New Formatting Proposal

[UchihaSlayer96]

I'm in complete agreement with Armorchompy.

Y'all finding the listed format ugly is about as valid as me saying that I think the bolded text wall is ugly (I don't). Both can coexist, both have their uses, and ultimately it's entirely subjective.

I don't see why we can't have both. Verse supporters can decide among themselves which they'd prefer to use, or which will look better for certain characters. It's not that deep.

 

[Tllmbrg]

I'm in complete agreement with Armorchompy.

Y'all finding the listed format ugly is about as valid as me saying that I think the bolded text wall is ugly (I don't). Both can coexist, both have their uses, and ultimately it's entirely subjective.

I don't see why we can't have both. Verse supporters can decide among themselves which they'd prefer to use, or which will look better for certain characters. It's not that deep.

I support not having both

 

[Armorchompy]

I support not having both

Right, make the thread to remove bullet points and see where that gets ya, until then cheers

 

[Tllmbrg]

Oven will do that.

 

[Armorchompy]

Sure, until then, let's move on.

 

[Damage3245]

We're not going to make the profiles intentionally harder for people to read just because some people don't like lists.

We have lists fine in the Notable Attacks sections without complaint. People will just have to cope with them being in the Powers sections too.

 

[Armorchompy]

This is a warning, I'm going to start deleting posts that are just "bullet point lists bad" or "bullet point lists good" from now on, it's not pertinent to the discussion and is causing a lot of hostility and distraction that doesn't belong in the thread at all.

Now like 70% of the people involved in this thread could just un-delete them at will and a couple of them could ban me for it but like just don't do that I'm sending a message here

 

[Noneless21]

uhh bump?

 

[KLOL506]

TL;DR, bullet lists work for certain profiles that are small in nature, not for massive walls of texts, but this can be discussed with Verse Supporters. NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE INTO USING BULLET POINTS OR LENGTHY PARAGRAPHS, GIVE THE PROFILES WHATEVER FORMAT YOU WANT OUT OF THOSE TWO ASSUMING THE SUPPORTERS ARE IN AGREEMENT. End of story.

With that being said, I disagree with both the sandboxes on the grounds that they do not have Resistances in separate tabbers. That is absolutely unacceptable, we have an unofficial-but-majorly-accepted consensus that Resistances are supposed to be in separate tabbers from Powers and Abilities, for ease of reading and accessing the feats without having to scroll down often which can be a detriment to mobile users.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

If the core premise here is letting people bold P&A sections without bullet points, I am 100% in agreement. My only question is if applying that format to profiles would need any sort of CRT, or is just something that'd be discussed among verse supporters beforehand.

 

[Noneless21]

If the core premise here is letting people bold P&A sections without bullet points, I am 100% in agreement. My only question is if applying that format to profiles would need any sort of CRT, or is just something that'd be discussed among verse supporters beforehand.

It would be the best to discuss it with the supporters and post it with CRT if the P&As needed to be bolded or not since some profiles may look ugly with it

 

[Armorchompy]

With that being said, I disagree with both the sandboxes on the grounds that they do not have Resistances in separate tabbers. That is absolutely unacceptable, we have an unofficial-but-majorly-accepted consensus that Resistances are supposed to be in separate tabbers from Powers and Abilities, for ease of reading and accessing the feats without having to scroll down often which can be a detriment to mobile users.

I think this is separate from the formatting itself though, idk why bring it up rn. Also it's case by case, if a character only resists one or a few abilities I don't think creating a second tabber is necessary for that.

Also yeah unless you're the only supporter discuss it with others before changing a profile's style.

 

[KLOL506]

I think this is separate from the formatting itself though, idk why bring it up rn. Also it's case by case, if a character only resists one or a few abilities I don't think creating a second tabber is necessary for that.

Yeah sure, small profiles are whatever. But this isn't small, and he resists quite a bunch of abilities from the looks of it.

 

[Armorchompy]

That's still not pertinent to the actual point of the thread though :v

 

[Deceived3596]

Y'all deserved this moyai emoji for being peak goons in this thread and for not reading the OP.

 

[Armorchompy]

bump

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

TL;DR, bullet lists work for certain profiles that are small in nature, not for massive walls of texts, but this can be discussed with Verse Supporters. NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE INTO USING BULLET POINTS OR LENGTHY PARAGRAPHS, GIVE THE PROFILES WHATEVER FORMAT YOU WANT OUT OF THOSE TWO ASSUMING THE SUPPORTERS ARE IN AGREEMENT. End of story.

With that being said, I disagree with both the sandboxes on the grounds that they do not have Resistances in separate tabbers. That is absolutely unacceptable, we have an unofficial-but-majorly-accepted consensus that Resistances are supposed to be in separate tabbers from Powers and Abilities, for ease of reading and accessing the feats without having to scroll down often which can be a detriment to mobile users.

Yeah sure, small profiles are whatever. But this isn't small, and he resists quite a bunch of abilities from the looks of it.

