Improving contents of Powers & Abilities pages

[Antvasima]

Bobsican's suggestion above seems fine to me at least.

 

[Tanin_iver]

Is this a general thread meant for improving the content of P&A pages?

If so, then I'd like to nominate the Body Control page for some revamps. The page looks to be extremely outdated and in need of grammar fixes. Also, some of the sub-Types are weirdly named.

 

[Antvasima]

Never mind my earlier conclusion here. How about the following variation of Dread's suggestion?

"Mind Manipulation's potency is assessed based on its capabilities and the number of individuals it can influence simultaneously. Several factors play a role in this evaluation, including the mechanisms involved, the scale of influence, demonstrated resistance-breaking abilities, and the overall effects. For more details, refer to our Hax page."

 

[Bobsican]

The number of individuals affected at once isn't an inherent manner to measure its potency in a significant manner as concluded long ago in the thread I did on the matter. Similarly, I'd also add a "can" before "play a role in this evaluation", as once again, not all of the brought up criteria to evaluate are necessarily a factor and require the given case to confirm so in the first place, so...

Several factors can potentially play a role in the evaluation of the potency of this ability, including the mechanisms involved, the scale of influence, demonstrated resistance-breaking abilities, the number of individuals it can influence simultaneously, and the overall effects. For more details, refer to our Hax page.

It's more direct, doesn't have misleading implications and it's even shorter.

 

[Antvasima]

Given that the effect would be spread out over many minds, I think that the number of affected individuals should still play a part in evaluating the strength of a telepath.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Ya, I think Bob needs to finish this thread and conclude it. There is a reason why it is not applied either the thread is closed.

@Bobsican I would like you to suggest concluding the thread:

https://vsbattles.com/threads/mind-soul-manipulation-revisions-v2-numbers-arent-everything-staff-only.124859/

Discuss it there.

 

[Bobsican]

Given that the effect would be spread out over many minds, I think that the number of affected individuals should still play a part in evaluating the strength of a telepath.

Quite specifically this was agreed on by multiple staff to not be inherently the case as a lot of assumptions are made to correlate this to potency then comparing it to a resistance (read the OP).

Ya, I think Bob needs to finish this thread and conclude it. There is a reason why it is not applied either the thread is closed.

@Bobsican I would like you to suggest concluding the thread:

https://vsbattles.com/threads/mind-soul-manipulation-revisions-v2-numbers-arent-everything-staff-only.124859/

Discuss it there.

It's already concluded, it's already closed and the last posts even make it clear the accepted stuff was applied, please stop making non-sequiturs.

 

[ImmortalDread]

How it comes it is concluded (2021) and you never apply the changes? This is really poorly made, but I won't judge it. And don't tell me it is not, since the text is literally there.

 

[Bobsican]

How it comes it is concluded (2021) and you never apply the changes? This is really poorly made, but I won't judge it. And don't tell me it is not, since the text is literally there.

Which changes in particular? I'm starting to think you're thinking of something else than me.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You are saying this part should be removed due to your thread:

Generally speaking, we judge the potency of Mind Manipulation both by what it can do and by how many people its user can affect at once with it. This may range from only a few people at a time to entire planetary populations.

But you never remove it since 2021.

So, I am asking again, how did you conclude it and never change this part?

 

[Bobsican]

Oh, that was new stuff regarding the concerns you brought up in this thread we're on right now, I brought up the other thread in terms of some potential inconsistencies brought up on rewritting those notes to retain consistency on what was accepted previously there (which is what caused those notes to be there in the first place, hence why it's brought up).

In other words, you were the one proposing that change here in the first place, I'm bringing up the other thread to clarify from where it comes from and how to potentially handle it if required according to your concerns while retaining accuracy on what was accepted.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Bobsican Without back and forth discussion, I will give my entire stance:

This description is repetitive

Generally speaking, we judge the potency of Mind Manipulation both by what it can do and by how many people its user can affect at once with it. This may range from only a few people at a time to entire planetary populations.

When judging the potency of Mind Manipulation, and the resistance against it, there is a variety of factors to be potentially considered. Such as the mechanisms involved, how many people the Mind Manipulation can affect, whether it has demonstrated to break through resistances, how great the effects are, etc. For more information visit the Hax page.

I formulated to be less repetitive: (a more concise version)

Mind Manipulation's potency is assessed based on its capabilities and the number of individuals it can influence simultaneously. Several factors play a role in this evaluation, including the mechanisms involved, the scale of influence, demonstrated resistance-breaking abilities, and the overall effects. For more details, refer to our Hax page.

You came here and say:

Generally speaking, we judge the potency of Mind Manipulation both by what it can do and by how many people its user can affect at once with it. This may range from only a few people at a time to entire planetary populations.

This part should be removed since it is outdated. I asked, why is it not removed while you were the one who created a thread for it in 2021.

And it does not matter because in fact it is not removed. So if you want to change the core of description, please create new staff thread. I don't believe your staff thread was to remove this part, because if it was, it would have been removed since 2021.

