Kirby Cosmology Upgrade Part 2

[HammerStrikes219]

Where in the FAQ does it say this? The FAQ here doesn't mention it

About the use of tweets?

“It is perfectly possible for a statement like transcending space and time to mean that a character is simply "untied" from the universe's spacetime, and is thus unaffected by alterations in the timeline and similar meddlings. It's not exactly uncommon for time travel (Or any action / process that affects something through different points in time) to be described as "transcending time and space." Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. Something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible.”

This is implying you do need more solid evidence to make sure it is qualitatively superior over the 4D realms and so on.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

A Tweet from Twitter is considered a statement.

 

[Firestorm808]

Yes

Editing Rules

The VS Battles Wiki presently consists of 35,264 pages, most of them listing the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. However, there is a tremendous amount of work involved in maintaining the accuracy of statistics and upholding a high quality for the profiles. In...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Editing Rules

The VS Battles Wiki presently consists of 35,264 pages, most of them listing the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. However, there is a tremendous amount of work involved in maintaining the accuracy of statistics and upholding a high quality for the profiles. In...

vsbattles.fandom.com

It doesn't mention tweets? It just mentions social media statements, but that's only for authors replying to fan questions

• Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements from them that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable.

 

[Firestorm808]

It doesn't mention tweets? It just mentions social media statements, but that's only for authors replying to fan questions

They fall under the author statements ruling.

Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

 

[Mephistus]

Its not really an author statement if it's a conversation ad verbatim in verse.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

They fall under the author statements ruling.

Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

This isn't even an author statement, its basically promotional content

 

[Firestorm808]

I recommend conferring with the other staff if Promo-material only found on Twitter is treated differently.

 

[Firestorm808]

Here is the general ruling.

Twitter (non-promotional) statements in general need foundational proof to be used.

"Transcend" statements (promotional or not) need foundational qualitatively superior proof to be used.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody clarify regarding whether this ended up as official established canon, or was just used as promotion but did not make the final cut?

 

[Firestorm808]

Can somebody clarify regarding whether this ended up as official established canon, or was just used as promotion but did not make the final cut?

From what I could find, the promo tweet content doesn't appear anywhere else.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Then it seems far too unreliable to use. Sorry.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Okay. Then it seems far too unreliable to use. Sorry.

Maybe you should make a rule change

 

[Antvasima]

Our current rules and standard conventions seem to cover it already.

 

[Arceus0x]

Okay. Then it seems far too unreliable to use. Sorry.

please wait for pepto to respond. I am pretty sure there were statements that supported the claim in the game itself

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Okay. Then it seems far too unreliable to use. Sorry.

Eficiente considers the Twitter statements accurate to canon but to be analyzed skeptically due to having some degree of unreliability. I think so too for the same reason. They can be used as supporting evidence to other information (which also exists). This has been covered in this thread already. However, if multiple members who know Japanese have already described how the translations and interpretations that Peptocoptr27 provided are not necessarily the case, then wouldn't that mean that his revision wouldn't work anyway? If we want to be extra sure though, then what should be done next is contact the person who Peptocoptr27 got the interpretations of the translations from, like he suggested. There is conflicting information in this thread regarding what counts as the proper interpretations of Japanese text, so getting rid of the confusion is important. Either side might learn something new.

 

[Antvasima]

Eficiente considers the Twitter statements accurate to canon but to be analyzed skeptically due to having some degree of unreliability. I think so too for the same reason. They can be used as supporting evidence to other information (which also exists). This has been covered in this thread already.

Using it as supporting evidence should be fine, yes.

However, if multiple members who know Japanese have already described how the translations and interpretations that Peptocoptr27 provided are not necessarily the case, then wouldn't that mean that his revision wouldn't work anyway? If we want to be extra sure though, then what should be done next is contact the person who Peptocoptr27 got the interpretations of the translations from, like he suggested. There is conflicting information in this thread regarding what counts as the proper interpretations of Japanese text, so getting rid of the confusion is important. Either side might learn something new.

This also seems fine, but who should we contact in that case?

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

This also seems fine, but who should we contact in that case?

Ask Peptocoptr27, since he's the one who knows and initially contacted the person I'm referring to.

 

[Antvasima]

However, if multiple members who know Japanese have already described how the translations and interpretations that Peptocoptr27 provided are not necessarily the case, then wouldn't that mean that his revision wouldn't work anyway? If we want to be extra sure though, then what should be done next is contact the person who Peptocoptr27 got the interpretations of the translations from, like he suggested. There is conflicting information in this thread regarding what counts as the proper interpretations of Japanese text, so getting rid of the confusion is important. Either side might learn something new.

This also seems fine, but who should we contact in that case?

Ask Peptocoptr27, since he's the one who knows and initially contacted the person I'm referring to.

@Peptocoptr27

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Probably not gonna be able to respond till monday. Thank you for your patience

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Per DarkDragonMedeus:

A 2-C structure is finite on a 5-D scale given it requires an a number of 4-D universes and includes the 5th dimension that separates each and everyone one of those universes.

But if said 5th dimension is stated to be superior to the dimensionality of the space-time continuums it contains, why would it not be Low 1-C? It fits the bill for a qualitative superiority over 4D.

But a Low 1-C feat is uncountable infinite on a 5-D scale. Not saying countable or uncountable infinite need to be specifically stated, but if a realm is qualitatively superior in nature to those realms, then it could be Low 1-C.

What I said above fits the bill for a qualitative superiority over 4D realms, like I said. What tier would destroying a "countably infinite" or "contably finite" 5D structure fall into anyway?

