• 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.

Making it compulsory to list sources for multi-work series

To reiterate my stance, Zark. References just look better. Functionality wise, it adds nothing. Lazy is one thing, going out of our way to do something that doesn't change the way we operate in the grand scheme of things is another.

And yes, I'd rather ask a supporter about a verse I have mild interest in and wait for a few days than sit through hours of gameplay for a verse I am not a diehard supporter of. Hell, there's no guarantee I would even understand what's going on anyway so it may be a complete waste of time.

Also this is a hobby, Zark. If it's not fun, why bother? You'll lower our traffic at this rate.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
And yes, I'd rather ask a supporter about a verse I have mild interest in and wait for a few days than sit through hours of gameplay for a verse I am not a diehard supporter of. Hell, there's no guarantee I would even understand what's going on anyway so it may be a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
I mean, I am against this idea of asking verse supporters for proof by making a thread. It is their burden. Just list all evidences on pages like we usually do, it doesn't strictly have to be in form of references, blogs and imgur links to scans still work fine imo.
 
Honestly a good bit of this idea to me sounds pretty bad considering what affect it will cause on this website's users.

I myself mainly focus on a book verse and for an easier example, I've recently done one hell of a big CRT with a particular book character with dozens of appearances and even an entire book series on the bastard. Having to get all the information was hard enough but having to list every single piece of media it happened in? No thank you.

I am a single person with limited resources and the only person that hugely focuses on a single verse that is very large, diverse and elaborate. And to have that profile in risk of deletion if I don't (According to what Zark told me on Discord), that would likely put a lot of stress on this site's users (it is certainly adding some stress and worry on my shoulders).

I'm not against citation as a whole don't get me wrong. But this seems a bit too far. Ovens makes more sense to me with it being at least encouraged.
 
Last edited:
I actually totally agree with this change. We are an indexing site, citing the actual part where X statement/feat happens in a series would help the site being something to take as a legitimate scientific source for information. Not only this makes exaggerating stats fool-proof, it also allows us to hold an higher standard that users could relate to for research purposes that aren't informal, so no, @Sir_Ovens , this change would actually contribute the site, rather than being just an "useless burden" or so.

Yes, applying it to "all pages" at once is unrealistic, and plenty of abandoned verses could be deleted, but this is the duty of the Audit group to take care of, even if ironically it's dead nowadays, however, just leaving it as "encouraged" will lead us nowhere. Remember how it was made into an "editing rule" that never got enforced the act of including tags on posts on the new forum? Yes, that is rarely actually used from what I've checked on recent posts.
Maybe it could just be enforced to pages that are made since X date, then we can eventually apply this to other pages, with the ones that are too dubious being potentially subject to deletion.

However, I can understand that this would make the site harder to get into for newer users, so this can be gradually changed as well, so I wonder if doing this could be made easier on practice with some code so it can be done with a few button presses on the editing menu.
 
Last edited:
I personally can agree with this being worked on book verses (I myself have been doing it on every light novel I've added as of late), but what about TV shows or videogames? Do you just say the episode and go "watch it yourself"? Do we say in which game it happens and let the users play the game to find it? And for comics and manga it seems pretty redundant when you can just add a scan showing the page on which it happens directly. In short, books are the only ones this would really be a benifit for, since visual media are basically impossible on this regard, and comics/manga can work with simply the scan.
 
I guess game verses can just go like "Level/Round/Stage X, Y Mode, Z Difficulty, W Game" or so, while TV shows can just say "Episode X, Y Series, Z timestamp".
 
I'm not the most trusted person here or anything like that but I think I should give my thoughts. I disagree with what Zark is saying and suggesting.

I plan on making pages for a Roblox game named Piggy that is pretty long having 15 chapters (16 if you want to count Distorted Memory) at the time of me writing this. Piggy is a ongoing game that has 3 endings, seasonal limited time events (that aren't too well documented), secret notes, merch, and more. Thar's alot of content that I have to show in these pages and if I don't the pages could be deleted.

I also plan on making pages for a 1992 Amiga 2000 horror game named Waxworks and its 2020 remake. Finding videos for the remake has been challenging as some of the very few high quality videos existing because the developers don't want the game to be spoiled. The videos containing things for the 1992 game also features blood, gore, a couple of seconds of nudity, smoking, mild swearing, monsters, etc. As you can guess I don't want everyone seeing that because I don't want to get banned.

