Minor Team Profiles Change

[Armorchompy]

Currently, our Standard Format for Team Profiles says this:

Additionally, teams must also be official in-verse i.e. referred to as such by characters within the verse, and possess a team name or an analogous term, as well as being notable and prominent.

I am proposing to add an other, alternate standard to this requirement, for reasons I will be briefly going into:

Additionally, teams must also be official in-verse i.e. referred to as such by characters within the verse, and possess a team name or an analogous term, or be extremely long-lived within the work and clear in formation, as well as being notable and prominent.

Why am I proposing this change? Simple, JRPGs. Just about every single JRPG has a great focus on the party members available, and many, many of them bring great focus to the concept of teamwork and the power of friendship. If you've played any, you know this is true. And yet, rarely or ever are these teams ever explicitly referred to as such in-story. Don't get me wrong, they definitely are teams, but they get formed gradually and through circumstance, and after months of fighting and living together, when the threat is finally dispersed they go their own ways. They're almost never named, either. To my knowledge, nobody in FF7 ever goes "Team Final Fantasy VII wins again! Gee, Cloud, aren't you happy to be part of this official in-verse team?", but it'd be pretty insane to suggest that the party is not one of the most iconic teams in the entire medium of gaming.

So, I got thinking, and I realized this is an issue for much more than just this one genre. The current standards are clearly created around the superhero genre, which is indeed where some of the most notable teams in fiction come from, but it does have many blind spots as a result. There's several extremely obvious and notable teams that cannot be made because they don't hit these standards. Currently, making a team profile for many genres is an exercise in hoping there's some off-hand statement that gives some nick-name to be used as the "official name". I don't think this should be a deciding factor. Here's an example of some noteworthy teams that under our current standards cannot be indexed:

• The Chrono Trigger party. Not only are all the party members and their relationships an extremely part of this seminal SNES RPG, but they have a lot of teamwork abilities: The entire gameplay system relies on pulling off combo moves between the characters.
• Final Fantasy 6 has one of the biggest and most ambitious parties in RPGs, with them sometimes almost working together like a task force by splitting up and tackling several parts of a dungeon at once where a smaller party would not be able to, so it came to my mind first, but as far as I know the great majority of the FF games, which heavily focus on their parties, never have an official name or acknowledgment of status.
• Terms like "The Z-Fighters" or "The Stardust Crusaders" are never spoken, or at least ever emphasized, in the actual series, to my knowledge, though some side material acknowledges them. If these were slightly less famous or expansive series, the profiles would not be possible.
• Cowboy Bebop is another example. I haven't seen it yet, but from my understanding, the series orbits heavily around the main group of characters, and a lack of an explicit name for them should not be a deciding factor in whether it can earn a team profile.
• The Harry-Ron-Hermione trio is an extremely major and iconic part of the Harry Potter books, and yet, they cannot be put side-by-side in a vs match together right now.

Of course, I understand the fear of excessively minor team-ups being indexed (though judging by how few team profiles have actually been made, it might be a bit misplaced), but I think my alternative rule should prevent that. Random, brief or casual team-ups cannot be indexed, but teams that are consistent and extremely important within the work can. Arguably, the rule hasn't really been enforced either. I'm not going to make names, but I think some of the current team profiles don't really quite hit the "official" requirement, and yet nobody's questioned their presence... because quite frankly, they should exist.

Agree (8): @Antvasima @Qawsedf234 @SamanPatou @DontTalkDT @Firestorm808 @LordGriffin1000 @DarkDragonMedeus @Ultima_Reality @Tllmbrg @Lonkitt @Planck69 @Kazuma_kuwabara @DaReaperMan

Disagree: 0

Neutral: 0

 

[Tllmbrg]

Sure this works

 

[Antvasima]

This seems like a perfectly fine and uncontroversial revision.

 

[Lonkitt]

Yep, I think this is great. Mark me as agreeing

 

[Kazuma_kuwabara]

If normal users can vote, I agree with your proposition

 

[Antvasima]

Only bureaucrats and administrators can vote regarding changes in our official standards and rules, except for calculation-related ones, where our calc group members also have votes.

 

[Armorchompy]

Uh, sure, I appreciate all kinds of input. Your votes probably won't count, but I appreciate opinions from all.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler

What do you think about this?

