- 164,997
- 71,747
As a compromise solution, maybe we can cut our minimum number of appearances down by roughly half for characters that were extremely significant in very notable story runs, and had consistently handled power levels?
-
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.
Marvel & DC rules on minimum appearance count
- Thread starter Ayewale
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dc comics marvel comics
- 164,997
- 71,747
She still shouldn't be able to do so though, but feel free to suggest more extreme and reliable examples if you wish.
- 10,525
- 9,537
I will rework that page on a blog with actual abd more up to date examples and then create a CRT.
- 15,564
- 11,853
Silencer, a street tier, fighting Wonder Woman
I think if we're agreeing that there should be a case by case basis for reliable and noteworthy characters that go under 20 issues, then adding an issue limit for them isn't necessary.
- 7,097
- 12,777
We should switch that example to where Slade managed to stab the Flash by anticipating where he was going to go, since that was also extremely ridiculous.
- 10,525
- 9,537
- 164,997
- 71,747
A staff forum CRT in that case, since it would be a policy change revision, and you are not allowed to change/modify our rules in the page, just suggest some better examples, including images.
- 164,997
- 71,747
Not an extreme enough example, especially as Wonder Woman was not damaged, and likely held back a lot, as she didn't really fight back.
We still need an issue limit, in order to maintain some minimal degree of safety standards. My apologies. Maybe 10 issues would be appropriate?
- 164,997
- 71,747
Yes. That would work.
- 15,564
- 11,853
Fair enough
I mean, extreme notability should probably not have any issue limits. The villain of a big event might only appear for a few issues but they're doubtlessly extremely relevant to powerscaling.
- 164,997
- 71,747
That also seems fine to use.
- 164,997
- 71,747
If it was a sufficiently significant villain, for a major storyline event, I think that they would have at least appeared in 10 separate issues.
- 15,564
- 11,853
Even if that were the case, keys may be an issue. Gorr the God Butcher has three keys but only 15 appearances, and I doubt they're perfectly evenly split across his appearances either. Surely indexing thoroughness should take precedent over normal standards then, especially when he is the focus of those issues and as such has plenty of powerscaling statements.
- 164,997
- 71,747
Well, as is quite characteristic for Jason Aaron's stories, Gorr seems very inconsistent in the portrayal of his power level, and is also a rip-off of Dan Jurgens' character Desak, but 15 issues would qualify to be included.
- 15,564
- 11,853
That is an unrelated issue, let's try to stay on topic
It would, but we have requirements for keys too, and he likely wouldn't clear them. I think it's better to just keep the current notability standards (well, what were "current" before they got accidentally erased).
- 7,097
- 12,777
You don't have to announce that to us, you can just reply fully when you're ready.
- 164,997
- 71,747
I think that they were removed after a discussion, but they included making exceptions for characters that gained notability by unrelated versions of them appearing in other continuities, so that part should be removed at the very least.
- 15,564
- 11,853
That was not the case, as Impress herself stated that was not the subject of the discussion at all:
- 164,997
- 71,747
The way I recall it, we agreed to remove that text segment during a CRT, but regardless, what I said above about that it should be irrelevant if characters gain public notoriority through unrelated versions of them appearing in other mediums still applies.
- 15,564
- 11,853
Well I am sorry but that is not correct, I dunno, you can go looking yourself but I did too and couldn't find any examples of that, maybe I'm wrong but "I thought" isn't much in front of that.
- 15,564
- 11,853
@Antvasima I'm sorry but if you are going to veto a thread you should at least take the responsibility to follow it, given that you have applied an ultimate judgment on it.
- 164,997
- 71,747
Somebody likely just forgot to link to the thread where it was agreed in the edit summary box for the page.
- 15,564
- 11,853
You yourself linked to the thread, and nothing of the sort was in that.
- 164,997
- 71,747
I have already wasted enough time here for today, and have at least 6 hours of wiki patrolling work left to do today, and need to sleep and eat properly, so no, I do not.
- 15,564
- 11,853
At least address the arguments about the notability clause, that discussion isn't over, and it relies on a edit you poorly applied.
- 164,997
- 71,747
Hmm. That is very strange then. Regardless, if we restore the rule, the mention of other continuity versions of characters granting them exceptions should be removed,
- 15,564
- 11,853
I think we should restore it first, then discuss that on another thread since it isn't related to this.
- 164,997
- 71,747
It is ridiculous to state that any character appearing in one or two issues that is included as cannon fodder in a blockbuster movie should automatically be free to include regardless how irrelevant the original version is, and it is a minor self-evident change that does not require extreme amounts of discussion.
Which thread did I link to in the edit summary btw?
Which thread did I link to in the edit summary btw?
- 15,564
- 11,853
Regardless, that was the ruling at the time, and a thread should be made to change it (after it's restored). It may be self-evident to you but not everyone would agree.
You linked to this thread.
Ayewale
He/Him- 1,065
- 750
- Thread starter
- #116
In fairness, it looked like with the veto the thread would just be locked before I could fight back.
I still don't agree with this because, like I've said before, there's lots of verses that require a MASSIVE amount of work due to the sheer number of entities (Lots of long-running japanese media, Pokemon, Dungeons and Dragons) and while you could argue a lot of them suffer for it, we're at least allowed to try and create those pages, hm?
Managing CRTs for the small characters is annoying, yes, but...that's literally already a thing that happens, all the time. If we started to disallow pages because no one is knowledgeable enough to approve CRTs on it, we would nuke a lot more than Marvel & DC I feel. Regarding forgotten pages, we just delete them like we do for everything else; there's a lot of entire verses that are almost entirely forgotten, yet making pages for them isn't outright disallowed.
If consistency is still the worry, the solution would be to only allow characters with semi-consistent ratings, not to just ban every character that doesn't have two years of appearances. The former solution is more specific and addresses the problem; the latter erroneously assumes that every character with less than 20 issues is too inconsistent, even if the character has only appeared in their own comic book. There's just too many false-positives for me to agree with nuking every character with less than 20 issues of showcases.
As Armor pointed out, most people won't be making pages for thousands of 2-page randoms, and as M3X2.0 and Damage pointed out, we could just introduce more careful guidelines instead of the issue count rule. Because no matter how you slice it, the number we use is extremely arbitrary, and not one person, supporter or otherwise, have disagreed.
Also, a number of moderators already pointed it out but this wouldn't count as wiki policy so a veto would seem rather unfair. Additionally, Confluctor and The_Empress seem more worried about Staff Participation than the actual change itself; Empress said outright that if members promised to actually work on the changes, she'd agree.
Even better: just reduce it to consistently handled power levels.
The current barrier between any other character being added to the wiki is zero. If we really do have to add restrictions on top of that, we should keep it to what's actually relevant i.e. the character's consistency (disregarding the fact that even these 'notable' characters are still inconsistent as all hell, to the point where we still have to make special rules for them).
But aren't the problems with these characters that they're inconsistent? Mandrakk being notable has literally no impact on whether he has consistent feats or not.
There are DND pages on the site, right now, for Brown Bears, Cheetahs and Crocodiles. With all due respect, a character being cannon fodder has never once prevented them from being added to the wiki, and the only reason we don't have every single MMO mob on the wiki is a lack of interest.
- 7,097
- 12,777
Mandrakk doesn't really have any feats at all. His tier comes pretty much exclusively from cosmology scaling and threatening statements. He only ever fought CAS, and CAS only ever fought him.
- 164,997
- 71,747
That revision seems to have been accepted from what I can see.
- 11,175
- 17,298
This is a Marvel and DC thing, not a wiki policy thing. Definitely not a situation where you can use the veto card
Similar threads
