New Formatting Proposal

[Antvasima]

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.

Agreed. A sufficiently massive block of text does look considerably less organised almost per definition.

 

[Armorchompy]

However, there is a big chance for different members continuously edit-warring to switch between the formats back and forth depending on their personal preferences

This isn't exclusive to the bolding text wall, edit wars could happen over any other sort of formatting dispute, including bullet point list P&A which we have accepted previously, and we have set guidelines that changes to a profile's formatting should only happen after consulting the rest of the community.

 

[Damage3245]

Thank you for helping out.

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 for different members continuously edit-warring to switch between the formats back and forth depending on their personal preferences, and I mcuh prefer a more consistent layout in that regard as it give a more professional and less incoherent impression to our visitors.

If edit warring occurs, the offending users should just be warned and directed to take their arguments to CRTs.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

However, there is a big chance for different members continuously edit-warring to switch between the formats back and forth depending on their personal preferences, and I mcuh prefer a more consistent layout in that regard as it give a more professional and less incoherent impression to our visitors.

This is objetively wrong because first to do any change to profiles the users need first to do a crt where other supporters of the verse give approval, any user who edit without a crt to make change just because they want need to be reported to the rule violations thread as always.

 

[Noneless21]

first of all, sorry for not post this thread at the staff discussion forum, I figured since I'm not a staff I can't post this thread here so the second best place to post it is in the CRT forum so sorry for the inconvenience.

and second of all, what the profile looks are highly subjective for each person, some say the bulleted and bolded format is better, some say the unbulleted but bolded format is better, some even didn't mind if the profile is using the standard formats. The only thing that I want to propose here is the addition of formatting rules which is the bolded but unbulleted format for profiles that are hax-heavy alongside many justifications and some controversial abilities like conceptual manipulation (which need more proofs that it, indeed, is conceptual manipulation). that's about it

 

[Antvasima]

This isn't exclusive to the bolding text wall, edit wars could happen over any other sort of formatting dispute, including bullet point list P&A which we have accepted previously, and we have set guidelines that changes to a profile's formatting should only happen after consulting the rest of the community.

The point is that if we get "do whatever you want in this regard" guidelines, there is no objective rule for us to lean on to prevent edit-wars.

 

[Armorchompy]

The point is that if we get "do whatever you want in this regard" guidelines, there is no objective rule for us to lean on to prevent edit-wars.

Which is why we're not doing "do whatever you want in this regard" guidelines and instead making a CRT to get a single new format that a large percentage of the community enjoys officially approved.

 

[Antvasima]

If edit warring occurs, the offending users should just be warned and directed to take their arguments to CRTs.

See above. If we do not have some set standards there will be no objective right and wrong approach for such issues anymore.

 

[Armorchompy]

See above. If we do not have some set standards there will be no objective right and wrong approach for such issues anymore.

... We are setting standards, though. Not to mention all of these issues would still be in effect regarding classic vs list P&A

 

[Antvasima]

Which is why we're not doing "do whatever you want in this regard" guidelines and instead making a CRT to get a single new format that a large percentage of the community enjoys officially approved.

Well, previously what seemed to be suggested was an extra option, not a replacement.

 

[Armorchompy]

Well, previously what seemed to be suggested was an extra option, not a replacement.

It is an extra option but a well-defined one, not just allowing users to do whatever.

 

[Deceived3596]

Imma be real and say when was the last time you've seen an edit war break out based purely off the formatting of the profile's P&A section? since this honestly seems like a massive whataboutism that rarely, even at all happens on this website.

None of what has been said debunks the inherent argument that people who're trying to improve the quality of your site's profiles should have more options to do so.

 

[Armorchompy]

Edit wars do sometimes happen though in my experience it's always about information, not formatting.

 

[Antvasima]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. If we write "Use one of the following formats: 1) Large blocks of text without bolded powers and abilities links. 2) Large blocks of text with bolded powers and abilities links. 3) Bullet point lists with bolded powers and abilities links." without very specific "when to use which option" instructions, there will be no objective right and wrong regarding this issue, and pages will be continuously switched back and forth depending on personal preferences.

Based on edit-patrolling this wiki almost every single day for the last 8 years, I definitely see preference-based edit-wars breaking out a lot, which I will just have to let go on in lack of better options, and that will likely spam the recent changes page with nonsense sooner or later.

 

[Deceived3596]

Edit wars do sometimes happen though in my experience it's always about information, not formatting.

