-
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 Question: Wiki Opinion on Verse Audits
- Thread starter Mr. Bambu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vs battles staff
- Status
- 6,104
- 5,102
That's what I'm saying. We can't purge pages realistically just because they lack scans or, in Gwen's case that time, calcs.
Some "dead" verses are being worked on as we speak anyway. It's just that some people like to compile all the information they can before making a CRT or make a respect thread-esque blog.
Outdated pages being bad is a given on any wikia. It's our current, manipulated, blatantly false pages that need to be questioned.
Some "dead" verses are being worked on as we speak anyway. It's just that some people like to compile all the information they can before making a CRT or make a respect thread-esque blog.
Outdated pages being bad is a given on any wikia. It's our current, manipulated, blatantly false pages that need to be questioned.
- 20,504
- 1,587
The only problem i may have with this is if this turns out to be a "rule" kind of scenario. Where no matter what if it doesn't fill in the requirements, the verse should be gone, instead of looking at it on a case by case basis.
An example here would be a verse like Armed With Wings. Let's assume i didn't get around to reworking it and there were no one who could stand up for the verse's bad profiles. The verse has like 30 minutes worth of lore, it would be easy for people to get into and fix the verse instead of deleting it for lack of good profiles.
This was just an example, but this would be my only problem with this. We shouldn't apply computing judgement on everything with like 3 criterrias that should they not be completed the verse gets deleted, but instead look at how hard or complex a verse is, if there is anyone who would want to get into the verse (so that we could postpone it's rework until said person has finished it) etc.
An example here would be a verse like Armed With Wings. Let's assume i didn't get around to reworking it and there were no one who could stand up for the verse's bad profiles. The verse has like 30 minutes worth of lore, it would be easy for people to get into and fix the verse instead of deleting it for lack of good profiles.
This was just an example, but this would be my only problem with this. We shouldn't apply computing judgement on everything with like 3 criterrias that should they not be completed the verse gets deleted, but instead look at how hard or complex a verse is, if there is anyone who would want to get into the verse (so that we could postpone it's rework until said person has finished it) etc.
- 20,504
- 1,587
Also while Sera doesn't have a bad point, i disagree. New and false profiles are usually easier to take care of, as they have at least some form of support. Whereas dead verses would usually have dead supporters that have been blocked, left the wiki or have been in-active for far too long. We are primarily an indexing site, just cus they are old and bad doesn't mean they should stay that way, it would affect our status as an indexing site if we have piles of verses with heavily questionable statistics and overall very bad profiles.
- 14,879
- 12,381
That was the initial plan with Bambu's idea, but as you can see from the message wall thread, staff thought that starting off with checking a bunch of popular verses for accuracy would cause protests/user frustration. I'm open to either approach if staff consensus changed, but the consensus was to start with less popular verses first.Sera EX said:
Also our current drafts for the criteria we'd pit verses against is created with less popular verses in mind, so we'd need to revise those to work better for popular verses.
This part of the discussion started around here.
- 2,462
- 1,192
I agree, mostly because there is a verse that quite literally fits that description.
- 6,868
- 4,225
Yeah, quality control should exist. I agree.
- 1,870
- 462
1. I dont see any reason going against checking profiles for accuracy
2. So this would be a new staff group?
3. If so, the major question would be: what color will their names get!?
2. So this would be a new staff group?
3. If so, the major question would be: what color will their names get!?
- 165,119
- 72,045
I think that we should start with finding the verses with blatant guesswork statistics and/or poor quality grammar and structure first. It is more likely that they are relatively less well known, but there are popular verses of very poor quality as well.
- 391
- 17
i agree
- 8,373
- 3,043
I agree
- 10,502
- 11,572
As for what should be filtered here: In my opinion it only profiles with no active supporters / knowledgeable members should get on the deletion list.
Everything from which we know that it has someone that can speak for the verse deserves a CRT. If the CRT doesn't lead anywhere it can still be deleted.