 

[Planck69]

Looks good to me.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Would this effect my random Dungeon Boss profile?

I agree either way, but just asking

 

[Armorchompy]

Would this effect my random Dungeon Boss profile?

I agree either way, but just asking

Probably not, should be fine as is anyways.

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think about this?

I think it's fine.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

Not sure whether my Black Order profile will be affected

I agree with the OP regardless

 

[LordTracer]

OP makes sense.

 

[Armorchompy]

Not sure whether my Black Order profile will be affected, but I agree with the OP regardless

This doesn't affect any pre-existing profiles.

 

[SamanPatou]

Ye, it's fine.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Sounds ok.

 

[Firestorm808]

Seems reasonable.

 

[Planck69]

Small question, is there any specific metric for long lived or must that be self-evident in the work? Like, Kratos and Freya fight together almost exclusively during the latter half of their game and from that point in the story onwards but its only that one game. Would that count?

 

[Armorchompy]

hm, I couldn't exactly say given that I don't know the game but my instinct would be no, if it's just two people and they're happening to fight by one another's side for a while (Ragnarok takes place over like, a few days, right?) I think that'd be better to not make a team profile for unless they have a lot of abilities exclusive to working together.

 

[Planck69]

hm, I couldn't exactly say given that I don't know the game but my instinct would be no, if it's just two people and they're happening to fight by one another's side for a while (Ragnarok takes place over like, a few days, right?) I think that'd be better to not make a team profile for unless they have a lot of abilities exclusive to working together.

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose that makes sense. Would Kratos and Atreus be a better example? They fight for 3 years together and regularly do team takedowns and the like. Sorry if it feels verse specific, just want to be sure.

 

[Armorchompy]

I'm not sure if team profiles can be made for just two characters (especially given that you can just put duos in vs threads without them) but if they can, yeah.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Finally, Xenoblade party profiles

I agree with this

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I agree with this. Was actually thinking of if the party members from Okage/Dark Cloud would count as a team but they pretty much falls into the explination of coming together via circumstance and while fighting ad a team, they have no team name and split once the story is over.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree JRPG parties should be allowed to be considered teams. They don't really have to have official team names but simply being recognizable pair ups that emphasize team work is enough.

 

[Armorchompy]

I agree with this. Was actually thinking of if the party members from Okage/Dark Cloud would count as a team but they pretty much falls into the explination of coming together via circumstance and while fighting ad a team, they have no team name and split once the story is over.

I've heard of Okage, it looks cool

 

[ImmortalDread]

Permission granted by @Mr._Bambu (unlike others)

So I have some questions here, and bare with me, since the clarity is the first priority here:

1. What exactly constitutes being "extremely long-lived within the work and clear in formation"? Can you provide specific examples or guidelines for clarity?
2. By broadening the criteria to include teams without official in-verse references, how do you maintain a balance between inclusivity (allowing diverse teams to be indexed) and exclusivity (ensuring that only significant teams are included)? Where do you draw the line between a team that qualifies and one that does not?
3. If a team isn't explicitly named in the work, how would the community and staff members handle cases where fans have unofficially named a group? Would fan-created names be considered valid?

Important question:

May I ask whether any infamous 'duo' or 'squad' could potentially fit this criterion? Could this potentially lead to an overflow of fan profiles, given the absence of stringent guidelines on being 'long-lived within the work and clear in formation'?

--> Moreover, if the rule lacks strict enforcement as you have stated, how do you prevent an inundation of teams that may not meet the specified criteria?

 

[Armorchompy]

Permission granted by @Mr._Bambu (unlike others)

I said I appreciated any input, so no, everyone has permission actually.

What exactly constitutes being "extremely long-lived within the work and clear in formation"? Can you provide specific examples or guidelines for clarity?

By broadening the criteria to include teams without official in-verse references, how do you maintain a balance between inclusivity (allowing diverse teams to be indexed) and exclusivity (ensuring that only significant teams are included)? Where do you draw the line between a team that qualifies and one that does not?

Being a big part of the work is what I envision. An RPG party, though with some alterations throughout, will remain there for most of the story (discounting other games in the series of course) and is undoubtedly important enough to have a profile. Being an important focus of the story, at least.

