• 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.

Inclusion/Notability of Verses in VsBattle Wiki (Staff Only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
Fujiwara, you are still not allowed to respond here, and we are not going to open the floodgates to any extremely obscure, unpopular, and poor quality verses that have only every been read by their creators and a small number of acquaintances.
Click to expand...
I think poor quality verses should not be put here. But like I say, our current rules should prohibit them from even existing in the first place.

And soemtimes verses can be popular all around the place and popularity may rise and wane from time to time. So if we exclude unpopular verses we would have a hell loaf of trouble creating and destroying them alone.

Antvasima said:
Yes, if we do not take popularity into account, our wiki would get swarmed and bloated by extremely obscure verses that nobody cares about or is willing or able to verify the information for. My apologies, but we are not going to lessen our restrictions in this regard.
Click to expand...
If the verse is properly written and published, why should we even care about how many profiles to make? (I will agree that there are a lot of popular verses whose profiles are yet to be created because the profile pages are poorly supported and constructed in the first place)

More and more new verses will come out as long as humankind still exists. And yes I mean verses that are properly written, published and copyrighted.

If a verse profile is badly written according to our current rules, it would be deleted anyway. So I believe Ant may over worry in this regard.

(Or you do not mind losing business to rival character indexing sites in this regard?)

Wait we have Joke Battles and FCOC. Do character and verse profiles not properly written, published and copyrighted now move there?
Or we now establish a "Obscure VS Battles Wiki" as a branch of VS Battles Wiki so that all verses that currently gets properly written, published and copyrighted but are "not popular enough" to stay here go there? I do not mind being a bureaucrat there should this be totally needed. I hate to say this as this may sound like a coup and I myself as a staff of VBW want to and should take my part in maintaining order of this site.



TLDR:
1. Is it the intention of all bureaucrats that verses not popular enough should be removed from VBW?
2. If anyone believes that verses not popular enough should be removed from VBW, are other new and existing sites allowed to or prohibited from creating profiles for such? (I mean, there are OBD, VS Compendium, Character Profile Wiki,
Character Stats and Profiles Wiki and more - existing character power and ability indexing sites)
3. Should a site to accommodate those "not popular enough" profiles be built, are they under a branch of VBW just like JBW and FCOCW?
4. If verses properly, written published and copyrighted are allowed to stay (provided that their profiles be properly drafted of course), then Dread's revision should reflect such with proper wording to prevent sending misinformation. I believe Ant just wants to make sure not any verse worse than Suggsverse should stay.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for Ant to allow me to comment here.


Introduction

First, I personally lean towards disagreeing the proposal. It seems that the rule will be in enforce anyway. However, I would not be here to comment if I were here to solely disagree with it. Rather, I feel that the inclusion rule may have some problems and, while I'm unable to propose a better version, presents the poblems instead.


Problems

First:
It is strictly prohibited for creators of content to include their own works or verses within the wiki, directly or indirectly. This includes, but is not limited to, self-submission, submission through a third-party, or submission through a personal relationship with a member of the wiki.
Click to expand...
I do somewhat understand the proposal. Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which can be useful to better wording. Also, there is:
It is prohibited to include any personal verses or personal works of VS Debaters within the wiki, except in cases where the work has been officially published by a reputable and well-established company with a significant level of distribution and recognition in the industry.
Click to expand...
Do they say the same thing?

Also, for the rule, "published by a reputable and well-established company with a significant level of distribution and recognition in the industry". For example, what if Toby Fox was a VS Debaters as his video games are technically published by himself, not some company?

Second:
[...] whereas works that are only notable within the battleboarding community and have little to no notability outside of it, like Suggsverse, may not be eligible for inclusion.
Click to expand...
As VS Battles Wiki is a website for versus debating as suggested by the very name of the wiki, and the fact that battleboarding community treats VS Battles Wiki as one of the profiles websites, being only notable within the battleboarding community may not be an overriding standard for exclusion.