Im not the only translator on this wiki

Then who am I supposed to refer to? No matter how many times I link my sources and explain in detail how they support my point, my words aren't getting through and if you're a trusted translator of this community, then your words are gonna hold more weight than mine or those of other translation communities I linked for the sake of this discussion.

My discord is a pro related discord for work purposes

Both the links you gave repeated what i said

No they did not. Look closely. I even highlighted it for you. 超える is attributed to the second definition while 越える is attributed to the first one. The Reddit post literally says that 越える is about crossing the subject whereas 超える is about exceeding a certain standard. In many contexts, that makes them interchangeable. Not in this one.

越える and 超える basically means the same and can be used still in many contexts

From what i can read you did not Complete the first part of the upgrade you have to determine the settings for the verse it’s size etc…

What settings? What's left to complete? I have a whole-ass blog and 6 thread pages explaining every little detail.

Using it as supporting evidence should be fine, yes.

I'm using it as a confirmation for something that can already be presumed with the in-game evidence we have.

I'm not entirely sure what option I'm still allowed to have here. If I were to provide Firestorm the cosmology map he asks for, would it even matter if my translations are still being dismissed and the translators here won't even discuss it with another Japanese speaker who provided my translations?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know. What do you think, @Firestorm808 ?

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know. What do you think, @Firestorm808 ?

@Firestorm808

 

[Firestorm808]

But if said 5th dimension is stated to be superior to the dimensionality of the space-time continuums it contains, why would it not be Low 1-C? It fits the bill for a qualitative superiority over 4D.

What I said above fits the bill for a qualitative superiority over 4D realms, like I said. What tier would destroying a "countably infinite" or "contably finite" 5D structure fall into anyway?

This is what I've been told. @Antvasima Corrected if I'm wrong.

For a space to have qualitative superiority over an infinitely long timeline, the space needs to make the those infinitely long timelines look miniscule in comparison.

A space with a diameter equal to the infinitely long timeline would not qualify. While the partial space outside the line counts as 5-D, the space as a whole is not qualitatively superior to the line for Low 1-C because the diameter is still equal to the timeline.

Finite superiority just means that an infinite timeline isn't reduced to an infinitesimal spec compared to infinite superiority.

We can't use the outside statements as the foundation of superiority. It has to be a thing in the established content first and then those statements are used as supplemental information with that foundational context.

 

[Firestorm808]

I'm not entirely sure what option I'm still allowed to have here. If I were to provide Firestorm the cosmology map he asks for, would it even matter if my translations are still being dismissed and the translators here won't even discuss it with another Japanese speaker who provided my translations?

The whole point of proving the structure with in-game evidence is to prove that outside statement context can be used at supplemental information.

If you can prove that the in-game content supports the use of a similar map structure, then we can use those outside statements.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, Firestorm808. I trust your sense of judgement.

 

[Darkz]

Just spotted an interesting detail.
In the cutscene where The Lor travels to Another Dimension to get to Halcandra, you can see lots of weird orbs floating around in space. They also appear in the vortex that The Lor goes through. Could these be universes?
Of course, there's no actual evidence those are universes, it's just speculation. But considering that in the remake, those "washed out images" of the worlds in the game also appear to be orbs, there's a possibility if we assume those images are actually universes.

 

[Arceus0x]

Just spotted an interesting detail.
In the cutscene where The Lor travels to Another Dimension to get to Halcandra, you can see lots of weird orbs floating around in space. They also appear in the vortex that The Lor goes through. Could these be universes?
Of course, there's no actual evidence those are universes, it's just speculation. But considering that in the remake, those "washed out images" of the worlds in the game also appear to be orbs, there's a possibility if we assume those images are actually universes.

in the latest trailer for RtDL we also see this


remember the faded images we theorized to be a representation of universes? they are now encircled, which supports the idea a bit.

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we do here exactly?

 

[Peptocoptr27]

I'm supposed to provide Firestorm with the cosmology map he asked for here.

As shown in the picture above, you need to prove that AD dwarfs the entire 2-C structure, not just that it contains timelines. That's the difference between the larger circle and the smaller circle. The bigger circle shows qualitive superiority to the smaller circle.

All while relying on in-game evidence over the Twitter statement. Despite how I'm still not entirely sure if this is necessary, the fact is that it is something I can do. Problem is, I'm wondering if it's worth it because it would take the thread into another brand new direction. One that could even carry brand new implications about the cosmology and another year of debate along with it. Ideally, I would like everyone to be on the same page when it comes to translations of Koeru and Jigen before we even consider going there, but it feels as though I'm talking to a brick wall and that the most qualified people on both sides of topic are unwilling to talk to each other.

 

[Antvasima]

So which members do you mainly wish to try to reach an agreement with here? I could call for them.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Any Japanese translator here who's willing to debate off-Wiki. That's how the Japanese speaker I got my translations from operates. I can send an invite as soon as they're ready

 

[Antvasima]

That does not seem realistic. Our few available translators usually have a hard enough time finding the free time to help us out at all.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

From my experience, debates on Discord are way faster than the ones here though

 

[Antvasima]

They are usually also more fast-paced/sloppier, and the people involved need to have lots of time available.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Unless it's in VC, which is also how my translator tends to prefer to do it.

 

[Antvasima]

Many people, including myself, have a hard time properly expressing themselves rationally via voice chats, and also don't want to be recorded. In addition, it is harder to go back and properly reference the arguments and what was decided afterwards.

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we do here exactly?

@Firestorm808 @Eficiente

Has this entire thread been rejected, or is there anything that we should do based on it before it is closed?