If a team isn't explicitly named in the work, how would the community and staff members handle cases where fans have unofficially named a group? Would fan-created names be considered valid?

Same as you would characters with no canonical names. If they're widespread enough and there's no better alternative, possibly. Otherwise you call them "The Team/Party (Verse)". This isn't too relevant though.

May I ask whether any infamous 'duo' or 'squad' could potentially fit this criterion?

Not anything, obviously not. There are standards. I don't even know if duos are eligible for teams at all.

Could this potentially lead to an overflow of fan profiles, given the absence of stringent guidelines on being 'long-lived within the work and clear in formation'? Moreover, if the rule lacks strict enforcement as you have stated, how do you prevent an inundation of teams that may not meet the specified criteria?

Those are guidelines. They're a bit vague maybe, but I think they're clear enough and I doubt most people are dying to make team profiles either, given there's so few right now. They're always going to be a niche thing, and we'll still have strict enough standards. The fact that the profiles already lack strict enforcement and there's so few proves they wouldn't be even if the standards were too lose, which they won't be.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Permission granted by @Mr._Bambu (unlike others)

So I have some questions here, and bare with me, since the clarity is the first priority here:

1. What exactly constitutes being "extremely long-lived within the work and clear in formation"? Can you provide specific examples or guidelines for clarity?
2. By broadening the criteria to include teams without official in-verse references, how do you maintain a balance between inclusivity (allowing diverse teams to be indexed) and exclusivity (ensuring that only significant teams are included)? Where do you draw the line between a team that qualifies and one that does not?
3. If a team isn't explicitly named in the work, how would the community and staff members handle cases where fans have unofficially named a group? Would fan-created names be considered valid?

Important question:

May I ask whether any infamous 'duo' or 'squad' could potentially fit this criterion? Could this potentially lead to an overflow of fan profiles, given the absence of stringent guidelines on being 'long-lived within the work and clear in formation'?

--> Moreover, if the rule lacks strict enforcement as you have stated, how do you prevent an inundation of teams that may not meet the specified criteria?

Some teams are actually named after the individual games' titles; example being the Octopath Travelers.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Sounds fine.

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

Agreed.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Not anything, obviously not. There are standards. I don't even know if duos are eligible for teams at all.

To clarify (And I am sorry if that has already been answered): A team would have to consist of at least three people, then?

 

[Magicomethkuon]

A1, I don't see why not.

 

[Armorchompy]

To clarify (And I am sorry if that has already been answered): A team would have to consist of at least three people, then?

It's not really clarified on the profile right now, and I didn't really set out to change that either, but probably? I guess it'd be nice to have a Mario & Luigi duo profile since they have a lot of unique abilities but eh, probably.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I have seen many duos profiles in the fandom. So pretty sure they are still eligible.

Regarding the answers, @Armorchompy, I appreciate your clarity and willingness to take the time to respond to them. Thank you.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I agree with the changes.

I think duos should possibly be allowed as team profiles if:

1) They have something on their profile that isn't usually available to them by themselves, and is specifically gained when the two people are together (Most likely a power/ability).

2) The two people have enough feats as they've been partners for a long time, and isn't just a temporary alliance.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

I agree with the changes.

I think duos should possibly be allowed as team profiles if:

1) They have something on their profile that isn't usually available to them by themselves, and is specifically gained when the two people are together (Most likely a power/ability).

2) The two people have enough feats as they've been partners for a long time, and isn't just a temporary alliance.

This is true. Well-known examples of character pairs fitting the criteria are Kongs from Donkey Kong, also Cranky or Dixie and Diddy. There are many things that they work together for. Making them cooperate makes the game more winnable. It's also encouraged, some things are impossible to do on a stage if you don't have both working together.

Tag teams are still possible. Meister combinations from Soul Eater such as Maka+Soul, Black☆Star+Tsubaki are also suitable, even if their profiles are individual.

 

[Armorchompy]

With due respect I would rather not have this discussed here since it isn't really pertinent to the change I'm planning to add.

 

[ImmortalDread]

With due respect I would rather not have this discussed here since it isn't really pertinent to the change I'm planning to add.

You're welcome to implement the changes, you've got a unanimous consensus.

 

[Armorchompy]

48 hours have to pass