• 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.

My Little Pony: Thread of Harmony

DarkDragonMedeus said:
I am somewhat behind, but wasn't that rule made before certain events took place? I mean, a long time ago I know it was agreed IDW comics were to be separate continuity from the main series. But later after the show's conclusion, the official season 10 was in comic format and comics made later were canon. Not sure what happened to older comics of whether or not they ended up getting roped into the canon or if the statement was retconned. I know the 2-A upgrades came from more recent comics that showcased some canon backstories. But I forgot how much the continuity revisions went.

Though to my knowledge, the rewording looks good. But need input from those who have better memory or followed it more. But I could ask if the discussion rule might be outdated in general? Or if we need to remove it outright?
Click to expand...
Phoenks said:
I think it should be removed outright tbh.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima
 
I think that we need to modify the rule rather than remove it, as some of the comic book stories explicitly did contradict events within the main show, and the comments from official sources that stated that the comics are not canon also seem relevant in that regard.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that we need to modify the rule rather than remove it, as some of the comic book stories explicitly did contradict events within the main show, and the comments from official sources that stated that the comics are not canon also seem relevant in that regard.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll apply my rewrite if there's no objection.
 
That seems mostly fine to me, but I don't know about the others here.
 
I feel like I smell downgrades right now. unless someone comes up to defend it.
 
Why would there be downgrades?
 
Okay. So how should we modify that rule text then?
 
Okay. So should the rule in question be deleted then? Or should it be modified to only state that information from the comic books that has been retconned by the main tv shows should be ignored?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. So should the rule in question be deleted then? Or should it be modified to only state that information from the comic books that has been retconned by the main tv shows should be ignored?
Click to expand...
Oh, right, Forgot about this. There shouldn't be a need to modify the existing rule as it is on the MLP verse page. Calling the material "secondary canon" already implies that contradicted material should be ignored.

That said, however, in light of the changes we made to the comics over a year ago, the My Little Pony Discussion rule in the Discussion Rules is badly outdated. It needs to be either updated or deleted outright as it uses an old rule we got rid of some time ago.
 
Lightbuster30 said:
That said, however, in light of the changes we made to the comics over a year ago, the My Little Pony Discussion rule in the Discussion Rules is badly outdated. It needs to be either updated or deleted outright as it uses an old rule we got rid of some time ago.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima
 
I am open for suggestions regarding how to update that rule then.
 
Lightbuster30 said:
Maybe just replace it with what we have on the MLPverse.
Click to expand...
Do we really need that, though? I'd think that just having a note on the verse page would be enough if the discussion rule itself is outdated, as a discussion rule is only necessary for recurring problems, so unless the new interpretation we use has met as many problems as the old one, the rule ought to be removed without being replaced.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Do we really need that, though? I'd think that just having a note on the verse page would be enough if the discussion rule itself is outdated, as a discussion rule is only necessary for recurring problems, so unless the new interpretation we use has met as many problems as the old one, the rule ought to be removed without being replaced.
Click to expand...
What sort of note?
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Do we really need that, though? I'd think that just having a note on the verse page would be enough if the discussion rule itself is outdated, as a discussion rule is only necessary for recurring problems, so unless the new interpretation we use has met as many problems as the old one, the rule ought to be removed without being replaced.
Click to expand...
@IdiosyncraticLawyer

This seems fine to me.
 
Antvasima said:
@IdiosyncraticLawyer

This seems fine to me.
Click to expand...
Done.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
Thank you. Is there anything left to do here, or should we close this thread?
 
My apologies. I have been trying to catch up with almost a 100 different revision threads today, so it is hard to keep proper track. 🙏
 
Uh.. why do most of the profiles look bad?

Like in can't can't tell what their range is
 
Please explain further. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Please explain further. 🙏
Click to expand...
For examples

Twilight's range:
"Tens of Kilometers with her magic (superior to Rarity) | Likely far higher, possibly Interplanetary (Should be comparable to Starswirl) | Thousands of Kilometers, Can stretch across an entire town with ease | Thousands of Kilometers, can teleport across an entire country with ease | Stellar, can move the sun and moon | Thousands of Kilometers, Was able to stretch across all of Equestria, a country-sized area | Standard Melee Range, with punches and kicks, Tens of Meters with magic"

It makes no sense why she would have less range in her stronger forms + the profiles need to mention the range for different abilities like their energy blast, teleporting, telekinesis

Also the powers and abilities are not up to date, the profiles stamina section is also outdated too
 
Yes. It definitely seems so. Are any of you willing to evaluate and make proper drafts for the required revisions?
 
Thank you very much for helping out. 🙏
 
I have a question about my little pony. Someone told me that it's a comic version of high1-B. Is it true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Realabod
my little pony cosmology possible upgrade
Replies
39
Views
3K
BestMGQScalerEver
BestMGQScalerEver
ArzCosmos_888
Scaling MLP Characters and other details.
2 3 4
Replies
126
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
PonePoster
Ponies Have LAYERS! - MLP hax layer CRT (with an ability addition)
Replies
18
Views
2K
PonePoster
PonePoster
Alien_Dual_Blaster
Doraemon Discussion Thread
Replies
9
Views
1K
Alien_Dual_Blaster
Alien_Dual_Blaster
EliminatorVenom
I'm back, with some apologies
Replies
0
Views
388
EliminatorVenom
EliminatorVenom
Back
Top