As the person who is actually revising the verse of the character in question I can say that I plan to revise the character formatting so that about the resistances having their own table will be something solve in the near future (quite probably this same month through revisions), so since that point is smooth, you agree in people having the option to bold the powers yes or no?

 

[KLOL506]

As the person who is actually revising the verse of the character in question I can say that I plan to revise the character formatting so that about the resistances having their own table will be something solve in the near future (quite probably this same month through revisions), so since that point is smooth, you agree in people having the option to bold the powers yes or no?

If you're going with the bullet point format, aye. Then bold.

But the bullet point format having 20+ abilities in the Post-Evolution section is... problematic to say the least.

 

[Noneless21]

If you're going with the bullet point format, aye. Then bold.

But the bullet point format having 20+ abilities in the Post-Evolution section is... problematic to say the least.

I had fixed the third link so that the resistance is on the separate tab, how about that?

 

[KLOL506]

I had fixed the third link so that the resistance is on the separate tab, how about that?

Looks decent at a glance, but you shouldn't blue-link the entire sentence. Just the key specific words where the act is being carried out, like Nullflowerblush and I showed with the profiles we handled.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

If you're going with the bullet point format, aye. Then bold.

But the bullet point format having 20+ abilities in the Post-Evolution section is... problematic to say the least.

No, I wasn't planning to add bullet point, instead was planning to add tabbers (like resistance tabbers, tabbers in the equipment section) and other things.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

Looks decent at a glance, but you shouldn't blue-link the entire sentence. Just the key specific words where the act is being carried out, like Nullflowerblush and I showed with the profiles we handled.

This was also one of the things that include my formatting plan.

 

[Noneless21]

Looks decent at a glance, but you shouldn't blue-link the entire sentence. Just the key specific words where the act is being carried out, like Nullflowerblush and I showed with the profiles we handled.

alright cool, so do you accept for bolded but unbulleted P&As format then?

This was also one of the things that include my formatting plan.

and you also accept this type of format I presume?

 

[KLOL506]

alright cool, so do you accept for bolded but unbulleted P&As format then?

Once the kinks are worked out, either one works for me depending on which one the supporters go with.

 

[Noneless21]

Once the kinks are worked out, either one works for me depending on which one the supporters go with.

Alright cool

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

and you also accept this type of format I presume?

I was the one who basically made you begin with this idea with the previous incident where Ant reversed the bolded powers, so my stance should be obvious.

 

[Noneless21]

I was the one who basically made you begin with this idea with the previous incident where Ant reversed the bolded powers, so my stance should be obvious.

Well that's true, alright then

 

[Noneless21]

bump?

 

[Noneless21]

bump

probably need more staff inputs?

 

[Armorchompy]

@Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

These types of site policy threads should ALWAYS be placed in our staff forum, not in our content revisions forum, or moved there by our staff if these types of mistakes are discovered.

Anyway, all three bureaucrats have previously talked about this issue and agreed about that it seems like a bad idea. Here is how my last conversation about this issue went:

First_Witch

Heya Ant, quick question. I heard that we outlawed bolding the ability links in the PaA section of our profiles. Is that true? And if yes, why? It drastically improves readability of profiles with insane amounts of scans linked into that section and its not as intrusive as writing up bullet point sections

Antvasima

Because it works in bullet point format right in the beginning of sentences, but inserting dozens of bolded text segments into long blocks of otherwise unbolded regular text, and cksntantly rapidly switching back and forth, makes the formatting incoherent and uneasy on the eyes, so it turns much harder to properly focus and digest all of the information there like when reading a book for example.

First_Witch

I can't really agree with that. Some profiles are such massive walls that scans and abilities literally melt together. Throwing them into bulletpoints and scroll boxes makes them a hassle to navigate. I truly believe this should be reevaluated, at least as a legitimate alternative

Antvasima

I really really would rather not being forced to deal with constantly trying to protect the wiki's overall readability for casual viewers over and over regarding the same issues.

Our current format has also served us well in this regard, and it would cause far too much unnecessary work for no true gain to apply this.

First_Witch

Are you really going to insist that this Wall of text is more readable with unbolded abilities than it is bolded? Or that putting it into a scrollbox which would forces everyone to scroll through the lenght of this profile several times over is a adequate solution? Please link me where this was discussed at the very least

Antvasima

Have you ever read a book that constantly rapidly switches back and forth between different text formats?

I agree that the large blocks of text do not look good, but doing what I just described doesn't solve any problems, it worsens them. Bullet point lists look far better structured and are much easier to easily overview for me.

First_Witch

I havent. Do you know what I did read though? University textbooks that highlight important terminology and symbology, followed by a unbolded definitions. It has been done Ant.

Its not only you who read this profiles Ant. Ton of people find those Bullet point ugly as sin, me included, for example, but begrudgingly use them in lack of better alternatives

Sigh, at this point all I ask is that you at least reconsider it. Peace

Antvasima

Well, I think that the bullet points format look much more professional/encyclopaedic and easily overviewed at least.