From those profiles with no supporters / knowledgeable members also just those with no reasonably well justified statistics.
I would suggest to work as follows:
-If you find a profile you think should get a CRT, because you doubt the statistics, that can be done whenever. Group or not.
-As for deletion, I would suggest the following protocol:
1. Find profiles and put them on the list, which is published in a deletion thread at least 24h before deletion.
2. Add the delete template to all the profiles the are on the list. (We should modify it, to link to the thread regarding deletion)
3. Once a week, but at least 24 hours after the delete template was added to the last profile, a bot deletes all profiles in the candidates for deletion category.
Before that happens users then have an at least 24 hour long period to say that they wish to debate the deletion in the thread, in which case the delete template (together with its category) can/should immediately be removed from the profile and a CRT on the subject should be made.
Everything from which we know that it has someone that can speak for the verse deserves a CRT. If the CRT doesn't lead anywhere it can still be deleted.
From those profiles with no supporters / knowledgeable members also just those with no reasonably well justified statistics.
I would suggest to work as follows:
-If you find a profile you think should get a CRT, because you doubt the statistics, that can be done whenever. Group or not.
-As for deletion, I would suggest the following protocol:
1. Find profiles and put them on the list, which is published in a deletion thread at least 24h before deletion.
2. Add the delete template to all the profiles the are on the list. (We should modify it, to link to the thread regarding deletion)
3. Once a week, but at least 24 hours after the delete template was added to the last profile, a bot deletes all profiles in the candidates for deletion category.
Before that happens users then have an at least 24 hour long period to say that they wish to debate the deletion in the thread, in which case the delete template (together with its category) can/should immediately be removed from the profile and a CRT on the subject should be made.
- 12,552
- 2,508
I think DontTalk's protocol is good, but supporter(s) of the verse in question, and the person who made the profile, should be notified that the profile is up for deletion. Otherwise there'll be a fair few cases where the supporters don't see that an obscure profile that they are knowledgable on is about to be deleted. Also 24 hours may be harsh, I'm fairly active and there's been quite a few times where I haven't been able to check on the site for over a day.
- 165,119
- 72,045
@DontTalkDT
I would suggest checking for old discussion threads regarding the obscure verses in question in order to get information as well.
I am also uncomfortable with using mass-delete bot scripts, as they can easily do extreme damage, and are not able to discriminate.
I would suggest checking for old discussion threads regarding the obscure verses in question in order to get information as well.
I am also uncomfortable with using mass-delete bot scripts, as they can easily do extreme damage, and are not able to discriminate.
- 6,011
- 2,117
I had a similar idea to DT but I wanted to suggest to create a Thread especially for profile which need improvement, above the fact that we need to remove profiles, we need accuracy, so it's better to try to make them accurate if possible.
- 20,504
- 1,587
Yeah bot delete is not a good idea. It's not gonna be rare for a knowledgeable member not to realize about the profile deletion or things like that. I would go for something like this. There should be around 20-30 profiles(?) that are in need of rework (just a random number im using as an example). We make a thread post all those there then we discuss what can be fixed and what not. That thread should get "highlighted" so that there is no one missing out on it. Then if there is no one who can fix a certain verse or profile, if majority thinks it should be deleted and no one is willing to take up the series (read or watch it to save it). Then it can be deleted.
This my best idea right now. However one thing to note ^^^ this should NOT turn to be a majority vote decision, but rather reasonability.
This my best idea right now. However one thing to note ^^^ this should NOT turn to be a majority vote decision, but rather reasonability.
- 4,825
- 2,459
I agree with @The Causality. I think a thread should be made especially for these profiles. Ex. Chose an "N" number of profiles then discuss them/see if they are accurate or not/etc. Focus on them, then after let's say 3 Days if they are backed/proved their accuracy then be deleted.