Also, Suggestverse is not a good example for this, as VS Battles Wiki has written the reason of excluding Suggestverse in Discussion rule:
We have very repeatedly discussed this issue, and have reached the conclusion that the verse in question will never be allowed to have profiles in this wiki. There are several reasons for this, including its severe lack of notability and writing quality. Meaning that it is too inconsistent and incoherent for our members to properly analyze, and that it is obscure to the point that most of them cannot even get a hold of all of the source texts for reference. It is also completely incompatible with our tiering system, given that it was mainly created in order to flood wikis such as our own with hundreds of tier 0 pages.
Click to expand...
While obscurity is mentioned as a reason, it is not the main reason. Noting Suggestverse as an example would hinder the verses who is enough to construct a good profiles.

Third, I agree with Jasonsith's "And soemtimes verses can be popular all around the place and popularity may rise and wane from time to time. So if we exclude unpopular verses we would have a hell loaf of trouble creating and destroying them alone. "


End

My personal affairs, including engaging in digging the obscure verses, do prevent me from further engaging in the thread.
 
I have been allowed to commented here but all of my concern here has been said by Mario, i also want to noted to Ant that what Fujiwara said has a point despite the flaws of it

I might have some points to be said here but i need to re-read the thread once more
 
ImmortalDread said:

Introductions​

The primary objective of this staff discussion thread is to evaluate and modify the existing regulations in order to enhance their clarity and effectiveness. The subject matter at hand pertains specifically to the guidelines for determining notability and the criteria for inclusion of various types of content within the wiki. As it stands, there are currently a number of unspoken rules and ambiguities surrounding these issues, and it is therefore imperative that we take the necessary steps to clarify and formalize these regulations.

Disclaimer​

It is important to note that the purpose of this discussion thread is not to remove any existing regulations, but rather to evaluate and expand upon the current rules. It is anticipated that there may be some individuals who may misunderstand the intent of this thread and express negativity towards it. However, it is requested that any criticism or feedback be constructive in nature and not based on misconceptions or misunderstandings of the purpose of this thread. Furthermore, this thread is not in any way directed towards any specific individual, such as @Antvasima, and any such perceived criticism is not intended.

Current Regulations​

The following is a presentation of the current regulations pertaining to the inclusion of verses and the determination of notability within the wiki. It is prestigious to note that these rules may be subject to revision and alteration as deemed necessary by the relevant authorities and stakeholders. It is also worth mentioning that adherence to these rules is mandatory for all contributors to the wiki, and any violation may lead to appropriate actions.




Adjustment/Additions Suggestions for those Regulations​

One solution for determining a notability value for allowing verses in the VS Battles Wiki is to establish a set of criteria for assessing the notability of a work. These criteria can include, but are not limited to, the following:
  1. The work must originate from an actual story, with a plot, fictional setting, and defined canon.
  2. The story must be reasonably notable or popular outside of versus debating communities.
  3. The setting should be entirely fictional in nature, with no true bearing over the real world, except for the specific case of the Real World “verse”, which is limited to animals, weapons, and events. However, real-world people, including celebrities, should not be featured in the wiki, which includes stage personas that are mainly connected to the real world, and are not part of a coherent fictional narrative. Additionally, any movie, comic or TV series that are primarily retelling of real events with occasional fictional additions are prohibited.
Which is already done within this draft:

Draft​

Inclusion of Verses





Determination of Notability







Notes​

It is possible that a subsequent discussion thread may be initiated to address the removal of verses that are deemed to be of poor quality and popularity, as well as those that violate the regulations established as a result of this current thread. Such a thread would be intended to ensure the integrity and credibility of the content within the wiki, and maintain the adherence to the established guidelines and regulations.
  • A sandbox was established in order to provide a visual representation of the proposed design. While it is acknowledged that some individuals may not have a preference for reading extensive written materials, it is important to note that the original draft has not been altered in any way.
Rather, additional guidelines and adjustments have been incorporated to enhance the overall understanding of the concept.


NOTE: STAFF ONLY DISCUSSION
Click to expand...
I'm disagreeing with excluding a verse simply because it isnt as popular as something say like Dragonball or Naruto, or just having alot of popularity in general. Whether a profile should be allowed should be based on the quality of it. (This includes trying to remove things such as self published material, since there are already examples of this on the site already and they cause no issues.)
 
Last edited:
I will respond to all comments as soon as possible, but @Kisaragi_Megumi as long as they get permission from a staff member, they are allowed to comment. And stop with duplicated comments, it is derailment.
 
