I'm sounding dramatic, as that is not my intention and it certainly isn't the end of the world if we have to move stuff around because of a simple mistake.


On a more on-topic note, I can help out with adding references to the Cthulhu Mythos pages, though we do still have some more revisions lined up for the verse, so it depends on how the other people working on the verse (Ultima, Kira, etc.) are feeling, I guess.
 
Last edited:
KingPin0422 said:
So, I'm assuming we're extending this requirement to information pages, right? If so, then the gravitational binding energy page needs citations - not only for its planetary formula, but for its stellar formula as well. The first one should be trivial since we can just pluck it off of Wikipedia, but as for the other one, I can't find any citations for it on the Internet despite intensive searching. The fact that this allegedly more accurate method for calculating the GBE of a star isn't already widespread makes our values for High 5-A and upwards questionable due to the lack of a reference that our members can use.

What makes this even worse is that based on what I could find, nobody can agree on what the GBE of the Sun is: we give one value (5.693×10^41 J), Wikipedia presents another value (2.276×10^41 J), and a few scientific papers (don't have them on me RN) end with yet another value (3.8×10^41 J). While these values aren't dramatically different from one another, it still demonstrates a potentially major issue: namely, that the lack of a provided citation for our GBE formula for stars, combined with other sources coming up with multiple different values for the GBE of the Sun (whereas the GBE of Earth and Mercury are well-known), makes it look like we just pulled the formula out of thin air.

To top it all off, if it turns out that we are wrong about star GBE after all, we will have to revise tier 4 and tier 3 yet again, in which case we run the risk of putting stress on the calculation group as they scramble to update all of the relevant calculations and on other users (staff or not) as they find themselves having to search potentially thousands of pages for updates that need to be done. Plus, seeing as people are going back to school around this time of year, it would be unfortunate timing for such sweeping changes, to say the least.

I'm hopeful that it doesn't come to this and we can successfully cite where we got the formula for star GBE from without having to overhaul a sizable portion of the tiering system, but I didn't want this issue to be overlooked, either - it's something that I've noticed a while ago, and this seems like a good opportunity to bring it to the staff team's attention. I'd also like to apologize if I'm sounding dramatic, as that is not my intention and it certainly isn't the end of the world if we have to move stuff around because of a simple mistake.


On a more on-topic note, I can help out with adding references to the Cthulhu Mythos pages, though we do still have some more revisions lined up for the verse, so it depends on how the other people working on the verse (Ultima, Kira, etc.) are feeling, I guess.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @Amelia_Lonelyheart

Do any of you know where to find this reference? I would appreciate the help.
 
didn't we all learn about APA or MLA format already, this is like applying ur homework (non)skills that ur alrdy doing right now
 
KingPin0422 said:
So, I'm assuming we're extending this requirement to information pages, right? If so, then the gravitational binding energy page needs citations - not only for its planetary formula, but for its stellar formula as well. The first one should be trivial since we can just pluck it off of Wikipedia, but as for the other one, I can't find any citations for it on the Internet despite intensive searching. The fact that this allegedly more accurate method for calculating the GBE of a star isn't already widespread makes our values for High 5-A and upwards questionable due to the lack of a reference that our members can use.

What makes this even worse is that based on what I could find, nobody can agree on what the GBE of the Sun is: we give one value (5.693×10^41 J), Wikipedia presents another value (2.276×10^41 J), and a few scientific papers (don't have them on me RN) end with yet another value (3.8×10^41 J). While these values aren't dramatically different from one another, it still demonstrates a potentially major issue: namely, that the lack of a provided citation for our GBE formula for stars, combined with other sources coming up with multiple different values for the GBE of the Sun (whereas the GBE of Earth and Mercury are well-known), makes it look like we just pulled the formula out of thin air.

To top it all off, if it turns out that we are wrong about star GBE after all, we will have to revise tier 4 and tier 3 yet again, in which case we run the risk of putting stress on the calculation group as they scramble to update all of the relevant calculations and on other users (staff or not) as they find themselves having to search potentially thousands of pages for updates that need to be done. Plus, seeing as people are going back to school around this time of year, it would be unfortunate timing for such sweeping changes, to say the least.

I'm hopeful that it doesn't come to this and we can successfully cite where we got the formula for star GBE from without having to overhaul a sizable portion of the tiering system, but I didn't want this issue to be overlooked, either - it's something that I've noticed a while ago, and this seems like a good opportunity to bring it to the staff team's attention. I'd also like to apologize if I'm sounding dramatic, as that is not my intention and it certainly isn't the end of the world if we have to move stuff around because of a simple mistake.


On a more on-topic note, I can help out with adding references to the Cthulhu Mythos pages, though we do still have some more revisions lined up for the verse, so it depends on how the other people working on the verse (Ultima, Kira, etc.) are feeling, I guess.
Click to expand...
For GBE I have saved on my laptop official sources from universities and professors that has various GBE's from the moon, Earth, Jupiter, Sun and iirc even the galaxy figured out already. I can post them once I get home.
 
Thank you for the help DontTalk. Would you be willing to add a reference for this as requested please?
 
Okay. Thank you for the help.
 
Thank you very much for helping out.
 
Could someone help me about reformating the two profiles about Monkie Kid? I have added references for the two profiles long before the policy came out, but I have real life things to do and I currently don't have enough time to change these references on my own.
 
As I said earlier, there is no hurry with adding references to all pages at once.
 
So one question, if 90% of the character's ability are located on one single page of a certain comic/manga/light novel/any books in general, must i put the same reference on all these abilities?
 
There is a way to use the same reference multiple times through some easy to use code.

Please read our References page to learn how to do so.
 
By the way, some of the references I used were from tabletop rpg manuals so I just structured it like this:

[Franchise/Verse]; [Manual Title] (Edition/Volume); pg. #

Example:

Warhammer Fantasy; Tome of Corruption (2nd Edition Fantasy Roleplay); pg. 242
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
References for Common Feats Re-organization
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
H3110l12345I20
  • Locked
References, but we make them more credible in "The Real World" official profiles.
2
Replies
63
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
  • Sticky
Important! New Pages NEED References
2 3
Replies
92
Views
12K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top