I currently have an aversion to switching back and forth between bolded and unbolded formatting in large blocks of text, and consider it to not remotely be worth the effort to apply to 28,000 profile pages, but will try to consider it.

First_Witch

Its really not even going to apply to a fraction of the profiles Ant. It should be kept for Profiles massive and scan heavy enough to warrant it.

Antvasima

Here are the views from the other current VS Battles wiki bureaucrats about bolding powers and abilities in large text sections that list them:

AKM sama:

"I think it would look inconsistent with the rest of the profiles in a way too obvious manner. I'd prefer all the profiles to either have bolded P&A or none."

DontTalkDT:

"I'm against it. It looks, quite frankly, ugly. Additionally, there is no need to bold them at all, if one doesn't make their entire explanation text links to scans. Moving such links into references is the better fix and more in line with how we handle references in general now."

I am afraid that we are not going to accept this suggested change. My apologies.

First_Witch

Last post on this. You can consider this topic as dropped.

In Answer to AKM;

And Bullet Points dont clash even worse with the rest of the profile? Like, I get if its a thing of preference, but the argument makes 0 sense when we allow some profiles to have a completly different visual format.

DT;

First point is a nonargument, the same way we dont take my subjective feelings into consideration. Second would require far more work, considering that scans being linked into the PaA section is a far more widespread and older tradition than References are. It would require more work to them out of the section than to just bold 20 words in a 500 word text block.

Again, consider this topic dropped. You don't even have to respond to this. I have made my dissatisfaction known. Good day to you Ant,

Antvasima

1) Bullet points bring a considerably greater visual professionalism and organised structure to our profile pages than crammed together long blocks of text.

2) It is not a nonargument, as visual aesthetics is a largely subjective issue, which much of your own arguments have fundamentally been based on, and references is both a much more professional encyclopaedic standard and long-term practically workable, as scans and YouTube videos are under constant thread to be removed. It is a far more crucially necessary and objectively beneficial change than what you suggest.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama

This thread should probably be brought to your attention.

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe you misunderstand. What I suggest is to just put a link to the scan into the references. Not to just describe which chapter the scan is from without actually linking the scan. Like this page Decieved linked.

This seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Damage3245]

These types of site policy threads should ALWAYS be placed in our staff forum, not in our content revisions forum, or moved there by our staff if these types of mistakes are discovered.

Good point. To be honest I didn't notice if it was in the content revision forum or not; but it should have been moved to the staff section. I'll remember that for future occurences.


For what it is worth as the person who originally proposed that bolding be added to the power and abilities sections, I am still fine with it only being permitted in cases where the list format is used, which is the current situation.

 

[Armorchompy]

1) Bullet points bring a considerably greater visual professionalism and organised structure to our profile pages than crammed together long blocks of text.

That is highly subjective, and the majority of the community, staff included, clearly disagrees given how many have agreed with OP.

2) It is not a nonargument, as visual aesthetics is a largely subjective issue, which much of your own arguments have fundamentally been based on, and references is both a much more professional encyclopaedic standard and long-term practically workable, as scans and YouTube videos are under constant thread to be removed. It is a far more crucially necessary and objectively beneficial change than what you suggest.

References are completely unrelated to this thread.

 

[Deceived3596]

Why is it so hard to just give people who're trying to improve the quality of the profiles on your site more options?

This shouldn't even need to be discuss, its ******* common sense.

 

[Damage3245]

That is highly subjective, and the majority of the community, staff included, clearly disagrees given how many have agreed with OP

A lot of people are just used to what has been the case for years.

And I heavily dispute that "organised structure" is something that is highly subjective. A list is simply more organized than a wall of text, there's no other way of looking at that.

 

[Antvasima]

Good point. To be honest I didn't notice if it was in the content revision forum or not; but it should have been moved to the staff section. I'll remember that for future occurences.

Thank you for helping out.

For what it is worth as the person who originally proposed that bolding be added to the power and abilities sections, I am still fine with it only being permitted in cases where the list format is used, which is the current situation.

Well, I suppose that I can try to be flexible if DontTalk and AKM sama think that it seems acceptable with bolded text in powers and abilities sections without bullet point lists. However, there is a big chance that different members will continuously edit-war to switch between the formats back and forth depending on their personal preferences, and I much prefer a more consistent layout in that regard as it gives a more professional and less incoherent impression to our visitors.

 

[Armorchompy]

A lot of people are just used to what has been the case for years.

This is literally about a new thing?????

And I heavily dispute that "organised structure" is something that is highly subjective. A list is simply more organized than a wall of text, there's no other way of looking at that.

Dispute all you want that's just simply not true.

 

[Antvasima]

That is highly subjective, and the majority of the community, staff included, clearly disagrees given how many have agreed with OP.

Well, let's see what the other bureaucrats think.

References are completely unrelated to this thread.

I was quoting a previous discussion in my forum message wall.