It's always about the information on the profiles, most people don't even really care about the formatting of the profile's P&A section, definitely not to the point of causing editing wars.

 

[Antvasima]

It's always about the information on the profiles, most people don't even really care about the formatting of the profile's P&A section, definitely not to the point of causing editing wars.

Then why are some of you so up in arms over this very issue in the first place?

Also, it seems like a massive amount of unnecessary extra work, especially for my edit patrolling, to enforce even a gradual change for at least 25,000 character profile pages, which is likely the only alternative.

 

[Abstractions]

I'm fine with bolding abilities without the bullet point format.

 

[Deceived3596]

Then why are some of you so up in arms over this very issue in the first place?

Also, it seems like a massive amount of extra work, especially for my edit patrolling, to enforce even a gradual change for at least 25,000 character profile pages, which is likely the only alternative.

They aren't people just wan't more options, that's all.

This is a complete cop out answer when you quite literally allowed the bullet formatting to go through, you can't make this argument given such context.

 

[Armorchompy]

Then why are some of you so up in arms over this very issue in the first place?

Because we think it's a good way to convey information, sometimes the best. There's a big difference between trying to get something accepted that we think is beneficial for the wiki and starting an edit war

Also, it seems like a massive amount of unnecessary extra work, especially for my edit patrolling, to enforce even a gradual change for at least 25,000 character profile pages, which is likely the only alternative.

Nobody's suggesting it would be applied to all pages wtf, it's optional, just like bullet point P&A.

 

[Antvasima]

This is a complete cop out answer when you quite literally allowed the bullet formatting to go through, you can't make this argument given such context.

The bullet point format had a clear prerequisite definition. Very long powers and abilities sections should use it, whereas short one can be left without it, whereas what is suggested here only seems to be determined by personal taste and nothing else.

Also, bullet points legitimately look more organised/easily overviewed/professional in my view, whereas this change would be purely aesthetic.

 

[Armorchompy]

The bullet point format had a clear prerequisite definition. Very long powers and abilities sections should use it, whereas short one can be left without it, whereas what is suggested here only seems to be determined by personal taste and nothing else.

I suggested earlier on that this works best for profiles that elaborate a lot in P&A, but regardless, these "prerequisites" as you call them are only suggestions and plenty of profiles use bullet point lists without fulfilling them.

Also, bullet points legitimately look more organised/easily overviewed/professional in my view, whereas this change would be purely aesthetic.

Exactly, in your view, realize that doesn't reflect the opinions of most people and that plenty of people myself included think this is great for organization.

 

[Deceived3596]

I agree with what Armor's saying tbh.

He basically said what i was gonna say.

 

[LordGinSama]

Bullet points also look like unorganized shit while using the mobile site.

 

[Antvasima]

Because we think it's a good way to convey information, sometimes the best. There's a big difference between trying to get something accepted that we think is beneficial for the wiki and starting an edit war

My point was that people who start edit-wars also have strongly felt different preferences regarding which format that looks best, and I am not mainly referring to ones carried out over a few hours, but rather one member who prefers a verse with bolded text changing the formatting for all of its character profile pages one month, and another who has opposite preferences changing it back another month, and greatly wasting both of their times and energies that would be better focused elsewhere in this regard.

Nobody's suggesting it would be applied to all pages wtf, it's optional, just like bullet point P&A.

Okay, but the bullet point lists have a clearly defined prerequisite for using them whereas this change does not, and optional formatting based on purely subjective viewpoints is going to get a lot of opposing viewpoints and actions. This is pretty self-evident as far as I am concerned, so we will have to choose either-or in this regard, and I consider it to be wasted time for no gain to only allow your new standard.

 

[Antvasima]

Bullet points also look like unorganized shit while using the mobile site.

To be fair, almost everything looks awful with Fandom's mobile layout. Our site is built for using the desktop view. I have repeatedly asked Fandom to improve on automatic compatibility in this regard though.

 

[Armorchompy]

My point was that people who start edit-wars also have strongly felt different preferences regarding which format that looks best, and I am not mainly referring to ones carried out over a few hours, but rather one member who prefers a verse with bolded text changing the formatting for all of its character profile pages one month, and another who has opposite preferences changing it back another month, and greatly wasting both of their times and energies that would be better focused elsewhere in this regard.

"Better focused elsewhere"? This is a hobby, Ant. People here have the right to use their time however they want. Not to mention this would never happen to begin with given you need a CRT for this.