There are more examples but I think you get my point that I disagree due to various reasons. Thank you for listening to my ted talk of sorts with monsters in it.
 
Something related, when adding images in the wiki I always put in their names from which comic and issue they come from, and when linking images and albums in Imgur the first one shown has its description saying the same, and if there're images in the album from other issues then that's pointed out too. Can we rule in this too as an alternative? As in, we do this and if so other stuff doesn't need to be done? Because when the same in-wiki images, Imgur images & albums are used then that 1 time the source was added serves to always show it everytime they're used, by the same user or any other. In that way, ruling this in as "you should always do this" kinda saves more people's time more notably and would be more reasonable to be forcibly applied.
 
Look, I think that it is a good idea to write in our rules that we heavily encourage using references in addition to linked images, blogs, and calculations, for evidence, but enforcing our community to start a project to insert exact references for all mentions in all of our around 25,000 character profiles, and delete all the ones that do not comply within 8 months, is just not remotely realistic. This is such a massive change that it would have to be gradual and relatively slow.

I greatly appreciate that Impress and Amelia care so much about reliability though.
 
I feel like which specific installment of x a feat comes from is really not nearly as important for non comics as you're making it out to be. Most verses don't have the same issue of wildly varying so much between installments, because you can't just get some other writer with very different ideas about what's going on. I'll link the chapter for worm or cosmere stuff because may as well, but if I'm doing game files or something I don't see the issue with a youtube link demonstrating something going on.
 
While retroactively implementing proper citations into all of our profiles is borderline impossible, it would be extremely beneficial to implement standards like this to the creation of new pages.

Not to say that we should just delete every new page that doesn't have a phonebook of citations, however there should be a minimum criteria for what we expect to be proven on a profile:
  • A citation for physical durability, strength, striking strength, and speed if the exceed human capabilities. Feats should be cited in order of priority - the tier-defining feat should precede supporting feats, and minor/inconsequential feats should be listed in Notable Attacks or in a linked RT/Feats section.
  • A citation or explanation for major and not-extremely-obvious powers. There was some examples of obvious powers above with Superman's flight.
  • A citation for Intelligence and Stamina if it exceeds human capabilities.
  • Powerscaling should be cited if it is not extremely obvious.
  • Any WoG or Statements must be cited.
  • Cosmology should not be explained on pages, however pages whose tiers involve cosmology-based scaling should link to blogs that explain the relevant information.
  • Detailed explanations for Weaknesses and Range.
If a profile fails to meet these standards, the user creating the profile should be notified and given a reasonable amount of time to fix the issue. If the user is unresponsive or can't fix the page, the page should be saved to a sandbox, then removed so that it can be remade with proper evidence.

It should not be a rule-breaking offense for new or even some experienced users to fail this criteria, however users that continuously post poor quality pages and ignore suggestions on improving pages should have disciplinary action taken against them.
 
I do agree with Dargoo when it comes to quality control. Of course, not every verse is gonna be capable of delivering on that front (specially tier 1, since they have their own set of quality control) but as a standard those are pretty good i think.
 
I'd also like to note that various other wikis have templates that are used to identify pages that need to be improved. Perhaps we can encourage staff members and even regular users to mark pages that need improvement?
 
Depends. This is something I proposed only minutes ago and I'd like to wait for input from our other staff members and users.
 
I see.

Well that idea sounds ok to me, as stated several times before getting all 25,000 pages isn't really possible but it is possible for newly made profiles.
 
Wokistan said:
with the caveat that the reference template isn't the only way possible to cite something.
Click to expand...
It isn't the only way to cite and shouldn't be, yes. I find it preferable for certain kinds of verses but I'd be silly to force that on other users.
Gewsbumpz_dude said:
getting all 25,000 pages isn't really possible
Click to expand...
While I definitely agree, popular verses can certainly be singled out and held to a higher standard of evidence, and we can also create a template for pages that lack proper citations so that verse supporters or helpful staff members can tackle them on their own time.