- 39,354
- 15,165
^For adding more on Dodong point, there is a verse that popular outside of wikia but not in wikia itself like Nanoha, No Game No Life, and Nurarihyon no Mago
- 14,879
- 12,381
We were thinking of something pretty similar, but with a few differences.
1. We'd give a leeway of one week, rather than one day, before a page gets deleted.
2. We'd inform supporters/knowledgeable members (as GyroNutz suggested).
3. We'd leave the thread where we announce these "Up for deletion" announcements locked - any interested member would simply have to notify someone involved that they'd like to defend a verse on a message wall, and then the verse's deletion would be stalled. This is mainly a measure to reduce clutter in the thread, and practically would work pretty similar to what DT described.
1. We'd give a leeway of one week, rather than one day, before a page gets deleted.
2. We'd inform supporters/knowledgeable members (as GyroNutz suggested).
3. We'd leave the thread where we announce these "Up for deletion" announcements locked - any interested member would simply have to notify someone involved that they'd like to defend a verse on a message wall, and then the verse's deletion would be stalled. This is mainly a measure to reduce clutter in the thread, and practically would work pretty similar to what DT described.
- 4,825
- 2,459
Yeah, it should work as one day is too short and too fast for some verses or thanks to how not all people are gone see it within a single day.
Also, how would the verses with a single supporter works as I saw this mentioned in Matt's wall.
Also, how would the verses with a single supporter works as I saw this mentioned in Matt's wall.
- 12,552
- 2,508
If what they're saying is controversial and sketchy, either we get people who have read/watched the series to see if they corroborate or a trusted member could volunteer to look through the verse themselves. Iirc we've done this for verses like GetBackers before.
- 20,504
- 1,587
Wait, the suggestions are significanlty different. As one is just highlighting a thread people might not take interest on as a verse they like may not be on the list at the moment, so they could unsubscribe, leading to a scenario where their verse does get on the list, but they do not notice it. The other is highlighting the "FULL" list, so that right off the bat, people who see their verse on the list will speak up.
So it's really a difference of "posting a start" vs "posting a result". I believe the latter is better for the reason i mentioned.
So it's really a difference of "posting a start" vs "posting a result". I believe the latter is better for the reason i mentioned.
- 10,502
- 11,572
Is deleting all profiles within a category with a bot really that dangerous? We would be sorting the profiles into the category per hand, after all.Antvasima said:
Though deleting them per hand is just as viable, of course, it just increases the workload.
I would none the less suggesting adding the template, as the edit will alert everyone that is following the page.
Personally I find it rather awkward to have to ask a random person about it (especially since the random person than also has to respond in time). If you don't want to have it in the same thread, I would just make a second one for the purpose of that.Agnaa said:
- 1,461
- 764
1. It's a fantastic idea in theory, and one I'm surprised was not already implemented given the very purpose of the wiki.
2. It's a difficult to implement idea in theory as well: most discussion is already centered around stating it is indeed a good idea but to get it off the ground a solid base for how to approach it is severely necessary.
Regarding 2, instead of going by popularity vs unpopularity, I would propose the following -
Create a core group of trusted persons who have showcased excellent interpretation skills and the prowess to grasp context and be as objective as possible, and on a weekly basis go verse-by-verse, alphabetically, and pour over the verse to find any inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
This ensures that there is no bias, that there isn't anything missed, and is methodical enough that the wiki public at large are aware of precisely where the group is going next for its insight. Any issues that are foreseen by knowledgable members can be put into a thread for the future and archived to be looked over when the verse they represent is reached in its own timely manner, or special exceptions can be made if that week's 'quota' is a small verse which makes it simpler in approaching and rectifying.
Of course, knowledgable persons can also simply PM the group with upcoming issues and those themselves organized into separate discord channels and made into pinned messages for the future.
Organization is the most difficult and most necessary part of any large undertaking, so hopefully my thoughts have some value here in getting it off the ground.
2. It's a difficult to implement idea in theory as well: most discussion is already centered around stating it is indeed a good idea but to get it off the ground a solid base for how to approach it is severely necessary.