Okay, but the bullet point lists have a clearly defined prerequisite for using them whereas this change does not, and optional formatting based on purely subjective viewpoints is going to get a lot of opposing viewpoints and actions.

That's clearly not the case given we have 14 agreements and like 2 disagreements. But even if that were the case they can be resolved in a CRT about the specific profile.

These "clearly defined prerequisites" are absolutely not rules however, they're suggestions for preferred use at best and not obligatory one way or the other, so to claim they would lessen this sort of controversy is absolutely wrong.

This is pretty self-evident as far as I am concerned, so we will have to choose either-or in this regard, and I consider it to be wasted time for no gain to only allow your new standard.

No offense but realize that all of your arguments are by your own admission subjective, of course you'd see no gain in approving a format you dislike, but you need to accept that the vast majority (of staff too) does like it and considers it a worthwhile addition.

Also, how is it wasted time? it's purely optional. Unless you think discussions about it would be, in which case, people are going to disagree with bullet point lists just as often, more-so given they seem to have a lot more detractors.

 

[LordTracer]

and optional formatting based on purely subjective viewpoints is going to get a lot of opposing viewpoints and actions.

The bullet point format already causes this, there’s a lot of people that think it looks terrible and would rather not have it.

 

[Antvasima]

Look, you still seem to misunderstand what I am trying to say, so I will try again.

1) If the change is mandatory, we all have a limited time available here, and editing over 25,000 pages for a purely aesthetic and subjectively beneficial or detrimental change would be better spent on far more important revision projects, and would also spam my edit-patrolling to significantly increase my daily work time, which isn't something that I am happy about unless it is really important.

2) If the change is more optional, we need clear rules for exactly for what type or pages and/or in which situations that it should be applied, or our members will disagree regarding which type of formatting that they prefer and change it back and forth continuously over the coming years for a massive number of pages. I am sufficiently experienced when it comes to managing this wiki and patrolling edits to be able to predict this trend with pretty high accuracy, and I doubt that you will enjoy performing the same edits over and over for hundreds of pages either.

Anyway, I definitely have far too much other work to do to continue to argue here indefinitely. I have said what I needed to say. Now we should wait for AKM and DontTalk.

 

[Armorchompy]

1) If the change is mandatory

It's not.

2) If the change is more optional, we need clear rules for exactly for what type or pages and/or in which situations that it should be applied

We don't have "clear rules" about the bullet point format. Literally all our Standards say on the subject is:

"(Optional: Abilities can be listed in paragraph format as above, but for more than just a small number of abilities, it may be clearer if the abilities are displayed in a list which displays the abilities in an organized fashion. See examples of pages that have incorporated bullet points successfully here and here. Abilities in this format should be bolded to help distinguish them from the rest of the text. Do not bold abilities if they are not displayed in a bullet point format.)"​

Nothing here specifies which kind of profile is better suited for this. It says that it may be clearer if a profile has more than "a small number of abilities" but that is extremely non-committal and the great majority of our pages would fall under that umbrella. Regardless it does not forbid the format from being used on any kind of page or force it under any circumstances.

Or our members will disagree regarding which type of formatting that they prefer and change it back and forth continuously over the coming years for a massive number of pages. I am sufficiently experienced when it comes to managing this wiki and patrolling edits to be able to predict this trend with pretty high accuracy, and I doubt that you will enjoy performing the same edits over and over for hundreds of pages either.

Nope, I will simply report the users for doing this in case it happens, as they are breaking the rules by changing it without community approval. And since nothing of the sort is happening with the bullet point list format I'm afraid I have to disagree with your prediction that it will.

Anyway, I definitely have far too much other work to do to continue to argue here indefinitely. I have said what I needed to say. Now we should wait for AKM and DontTalk.

Fair enough I suppose. What if they do not reply?

 

[Antvasima]

It's not.

I still think that either-or is necessary in this case.

We don't have "clear rules" about the bullet point format. Literally all our Standards say on the subject is:

"(Optional: Abilities can be listed in paragraph format as above, but for more than just a small number of abilities, it may be clearer if the abilities are displayed in a list which displays the abilities in an organized fashion. See examples of pages that have incorporated bullet points successfully here and here. Abilities in this format should be bolded to help distinguish them from the rest of the text. Do not bold abilities if they are not displayed in a bullet point format.)"​

Nothing here specifies which kind of profile is better suited for this. It says that it may be clearer if a profile has more than "a small number of abilities" but that is extremely non-committal and the great majority of our pages would fall under that umbrella. Regardless it does not forbid the format from being used on any kind of page or force it under any circumstances.