Basically, we can do this for much of our front-facing pages that are frequent browsing targets, while for more obscure pages we can also notify readers that the pages need to be updated, so that there is less ambiguity as to what's acceptable. Overall the site improves a whole bunch.
 
Well, I appreciate encouraging higher standards, but if we enforce them too strictly, we will soon barely have a wiki any more, since virtually everything would fail and have to be deleted. Gradually building things up and being patient for several years as the improvements increasingly spread across the wiki is the approach that has worked well for me for the last 6 years. Anything considerably more forced and accelerated than that is regrettably not remotely realistic.
 
Antvasima said:
Anything considerably more forced and accelerated than that is regrettably not remotely realistic.
Click to expand...
I feel like notifying users about pages that could be improved and marking pages that need improvement with a template would be helpful, at the least, if we don't want to delete profiles for not meeting higher evidence standards.
 
I don't think that dargoo was agreeing with that timeframe, his thing was more of a new standard and gradual fixing of old stuff.
 
Firephoenixearl said:
Wait a second? Is zark saying that we shouldn't use scans anymore only references? If she is, that is pretty bad. If anything both should be used. I thought zark was arguing to keep both.
Click to expand...
...I literally didn't say this...?

Scans are required but references are required as well.
 
Wokistan said:
I don't think that dargoo was agreeing with that timeframe, his thing was more of a new standard and gradual fixing of old stuff.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was sort of just proposing my own thing - there's some overlap between what I want to see happen and what the OP wants to see happen however there's a good number of differences.

One of them is having a set timeframe, I don't think that would work.

What I think would work is giving our administrators tools to organize pages that need to be improved. Here's an example of a "Page is Missing Citations / Needs to Be Improved" template from the Worm Wiki:

wgEFGt0.png
 
We already delete newer profiles if their statistics are unsupported. Evidences should be present in any form. But making references compulsory along with other restrictions we already have in place would just alienate the casual editors from the wiki ngl.

EDIT: Nevermind. I didn't read Dargoo's latest comment from the second page earlier smh. I am not opposed to marking a page with a template, but then again, we usually tend to delete pages with no evidences whatsoever.
 
AKM sama said:
but then again, we usually tend to delete pages with no evidences whatsoever.
Click to expand...
For pages that are extremely old, or pages for minor characters in major verses, this isn't a trend that I notice in the slightest - and I think it would be very unfavorable to delete such a large quantity of pages (this is why I mentioned that powerscaling should be cited on pages, since so much of the time a page just explains a powerscale but doesn't link it).

Giving staff a template to mark pages that need proper citations would allow staff members who are passionate about improving the bulk of the site to organize large, over-time efforts while also not putting pressure on staff who are busy with CRT evaluations and edit patrolling to change priorities. I also think we should encourage regular users to add citations and scans to bare profiles, and perhaps with the kinds of profiles I mentioned before (minor characters, popular verse) helpful verse supporters can be contacted when a staff member decides to mark a page for improvement.

Citations are a vital part of our identity and quality as an indexing wiki. Very often I see users who aren't already stepped in the site taken aback by massive chains of powerscaling for HST verses when all that's linked is the other profile (most of the time) and not what justifies the scaling to begin with.
 
So if I remember correctly, we decided that we should write an instruction in the Editing Rules page that strongly encourages our members to insert references when it is warranted. Is this correct?

Should we also make a stricter addition to the Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics page regarding that references should preferably always be used for these franchises, due to their extremely disorganised nature?
 
Okay. That is fine with me. Do you have any suggestions for staff members that we should notify to comment here?
 
Antvasima said:
So if I remember correctly, we decided that we should write an instruction in the Editing Rules page that strongly encourages our members to insert references when it is warranted. Is this correct?

Should we also make a stricter addition to the Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics page regarding that references should preferably always be used for these franchises, due to their extremely disorganised nature?
Click to expand...
Is somebody willing to write draft texts for this please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
About The "Others" Section
2
Replies
70
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Jinx666
'Continuity' Section for Verse Pages
Replies
12
Views
1K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
DMUA
Removing Power of the Verse from Verse pages
2 3
Replies
99
Views
7K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Armorchompy
  • Locked
Minor Team Profiles Change
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Armorchompy
Armorchompy
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top