I am not interested in this argument, if you want to change it. Create a new staff thread and apply it. I am only removing repetition from the description.

 

[Bobsican]

@Bobsican Without back and forth discussion, I will give my entire stance:


This description is repetitive

I formulated to be less repetitive: (a more concise version)

A more concice version that has vaguer wording and is inviting misconceptions the 2021 thread I'm bringing up for starters was meant to remove, which is why I even proposed an alternative based on your version that avoids that while also being even shorter.

You came here and say:

This part should be removed since it is outdated. I asked, why is it not removed while you were the one who created a thread for it in 2021.

And it does not matter because in fact it is not removed. So if you want to change the core of description, please create new staf thread. I don't believe your staff thread was to remove this part, because if it was, it would have been removed since 2021.

The 2021 thread never brought it up as something to add, so it'd stand to reason it's an outdated segment by innately going against our current standards (which is why I've been sitting such 2021 thread), please apply common sense, it's possible for stuff to get missed even after such timeframe.

I am not interested in this argument,

This just comes off as mean.

if you want to change it. Create a new staff thread and apply it. I am only removing repetition from the description.

You are desiring to apply a change too, the staff thread would be something you'd have to do as well if we want to go like that.

In any case, this is quite minor and decisive given it's merely a matter of enforcing current standards and removing a outdated segment. Ant could just voice his thoughts on the matter and be sufficient staff input, especially given the staff are extremely busy right now to require several staff sharing their input on such small matter right now.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Not interested. I have said my words. Either create a staff discussion to remove this part since Ant already disagreed with it.

Or move on. And no I don't think it's minor, given the fact it is the important merit of the entire page.

 

[Bobsican]

Ant hasn't explicitly disagreed, he has merely said his current stance and is yet to address what has been brought up.

As said before you'd also have to do a staff thread on the matter either way for the same reasons if you stand on that line of thought, both cases ultimately involve rewriting a segment of a P&A page.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am not changing anything. I explicitly formulated the current description. You are changing it significantly, thus you are the one who is obligated to create staff thread.

I am not interested in this discussion.

 

[Tanin_iver]

Ant hasn't explicitly disagreed, he has merely said his current stance and is yet to address what has been brought up.

As said before you'd also have to do a staff thread on the matter either way for the same reasons if you stand on that line of thought, both cases ultimately involve rewriting a segment of a P&A page.

Just a query, what's wrong in Ant's current proposal according to u.
What would u like to modify.

The same applies to @ImmortalDread what do u propose to change, just give both of ur views instead of arguing with each other.

Both of u just give a concise view of what changes you would like to implement and how is it better than what is already accepted.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Just a query, what's wrong in Ant's current proposal according to u.
What would u like to modify.

The same applies to @ImmortalDread what do u propose to change, just give both of ur views instead of arguing with each other.

Both of u just give a concise view of what changes you would like to implement and how is it better than what is already accepted.

Improving contents of Powers & Abilities pages

Bobsican's suggestion above seems fine to me at least.

vsbattles.com

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that these seem to be the only changes that our staff agreed with and applied in Bobsican's linked discussion thread.

Mind Manipulation

Mind Manipulation is the ability to manipulate and control the minds of others. It is associated with Telepathy and Mind Reading, and these powers are often possessed by the same characters. While basic mind manipulation can be used for psychic suggestion and simple manipulation, higher-level...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Bobsican]

There was also this, which is why I think the stuff in the previous paragraph of what was edited there is now outdated and could be removed as it's based on long outdated standards, that's all when it comes to my stance on the matter beyond trying to ensure Dread's proposal doesn't compromise accepted standards if we go with that option instead.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not see any mention of the number of affected people being irrelevant there.

 

[Bobsican]

I never claimed it was always irrelevant regardless of the case, gotta just quote:

'''Note 2:''' When judging the potency of hax-based abilities such as [[Mind Manipulation]] and [[Soul Manipulation]], and the resistance against them, there is a variety of factors to be potentially considered. Such as the mechanisms involved, how many people the power can affect, whether it has demonstrated to break through resistances, how great the effects are, etc.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. My apologies for the misunderstanding then.

 

[KingTempest]

Can we change the Universal Energy Systems page's name to "Energy Systems"?

Cause the page doesn't speak of just Universal Energy Systems, it speaks about them all.

This is like naming the durability page "tanking"

 

[Bobsican]

Agree

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Can we change the Universal Energy Systems page's name to "Energy Systems"?

Cause the page doesn't speak of just Universal Energy Systems, it speaks about them all.

This is like naming the durability page "tanking"

When were were first discussing them; there was debate on Universal Energy Systems, Connected Energy Systems or Universal/Connected Power Sources would have been better names DonTalkDT basically just picked Universal Energy Systems naming the page. And since that is just one of three types with the other two types often being overlooked. But I basically agreed Connected Energy Systems or Connected Power Sources would have been better names to account that Limited or Non-Physical examples that aren't fully universal are also included in the page.