Well, as far as I recall, the intention from me, that I think I told Damage who wrote the regulation text in question, was to specify that very large blocks of text with powers and abilities should use the bullet point format, but I suppose that can be better clarified.

Nope, I will simply report the users for doing this in case it happens, as they are breaking the rules by changing it without community approval. And since nothing of the sort is happening with the bullet point list format I'm afraid I have to disagree with your prediction that it will.

But basic cleanup work, which this would fall under, does not require an accepted content revision thread for every single case, and by your reasoning, everybody who want to use the new formatting would also need them.

Fair enough I suppose. What if they do not reply?

Well, we cannot apply such a major change to our wiki's structure without proper responses from all of our bureaucrats.I am sure that they will respond eventually though.

 

[Armorchompy]

But basic cleanup work, which this would fall under, does not require an accepted content revision thread for every single case, and by your reasoning, everybody who want to use the new formatting would also need them.

When applying to pre-existed profiles, obviously not for making a new one. Which I believe are our standards for bullet point profiles too.

 

[Antvasima]

No, this sort of thing counts as cleanup work. I cannot constantly revert all of the perfectly sensible grammar and minor structure improvement changes that our members apply every day just because they did not ask in content revision threads first. In fact, the members who help out sufficiently competently and consistently with this tend to be promoted to content moderators eventually.

 

[Armorchompy]

No, this sort of thing counts as cleanup work. I cannot constantly revert all of the perfectly sensible gramma and minor structure improvement changes that our members apply every day just because they did not ask in content revision threads first. In fact, the members who help out sufficiently competently and consistently with this tend to be promoted to content moderators eventually.

Again we can go back and forth on this all day but the allowing bullet point profiles opened the way to the same "issue", unless you want to outlaw those (which I would disagree with for the record) too I don't see how this makes the issue much worse.

 

[Antvasima]

Again, the bullet points are supposed to have have a prerequisite for usage: Bloated blocks of text in powers and abilities sections, whereas what you suggest has none, which would make its usage completely subjective depending on the member, and if we make the change mandatory instead, it would cause lots of continuous extra work for me personally when I am doing my daily edit-patrolling, and I am already barely able to keep up with both my work here and real world responsibilities.

 

[Armorchompy]

Again, the bullet points are supposed to have have a prerequisite for usage

Well, they don't. It's a suggestion at best but ultimately using them or not is to the discretion of the page maker. I'm sorry but you can't keep on arguing as if they did, when they simply don't.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm repeating myself, but I still see no reason to make even more varying parallel running formats when putting the links into references does exactly the same while following the current format.
I'm against having many formats to begin with (why even have a standard format if you do it in many different ways in the end?), but to add one for something that brings no improvement when compared for an option in line with existing formats makes no sense on any level.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

If the problem is not a clear prerequisite for when use it then couldn't be solved by listing it as an option alternative to use with profiles with a great number of abilities? Something like:

"(Optional: Abilities can be listed in paragraph format as above, but for more than just a small number of abilities, it may be clearer if the abilities are displayed in a list which displays the abilities in an organized fashion. See examples of pages that have incorporated bullet points successfully here and here. Abilities in this format should be bolded to help distinguish them from the rest of the text. Alternatively, instead of a bullet point format could also be used the standar format with the abilities bolded to help differenciate each power.)"

 

[Armorchompy]

I'm repeating myself, but I still see no reason to make even more varying parallel running formats when putting the links into references does exactly the same while following the current format.

This is completely unrelated to P&A formatting and doesn't impact it significantly. Putting scans in references is in itself also a format of its own which would require a CRT to be officially approved, not that I think the majority agrees.

I'm against having many formats to begin with (why even have a standard format if you do it in many different ways in the end?), but to add one for something that brings no improvement when compared for an option in line with existing formats makes no sense on any level.

Brings no improvement, subjectively. Look at the amount of agreements, even by experienced users, and understand that this is simply your opinion, you can't use that as the primary crux of your argument.

 

[Abstractions]

I'm not sure why it's being treated as some different format, it's just the original format but bolded.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

I'm repeating myself, but I still see no reason to make even more varying parallel running formats when putting the links into references does exactly the same while following the current format.
I'm against having many formats to begin with (why even have a standard format if you do it in many different ways in the end?), but to add one for something that brings no improvement when compared for an option in line with existing formats makes no sense on any level.

However no current profile actually use the reference option that you mentioned before in this thread and it seemed like various were also against said proposition.