• 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.

Minor Standard Format addition: Alliance

The_Impress

The_Impress

She/Her
VS Battles
Retired
Messages
12,816
Reaction score
8,643
CRT is to add an optional field to the standard character profiles, of this description:

Alliance: The teams and civilizations the character is a member of.

We'll be able to link the greater civilization and team files for the character using this, if it's applicable
 
Armorchompy said:
Seems handy and ultimately harmless. Though maybe "affiliation" would be better?
Click to expand...
I like Armor's idea more. Affiliation should be placed right after Classification and contain stuff like «Fantasy Patrol member», «Captain of the Straw Hat Pirates», etc. Anything that is not the character's occupation, race, etc., but rather affiliation should be moved to that section. If there're already existing team/civilization profiles, they can be linked as well.
 
I also think that "Affiliation" seems like a better name for what is suggested here.
 
Thank you to everybody who are helping out here.
 
Not against it, but Classification already covers it as in it you can put "member/leader/citizen/etc. of X".
 
I think the proposal has been misinterpreted.

If I get it right, this is just intended to add links to the pages of civilizations, teams etc.., not every kind of affiliation such as job, etc...

Like, Jotaro would have a link to the Stardust Crusaders page and nothing else.

Also, I agree with the suggestion.
 
Eficiente said:
Not against it, but Classification already covers it as in it you can put "member/leader/citizen/etc. of X".
Click to expand...
The definition of the Classification section in the Standard Format for Character Profiles is the following:

Classification: The character's class/race etc.

So yeah, affiliation is definitely different. I know a couple wikis that have both Classification and Affiliation as separate sections for years.
SamanPatou said:
I think the proposal has been misinterpreted.

If I get it right, this is just intended to add links to the pages of civilizations, teams etc.., not every kind of affiliation such as job, etc...
Click to expand...
Guess some people (incl. myself) wanted to expand the Impress' idea a bit. Let's see what does she think of that.
 
Eficiente said:
Not against it, but Classification already covers it as in it you can put "member/leader/citizen/etc. of X".
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm against it for that reason.
Like, I don't mind adding optional sections if it's important and can't be covered otherwise, but this seems like it can simply be integrated into the classification part.
We somewhere still want to have a standardized layout after all.
 
It's with respect to listing team and civilization membership more distinctly, linking the relevant files so there is better navigation between pages, you're misinterpreting the goal :V

We basically never link stuff in the Classifications section, and if we're beginning to then Team memberships and whatnot can get lost in the shuffle.

Standardization is for neatness and ease of access for where relevant info is, clusterfucking the Classification section isn't preferable, not to mention it'll make the Classification section of some characters, namely major comic ones, into unnecessarily long textwalls.
 
The_Impress said:
It's with respect to listing team and civilization membership more distinctly, linking the relevant files so there is better navigation between pages, you're misinterpreting the goal :V

We basically never link stuff in the Classifications section, and if we're beginning to then Team memberships and whatnot can get lost in the shuffle.

Standardization is for neatness and ease of access for where relevant info is, clusterfucking the Classification section isn't preferable, not to mention it'll make the Classification section of some characters, namely major comic ones, into unnecessarily long textwalls.
Click to expand...
The classification section at this point is containing mostly one word. I don't think it will be more of a textwall than the section would become anyway, since the current purpose adds only that one word or maybe two. I really don't think the section will suffer much under that.
I also don't see how us starting to place plinks in the section would be an issue.

Personally, I think consistency is more important here, since the issue is really minor and of no greater impact to the characters.
 
Affiliation as an optional section for the reason it covers information that does not really suit our current definition of classification (I copypasted it above) should work. For example, Luffy's «Captain of the Straw Hat Pirates» should be moved form Classification to newly added Affiliation and the link to the team profile should be added.

There're, however, tons of characters that prefer to act alone and are not part of any organization/team/union. These characters wouldn't need the Affiliation section. The rest of characters would need it, that's why it works as an optional section.
 
DontTalkDT said:
The classification section at this point is containing mostly one word. I don't think it will be more of a textwall than the section would become anyway, since the current purpose adds only that one word or maybe two. I really don't think the section will suffer much under that.
Click to expand...
DT frankly speaking just because the files you see from your circles only use one word, doesn't mean most files on the wiki do. In fact, most files in my verse circles can very well have 2-3 lines dedicated to classification, for semi-major files, and I'd like those present to recall that for infoboxes, one of the points was certain files had extremely long classification sections that wrecked the format.

So yeah this trend you're asserting isn't universal in the slightest.
DontTalkDT said:
I also don't see how us starting to place links in the section would be an issue.
Click to expand...
...it having links alone isn't the issue, yes, it having a collection of random links is, which is what you're saying. i want team files and civilization files to be listed distinct since they're relevant to characters' ethod of combat within their own verse
DontTalkDT said:
Personally, I think consistency is more important here, since the issue is really minor and of no greater impact to the characters.
Click to expand...
i don't see how this is an issue of consistency frankly, it's just a bizarre resistance to adding very basic information for the character, and it does have positive impacts for page-to-page navigation and general information for how a character relates to a group.