Last edited:
Jasonsith said:
My amendment will be as follows:

"The VS Battles Wiki is, first and foremost, a fictional character indexing site. All featured characters in our profiles should originate from actual stories, from works that are reasonably notable or popular outside of versus debating communities containing a story properly written by an author or co-authors and properly published by a publisher or publishers. A story includes a plot, a fictional setting, and having a defined canon. At the very least, the setting should be entirely fictional in nature, with no true bearing over the real world."
Click to expand...
I respectfully bring to your attention that the removal of an established rule in the Vsbattle Wiki deviates from the topic at hand and goes against the long-standing principle of the wiki, which only permits verses without a primary focus on powerscaling or versus debating. Altering a previously established rule may have unintended consequences and should be approached with caution.
 
Mariogoods said:
I do somewhat understand the proposal. Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which can be useful to better wording. Also, there is:

Do they say the same thing?
Click to expand...
I disagree with this. The current rule is fine.
Mariogoods said:
Also, for the rule, "published by a reputable and well-established company with a significant level of distribution and recognition in the industry". For example, what if Toby Fox was a VS Debaters as his video games are technically published by himself, not some company?
Click to expand...
I kindly request that you refrain from providing hypothetical examples that have no logical basis or likelihood of occurrence.
Mariogoods said:
As VS Battles Wiki is a website for versus debating as suggested by the very name of the wiki, and the fact that battleboarding community treats VS Battles Wiki as one of the profiles websites, being only notable within the battleboarding community may not be an overriding standard for exclusion.

Also, Suggestverse is not a good example for this, as VS Battles Wiki has written the reason of excluding Suggestverse in Discussion rule:

While obscurity is mentioned as a reason, it is not the main reason. Noting Suggestverse as an example would hinder the verses who is enough to construct a good profiles.
Click to expand...
While this serves as one example, the inclusion of additional examples may not necessarily alter the context of the statement.
 
Last edited:
DemiiPowa said:
I'm disagreeing with excluding a verse simply because it isnt as popular as something say like Dragonball or Naruto, or just having alot of popularity in general. Whether a profile should be allowed should be based on the quality of it. (This includes trying to remove things such as self published material, since there are already examples of this on the site already and they cause no issues.)
Click to expand...
I'm not certain what has caused the disagreement, but it is important to note that in our policy, we consider two factors when evaluating content for inclusion: notability and quality. If a verse is well-written and lacks any indication of powerscaling, but has a sufficient level of notability, it may be acceptable for inclusion. Conversely, works with minimal recognition and an unexpected high tier rating likely have questionable quality.

In addition, self-published works may be eligible for inclusion as long as they meet the criteria for notability. This is stated in our guidelines, so I'm unsure what has sparked the disagreement.
 
Jasonsith said:
Wait we have Joke Battles and FCOC. Do character and verse profiles not properly written, published and copyrighted now move there?
Click to expand...
Most likely

Dear members of the community who are in disagreement on this topic:

I would like to address a potential misunderstanding regarding the criteria used in our evaluation process. It has come to my attention that there may be a perception that we only focus on popularity when assessing the eligibility of content for inclusion.

I would like to take this opportunity to correct this misconception and clarify the true nature of our policy

It is crucial to acknowledge that our policy does not limit the consideration of popularity to English readers only. Rather, global popularity is the term that accurately describes the scope of our assessment. This is to ensure that the content being considered is widely recognized and appreciated by audiences from diverse regions and backgrounds.

To provide further clarity, we may exclude verses that do not meet the established criteria for inclusion. These criteria include official publication status, recognition and popularity, and compliance with our rules against powerscaling. In cases where the content is self-published, these criteria are used to determine its eligibility for inclusion.

In conclusion, it is important to note that notability is one of several factors that are taken into consideration in our evaluation process. It is not the sole determining factor, and other criteria must also be met for the content to be considered eligible for inclusion.