 

[KingTempest]

When were were first discussing them; there was debate on Universal Energy Systems, Connected Energy Systems or Universal/Connected Power Sources would have been better names DonTalkDT basically just picked Universal Energy Systems naming the page. And since that is just one of three types with the other two types often being overlooked. But I basically agreed Connected Energy Systems or Connected Power Sources would have been better names to account that Limited or Non-Physical examples that aren't fully universal are also included in the page.

Yeah cause this makes it seem as if we called the regen page "High-Godly Regen" then listed all the inferior ones below it. Doesn't seem logical

 

[Antvasima]

Can we change the Universal Energy Systems page's name to "Energy Systems"?

Cause the page doesn't speak of just Universal Energy Systems, it speaks about them all.

This is like naming the durability page "tanking"

That seems fine to me, but other regular wiki pages that link to it also need to have those links updated.

 

[Bobsican]

That seems fine to me, but other regular wiki pages that link to it also need to have those links updated.

Most of the pages that link there seem to do so only with the top navigation template, so it'd be a mostly trivial change with sufficient editing rights.

 

[Antvasima]

I took the time to rename the "Universal Energy Systems" page, and updated the links to it, but on second thought I may have done something very stupid here, due to being stressed out due to time running out before my vacation.

Pages that link to "Energy Systems" | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

@Mr._Bambu @Damage3245 @Agnaa @DarkGrath @DontTalkDT

Can you evaluate if if have done something stupid here please?

@Dereck03 @Catzlaflame @GarrixianXD

And if I have done something inappropriate here, are you willing to clean up my mess/undo the related edits please?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I took the time to rename the "Universal Energy Systems" page, and updated the links to it, but on second thought I may have done something very stupid here, due to being stressed out due to time running out before my vacation.

Pages that link to "Energy Systems" | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

@Mr._Bambu @Damage3245 @Agnaa @DarkGrath @DontTalkDT

Can you evaluate if if have done something stupid here please?

@Dereck03 @Catzlaflame @GarrixianXD

And if I have done something inappropriate here, are you willing to clean up my mess/undo the related edits please?

As a minor gripe (not with you), I think some of the pages linking to it shouldn't, specifically characters, since I think verse pages should clarify rather than doing it multiple times on an individual level.

Our glossary may want to mention that "UES" is also frequently used, since that's what it used to be called.

Other than that, I looked through every page that linked to it- they all seemed fine, with two exceptions where they technically still linked to "Universal Energy Systems", so I edited those to go to the proper page rather than the redirect.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for your reply, but I meant, did I make an error in renaming that page and all of the links to it from regular pages? If so, it all likely needs to be changed back to the way it was.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for your reply, but I meant, did I make an error in renaming that page and all of the links to it from regular pages? If so, it all likely needs to be changed back to the way it was.

@Mr._Bambu

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Thank you very much for your reply, but I meant, did I make an error in renaming that page and all of the links to it from regular pages? If so, it all likely needs to be changed back to the way it was.

I don't believe so, no. I CTRL+F'd all of them, and they all appear to match the new page's name.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I just meant, was my change rushed and ill-considered, so I changed a better title for the concept to a worse one?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If you want my opinion on the name itself... maybe. I think sticking to a name is probably better since changing that name can lead to confusion. The new name is technically more right, as in, it describes what we're dealing with more accurately. I didn't have a strong opinion up above and don't really have one now, but I think the change is good to put through now if we really want to change the name, so less people get used to the old one. So if this is something we want to happen, best to rip the bandaid off now, basically.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I am uncertain due to that "Energy Systems" sounds so unspecific and hard to understand. "Verse-specific Energy Systems" or some similar name is easier to intuitively understand the point of.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I am uncertain due to that "Energy Systems" sounds so unspecific and hard to understand. "Verse-specific Energy Systems" or some similar name is easier to intuitively understand the point of.

@Mr._Bambu @Damage3245 @Agnaa @DarkGrath @DontTalkDT

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think it matters much, really. As long as the name relates to what we're dealing with, the concept is already fairly heavily ingrained in the culture around here that I hardly think people will get confused enough to forget what the term broadly means. We have an explanation page that goes in deeper to assist in learning the specifics. I think it's fine.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I took the time to rename the "Universal Energy Systems" page, and updated the links to it, but on second thought I may have done something very stupid here, due to being stressed out due to time running out before my vacation.

Pages that link to "Energy Systems" | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

@Mr._Bambu @Damage3245 @Agnaa @DarkGrath @DontTalkDT

Can you evaluate if if have done something stupid here please?

@Dereck03 @Catzlaflame @GarrixianXD

And if I have done something inappropriate here, are you willing to clean up my mess/undo the related edits please?

Just a minor note. I did agree with the name change, but the "Universal" was still one of the three types. And the word Universal seemed to be removed from the whole page including the sub type that was supposed to be called Universal. I took care of editing to add them all back.

Was just making a note of that was all in case there was some confusion.