Regarding 2, instead of going by popularity vs unpopularity, I would propose the following -
Create a core group of trusted persons who have showcased excellent interpretation skills and the prowess to grasp context and be as objective as possible, and on a weekly basis go verse-by-verse, alphabetically, and pour over the verse to find any inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
This ensures that there is no bias, that there isn't anything missed, and is methodical enough that the wiki public at large are aware of precisely where the group is going next for its insight. Any issues that are foreseen by knowledgable members can be put into a thread for the future and archived to be looked over when the verse they represent is reached in its own timely manner, or special exceptions can be made if that week's 'quota' is a small verse which makes it simpler in approaching and rectifying.
Of course, knowledgable persons can also simply PM the group with upcoming issues and those themselves organized into separate discord channels and made into pinned messages for the future.
Organization is the most difficult and most necessary part of any large undertaking, so hopefully my thoughts have some value here in getting it off the ground.
- 20,504
- 1,587
The only way i could agree with DT's suggestion, is if the profile or verse that's being deleted could give some kind of a notification to everybody.
Example, if X is being deleted. We could put something on X (category, or whatever the options are idk), that would give a notification to everyone that "X is in the list of being deleted".
That is the only solution that comes to mind to my issue of "people not taking notice of when the deletions happen".
Example, if X is being deleted. We could put something on X (category, or whatever the options are idk), that would give a notification to everyone that "X is in the list of being deleted".
That is the only solution that comes to mind to my issue of "people not taking notice of when the deletions happen".
- 20,504
- 1,587
There are many knowledgeable members who aren't listed. Doesn't help. As an example i have always been knowledgeable on Rakudai, i only recently added myself to the list though. I didn't use to debate it before, but that doesn't mean that if it were to be deleted i wouldn't lend a helping hand at fixing the verse.Agnaa said:
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,868
- 2,061
I like the idea of an audit group.
Like I said before, I agree with Matthew on the issue of too much bureaucracy and the system should be able to function without the requirement of an admin, otherwise it's a flawed system.
Also, hopefully with an audit group, upgrades won't require Admins and the like who don't know about the verses in question, and will be an open forum for debate.
Like I said before, I agree with Matthew on the issue of too much bureaucracy and the system should be able to function without the requirement of an admin, otherwise it's a flawed system.
Also, hopefully with an audit group, upgrades won't require Admins and the like who don't know about the verses in question, and will be an open forum for debate.
- 6,104
- 5,102
Most outdated verses (four of which are being revised by myself) are in that state not because guesswork statistics, but because every time there's a small tier system change not all verses get properly accounted for. So they never get properly downgraded or upgraded.
- 20,504
- 1,587
I agree with this. An example i can post myself is Warframe. The verse is huge and it gets updates monthly. And just for comparison, the amount of work is absolutely insane in comparison to the non updated profiles.Sera EX said:
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,868
- 2,061
I imagine there would be a few lists:
A watch list; list with verses that have very few supporters for or have some inactive/disinterested key supporters.
A Red list: verses that have no supporters or all supporters have gone/lost interest but the verse is still up to date/usable and shouldn't be deleted yet, but should be monitored.
A Black list: Verses that possess no supporters and or all supporters have gone / lost interest and the verse is either very small, very badly made or out of date and thus, unusable.
Then a White list: Verses that are popular and require attention to prevent vandalism and need to be monitored for that reason.
A watch list; list with verses that have very few supporters for or have some inactive/disinterested key supporters.
A Red list: verses that have no supporters or all supporters have gone/lost interest but the verse is still up to date/usable and shouldn't be deleted yet, but should be monitored.
A Black list: Verses that possess no supporters and or all supporters have gone / lost interest and the verse is either very small, very badly made or out of date and thus, unusable.
Then a White list: Verses that are popular and require attention to prevent vandalism and need to be monitored for that reason.
- Status
Similar threads
