• 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

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?
 
By the way, since this issue was broughten up:

The Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics page should be heavily reworked. The majority of the examples are honestly very bad, non-sense or simply wrong (The image used has Catwoman KOing two Flashes, despite them being mind-controlled by Ivy who didn't know how to use their powers correctly).
She still shouldn't be able to do so though, but feel free to suggest more extreme and reliable examples if you wish.
 
She still shouldn't be able to do so though, but feel free to suggest more extreme and reliable examples if you wish.
Silencer, a street tier, fighting Wonder Woman
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?
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.
 
By the way, since this issue was broughten up:

The Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics page should be heavily reworked. The majority of the examples are honestly very bad, non-sense or simply wrong (The image used has Catwoman KOing two Flashes, despite them being mind-controlled by Ivy who didn't know how to use their powers correctly).
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.
 
I will rework that page on a blog with actual abd more up to date examples and then create a CRT.
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.
 
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.
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.
We still need an issue limit, in order to maintain some minimal degree of safety standards. My apologies. Maybe 10 issues would be appropriate?
 
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.
Yes. That would work.
 
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.
Fair enough
We still need an issue limit, in order to maintain some minimal degree of safety standards. My apologies. Maybe 10 issues would be appropriate?
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.
 
I have a good example of Batman defeating the Justice League. No prep, punches and kicks only.

That would fit the page more than anything in there.
That also seems fine to use.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Well, I don't have enough free time to keep repeating myself here, and I have given an offer to try to be as flexible as I am able regarding this issue, so I will return to my wiki-patrolling duties now.
 
Well, as is quite characteristic for Jason Aaron's stories, Gorr seems very inconsistent in the portrayal of his power level
That is an unrelated issue, let's try to stay on topic
but 15 issues would qualify to be included.
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).
 
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).
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.
 
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.
That was not the case, as Impress herself stated that was not the subject of the discussion at all:
From https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Power-scaling_Rules_for_Marvel_and_DC_Comics

One of the geniuses decided to remove the original text (from this revision: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/P...mics?type=revision&diff=7728599&oldid=7567224)

It stated:

So yeah re-add this line, it changed from my time so the rule is more moronic now than it was before.

Sorry for assuming it stayed the same.
 
We should probably find a way to phrase "notability" that can account for renown across fans independent of inclusion in other media. Not to over-rely on the same example but CAS has never appeared in any other media, for instance.
 
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.
 
I recall that we agreed to remove that text segment during a CRT, but regardless, what I said above about that it should be i rrelevant if characters gain public notoriority through unrelated versions of them appearing in other mediums still applies.
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.
 
Anyway, I am leaving for other more important duties now. I definitely do not have the time to keep going in circles repeating myself here for hours.
 
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.
Somebody likely just forgot to link to the thread where it was agreed in the edit summary box for the page.
 
@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.
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.
 
At least address the arguments about the notability clause, that discussion isn't over, and it relies on a edit you poorly applied.
 
You yourself linked to the thread, and nothing of the sort was in that.
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,
 
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,
I think we should restore it first, then discuss that on another thread since it isn't related to this.
 
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?
 
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?
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.
 
That thread does include the change he made.

It looks good, except for the following text, as it seems to give far too much leeway to avoid finding a coherent and consistent context under certain circumstances.

"unless they play an extremely important part in the overall plot and scaling of the characters, or are frequently mentioned by other media"

How about this instead?

"unless they play an extremely important part in the scaling of other characters"
And then there are agrees from Tracer and Firestorm.
 
You don't have to announce that to us, you can just reply fully when you're ready.
In fairness, it looked like with the veto the thread would just be locked before I could fight back.


I'm kind of a new guy (mostly marvel) but i disagree with the thread, the current number of pages of Marvel and I assume DC is not that different is too big for the number of staff members active and some pages already get forgotten, I will even point out one example that i did commented on the other thread i made
Namor's speed is currently MHS+ scaling from Human Torch except human torch was downgraded to hypersonic but i suppose when the downgrade got accepted they forgot that Namor was also scaling to him. Those are 2 big characters imagine that it were 10 other one time villains that got back because some writter push him back again.
Pages for less liked characters often get forgotten, even if one person decides he's gonna care for a character's page how lon git will last until either he needs to stop keeping up?
Even if there is one person taking care of the page keep in mind that you still gonna need Staff members approval on CRT's which it was a problem that i got recently when i made a CRT about Kree no Staff member really is acknowledged on Kree so they kind of abstained from voting.
Not so long ago i saw that there was a thread about increasing the number of active CRT's for Marvel/DC because the 3 rule was too short, how are the staff gonna keep up with like 10 threads at the same time for a casual villain/hero that just shows up once in a while?
I dont necessarily think that those specific numbers for the limit are as good as they should be maybe lowering them a bit wont hurt but there should be a limit
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.
I very strongly agree with Impress and Confluctor here.

Marvel Comics and DC Comics constantly change their verse mechanics and general portrayals of power levels over time, and are so insanely inconsistent in terms of powerscaling that we need a minimum number of character appearances to even have some measure of chance at finding a semi-consistent pattern for them; and in addition, as Impress said, we haven't managed to even handle properly scaling and maintaining our current pages for the more established and popular Marvel and DC Comics characters, so increasing their number five-fold is an extremely bad idea.

As such, I am afraid that I am using my veto against potentially dangerous wiki policy changes here.

Impress and Confluctor are also free to join me and Ultima in a private discussion to help provide information, guidance, and arguments regarding Ultima's upcoming revision for Marvel Comics characters considerably below the cosmic entity level.
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.
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?
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).
We can re-include a general notability exception like in Impress' original version of the rule, so that way we can still include short-lived but highly notable characters like Mandrakk.
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.
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
That revision seems to have been accepted from what I can see.
 
Which profiles we do or don't allow on the wiki is definitely a wiki policy thing.
 
Back
Top