I hope this clarification serves to resolve any confusion and provides a better understanding of our evaluation process.
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:
I kindly request that you refrain from providing hypothetical examples that have no logical basis or likelihood of occurrence.
Click to expand...
It is a possibility and I believe that considering potential possibility when a rule is enforced is necessary. Also, it do has logical basis as there are works which frequently uses versus debating-appealing terms to powerscale (e.g. xianxia novels) but they also make money and grow in fame to the extent that this proposal cannot exclude them.
ImmortalDread said:
In conclusion, it is important to note that notability is one of several factors that are taken into consideration in our evaluation process. It is not the sole determining factor, and other criteria must also be met for the content to be considered eligible for inclusion.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that something worse is implied in the ca as the result would be the mass deletion the indie and/or non-English verses will be excluded as they are more likely to lack representation despite their fame. And I'm afraid that after that, the verses which would become fully of big companies' verses as they are more likely to receive representation.
ImmortalDread said:
I'm not certain what has caused the disagreement, but it is important to note that in our policy, we consider two factors when evaluating content for inclusion: notability and quality. If a verse is well-written and lacks any indication of powerscaling, but has a sufficient level of notability, it may be acceptable for inclusion. Conversely, works with minimal recognition and an unexpected high tier rating likely have questionable quality.
Click to expand...
I failed to see that what if "a verse is well-written, does not have COI in versus debating, but is not notable".
 
I think that notability is a term intentionally left vague so we can gauge it. We're not looking to axe indie games because they aren't on-par with shit like Stardew Valley or Hollow Knight- rather, we're trying to combat against adding, say, one of 18,000,000 horror games found on itch.io created with stock assets default to Unity.

Obviously AAA games are more likely to be recognizable, but nobody here is interested in removing everything outside of the scope of AAA titles.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I think that notability is a term intentionally left vague so we can gauge it. We're not looking to axe indie games because they aren't on-par with shit like Stardew Valley or Hollow Knight- rather, we're trying to combat against adding, say, one of 18,000,000 horror games found on itch.io created with stock assets default to Unity.

Obviously AAA games are more likely to be recognizable, but nobody here is interested in removing everything outside of the scope of AAA titles.
Click to expand...
I understand the intention of Ant: the proposed targets are the poorly written verses like "Suggsverse or fan fiction or collective fan writing" as called by me or "one of 18,000,000 horror games found on itch.io created with stock assets default to Unity" as called by Bambu.

Nonetheless thank you Mr Bambu for some great explanation work.

I think I will observe to see if necessary defined terms and vagueness stay to make sure only the Suggsverse or fan fiction or collective fan writing wannabes get nuked but not those properly written and published verses.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I think that notability is a term intentionally left vague so we can gauge it. We're not looking to axe indie games because they aren't on-par with shit like Stardew Valley or Hollow Knight- rather, we're trying to combat against adding, say, one of 18,000,000 horror games found on itch.io created with stock assets default to Unity.

Obviously AAA games are more likely to be recognizable, but nobody here is interested in removing everything outside of the scope of AAA titles.
Click to expand...
If the rule were as you said, it would not be that horrible. But ImmortalDread present something alternative and I feel that I should do something.
Jasonsith said:
I think I will observe to see if necessary defined terms and vagueness stay to make sure only the Suggsverse or fan fiction or collective fan writing wannabes get nuked but not those properly written and published verses.
Click to expand...
I don't think SCP Foundation should be nuked.
 
SCP is a different issue. Anyway, I won't be available this week. So I hope this thread can stay open and not derailed till I come (next weekend)
 
ImmortalDread said:
I'm not certain what has caused the disagreement, but it is important to note that in our policy, we consider two factors when evaluating content for inclusion: notability and quality. If a verse is well-written and lacks any indication of powerscaling, but has a sufficient level of notability, it may be acceptable for inclusion. Conversely, works with minimal recognition and an unexpected high tier rating likely have questionable quality.

In addition, self-published works may be eligible for inclusion as long as they meet the criteria for notability. This is stated in our guidelines, so I'm unsure what has sparked the disagreement.
Click to expand...
We still allow verses with powerscaling however, If the author has illustrated that character A> character B then that in itself is power scaling by definition; I feel like the correct phrase being referred to here is powerscaling purely for battleboard purposes.

With that being said, I think our current standards are fine as is. (I also agree with what bambu said about games outside of AAA games)
 
Last edited:
Alright. You got point, I will change rewording. Thanks for the correction.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I think that notability is a term intentionally left vague so we can gauge it. We're not looking to axe indie games because they aren't on-par with shit like Stardew Valley or Hollow Knight- rather, we're trying to combat against adding, say, one of 18,000,000 horror games found on itch.io created with stock assets default to Unity.