Like yes it isn't end all be all info needed, but it's still RELEVANT info that better helps our indexing
 
Ogurtsow said:
it covers information that does not really suit our current definition of classification
Click to expand...
Just expand the definition a little. TBH I see classification frequently used like that anyways.
The_Impress said:
DT frankly speaking just because the files you see from your circles only use one word, doesn't mean most files on the wiki do. In fact, most files in my verse circles can very well have 2-3 lines dedicated to classification, for semi-major files, and I'd like those present to recall that for infoboxes, one of the points was certain files had extremely long classification sections that wrecked the format.

So yeah this trend you're asserting isn't universal in the slightest.

...it having links alone isn't the issue, yes, it having a collection of random links is, which is what you're saying. i want team files and civilization files to be listed distinct since they're relevant to characters' ethod of combat within their own verse

i don't see how this is an issue of consistency frankly, it's just a bizarre resistance to adding very basic information for the character, and it does have positive impacts for page-to-page navigation and general information for how a character relates to a group.

Like yes it isn't end all be all info needed, but it's still RELEVANT info that better helps our indexing
Click to expand...
It's relevant info that can be added into the section that already fits it.
Like, seriously, we have nine team profiles. Nine. Now, they are new, ok. But how many civilization profiles do we have? Just 152.
For comparison, how many verses do we have? 1395. Almost 10 times as many.
Realistically speaking, the problems you describe will likely occur for maybe a dozen of our 26000 characters. For all others adding the team to the classification would work just as well.

And I really don't think many profiles have the problem of long classification sections. It's a largely unregulated section as of now, so some probably have it, but the vast majority don't and one can probably cut down the long classification sections a lot if one really wants to.


Let's also not forget that we have verse pages for the sake of navigation. It's not like finding a team is difficult as it is now.
 
DontTalkDT said:
It's relevant info that can be added into the section that already fits it.
Like, seriously, we have nine team profiles. Nine. Now, they are new, ok. But how many civilization profiles do we have? Just 152.
Click to expand...
Because civilization is a hella limited fomat that needs further rewrites to be viable
DontTalkDT said:
For comparison, how many verses do we have? 1395. Almost 10 times as many.
Click to expand...
Relevance of this anyways?
DontTalkDT said:
Realistically speaking, the problems you describe will likely occur for maybe a dozen of our 26000 characters. For all others adding the team to the classification would work just as well.
Click to expand...
So? Why are you letting it be a problem for the dozen when it literally doesn't do anything negative for the rest, except your own unfounded personal resistance to it due to your opinions
DontTalkDT said:
Let's also not forget that we have verse pages for the sake of navigation. It's not like finding a team is difficult as it is now.
Click to expand...
More navigation the better, especially noting the potential for clutter certain team files can likely get in the future, and again, genuinely, there are no downsides to it other than you conflating "standard" with "clutter" based off really weak reasoning. Literally there is no objective point against this, it's just you wanting to cluster Classifiations instead of pressing the enter key once.

A literal line doesn't break standard. If anything rejecting this, you're creating a LACK OF STANDARD, because it means I have no definite place to list teams, and can very well link them between 5 different fields due to your utter vagueness
 
We already have optional sections, and some profiles have customed versions of the NA&T and such.

I don't see a problem with adding another optional section which helps the navigation and makes a profile look more complete.
Also, writing just the team/civilization in a specified section sounds better than "member of this" and "citizen of that" and such.
 
DontTalk makes sense to me above. It shouldn't be a big deal to insert team links to the Classification section instead, for the sake of greater consistency.

Thank you for helping out and being a voice of reason, as usual.
 
I don't particularly care about team profiles. This seems harmless, I suppose.
 
What do the rest of you think about DontTalk's suggestion above?
 
Actually DT does make a good point.

Hm.

Yeah, that's fair. In that case I'd rather leave them as they are.
 
Well, we should probably mention in the standard format page that links to teams can be inserted into the Classification sections.
 
I am fine either way. I don't see any big problems with either of the options.
 
I mean again I don't see the big issue, it makes the links stand out better and not be jammed along other more trivial classifications. Any effects to the "standard" is laughably negligible, and it gives the format more structure. :/

Literally, it's clicking enter once, and I just believe it looks all the more cohesive for it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jinx666
'Affiliations' addition (optional) to Character pages
Replies
20
Views
2K
Jinx666
Jinx666
Agnaa
Standard Format - Statistics Section Tabbers
Replies
19
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DarkDragonMedeus
Standardization of Tabber Image Formatting
Replies
12
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DontTalkDT
  • Locked
Adding a References Section to the Standard Format For Items
Replies
5
Views
1K
DontTalkDT
DontTalkDT
Eficiente
Standard Format for Character Profiles: Small proposal
Replies
13
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Back
Top