Obviously AAA games are more likely to be recognizable, but nobody here is interested in removing everything outside of the scope of AAA titles.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and thank you.

Let's not try to mess with what works well for us please.

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
 
What did you change more specifically?
 
Probably, yes, but I would prefer more staff input first. Which other staff members have commented here earlier?
 
We can call AKM once again but if I am not mistaken, he already agreed with everything here.

DT also agree with everything here (he had a concern which has been solved by me modifying a current rule).
 
Alright, I will call Butler in DMs to help me in this matter as he is professional when it comes to this.
 
So, if I am not misunderstanding this all...
The draft text outlines the guidelines and requirements for the inclusion of content within the VS Battles Wiki.

The inclusion text outlines the guidelines for the addition of verses in the VS Battles Wiki:
  • The verses should have a completely fictional setting and must not depict real-world individuals, including celebrities.
  • The wiki will only consider including officially published works that have gained substantial recognition and self-published works may also be considered if they meet the necessary standards of notability.
  • The use of official translations is preferred, but high-quality fan translations will also be accepted.
  • Personal verses or works of VS debaters cannot be included in the wiki, except for those that have been officially published by a reputable company.
  • Verses or works of highly ranked VS debaters that primarily focus on powerscaling are also not allowed.
  • To maintain the impartiality of the wiki, the content creators are not permitted to include their own works or verses either directly or indirectly.
The purpose of this text is to inform the readers about the criteria for including verses in the VS Battles Wiki and the importance of maintaining impartiality by preventing content creators from including their own works. It is important to note that compliance with these guidelines is mandatory for all contributors to the wiki.

The second text, which is about notability, outlines the criteria for determining the "notability" of a work in relation to its potential inclusion in the VS Battles Wiki:
  • Official published works, privately published standalone original works, and fan translations of good quality are all considered for inclusion, as long as they meet the criteria of notability.
  • Cases where there is ambiguity or conflicting information about when the work was written and when the author claims to have interacted with powerscaling purely for battleboarding purposes. In such cases, the work shall not be considered for inclusion within the wiki.
  • The story from which the character originates must be reasonably notable or popular outside of the versus debating communities, which can be determined by various factors such as the popularity of the story among readers, the number of adaptations or spin-offs it has spawned, and its impact on the broader cultural landscape.
This notability text describes the concept of notability and how it is used to determine a work's eligibility for inclusion.

I believe that based on my understanding, there is nothing for me to criticize. However, please feel free to correct me in case I have misunderstood anything.
 
From a basic viewpoint, you haven't misinterpreted anything, but I want to highlight that the additional comments added alongside your points are interconnected and should not be omitted.

For example, you trimmed this part “with a significant level of distribution and recognition in the industry.” from this draft, for example:
  • Personal verses or works of VS debaters cannot be included in the wiki, except for those that have been officially published by a reputable company.
Click to expand...

If you are fully aware of all supplementary stipulations associated with your points, then your comprehension is comprehensive and satisfactory.

Also, welcome to the thread!
 
I think that Butler just summarised his understanding of the situation, not that he wrote a new draft for our rules page.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that Butler just summarised his understanding of the situation, not that he wrote a new draft for our rules page.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to emphasize for new visitors that the summarization provided should not be considered the final word on all the rules discussed here, as there are interconnected additional points to keep in mind.

But yes, the summarization is fine as it is!
 
Antvasima said:
I think that you seem to have a good grasp of it all.

Thank you for helping out. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Click to expand...
Alright.

I wanted to bring to your attention that because of the better font control, we have made additional modifications to the draft format for improved readability in the Table of Contents while still retaining the visually appealing style established in FinePoint's draft.

Initially, we found an issue with awkward spacing under headers due to the "Edit Section" feature, so I considered using a magic word for such issue, but it has been determined by Dread that it will only be noticeable to those with editing access. If the improved format is accepted, I kindly request that it be applied to other instruction pages that have been similarly updated by FinePoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Arkenis
Legitimacy of Matches
Replies
33
Views
3K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
LordGriffin1000
  • Locked
Human Statistics Scaling Standards in Fiction (Staff Only)
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
Back
Top