• 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 AKM sama if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.

Off-Site Respect Threads on Wiki Pages (Staff Only)

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Thank you for the replies.

Who are the other staff members that have commented in this thread? Perhaps it would be best to send a notification to them in order to make certain?
 
16,715
3,198
Let's see:
Agrees: @Antvasima , @DarkDragonMedeus , @SamanPatou , @Planck69 , @KingTempest , @Damage3245 , @Shadowbokunohero , @Ogbunabali , @Qawsedf234 , @Elizhaa , @Dino_Ranger_Black , @DemonGodMitchAubin , @Celestial_Pegasus , @Soldier_Blue, @Bobsican (Me)
Neutral: @Antoniofer (Leans on agreeing to keep them in blog posts), @Agnaa
Disagrees: @DontTalkDT , @The_Impress , @Armorchompy , @Tllmbrg (Ant debunked him respectively, however), @Eficiente (Maybe)

Yeah, most seem to agree
The votation probably is out of date now, but this is the amount of users that have replied here so far.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
I tried to make Bobsican's text easier to understand:

"Do not directly add any respect thread links from external sites to our pages, as they can't be properly monitored to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across. The same applies to calculations hosted in external sites, although exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted in the NarutoForums if they were previously accepted. If one desires to feature them, they must be backed up to archive.vn, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s). It should then be requested that our staff and knowledgeable members evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections, and uncertain cases may be handled in a content revision threads as well."
@DontTalkDT

I would appreciate if you explain what you think about this suggestion.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Okay. Thank you for the input.

I will place the text in the Editing Rules page then.

Can somebody remind me what we need to do afterwards please?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
I added it:

 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
By the way: We probably need a new editing rule that at least encourages our members to use source references whenever possible.
 
16,715
3,198
- The Standard Format for Character Profiles, the Standard Format for Verse Pages, the Standard Format for Civilization Profiles, the Standard Format for Weapon Profiles and the Standard Format for Vehicle Profiles are updated in the "Feats" section to also be explicitly where respect threads may also be featured, and as outlined in the before-mentioned rule, by linking to the blog post that got accepted, which then links to the calculation and gives credit and so on, this is done to make it consistent on regards of where they are featured and ease the work of bot tasks in the future.
Civilization and Verse Pages currently don't have proper places to feature this kind of stuff, the former could have this section right below the Weaknesses section, to remain consistent with the other formats that have it in the same way, and verse pages could feature them below the Calculations section.

- All and every single one of the currently featured off-site (Emphasis on this part, on-site respect threads are far less problematic as they have been evaluated already (Being generally used for CRTs before being then recycled for featuring and all) and their content isn't as easy to suddendly get compromised as non-archived links to external websites of variable reliability, so they can stay by default) respect threads are removed from the pages, then they are manually eventually (re)added as certain users may desire with the process outlined in the first-mentioned editing rule on this post.
This
 
16,715
3,198
By the way: We probably need a new editing rule that at least encourages our members to use source references whenever possible.
Sorry for the double post, but regarding this part, it probably would be best being handled in another thread as it's somewhat beyond the topic of this thread.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
- The Standard Format for Character Profiles, the Standard Format for Verse Pages, the Standard Format for Civilization Profiles, the Standard Format for Weapon Profiles and the Standard Format for Vehicle Profiles are updated in the "Feats" section to also be explicitly where respect threads may also be featured, and as outlined in the before-mentioned rule, by linking to the blog post that got accepted, which then links to the calculation and gives credit and so on, this is done to make it consistent on regards of where they are featured and ease the work of bot tasks in the future.
Civilization and Verse Pages currently don't have proper places to feature this kind of stuff, the former could have this section right below the Weaknesses section, to remain consistent with the other formats that have it in the same way, and verse pages could feature them below the Calculations section.

- All and every single one of the currently featured off-site (Emphasis on this part, on-site respect threads are far less problematic as they have been evaluated already (Being generally used for CRTs before being then recycled for featuring and all) and their content isn't as easy to suddendly get compromised as non-archived links to external websites of variable reliability, so they can stay by default) respect threads are removed from the pages, then they are manually eventually (re)added as certain users may desire with the process outlined in the first-mentioned editing rule on this post.
Thank you.

@SamanPatou @Starter_Pack @Abstractions

Would any of you be willing to handle the first part please?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Sorry for the double post, but regarding this part, it probably would be best being handled in another thread as it's somewhat beyond the topic of this thread.
Okay. No problem. I have noted it down in my to-do list.
 
16,715
3,198
If I got it right, we have to find a place where to put links to RT blogs within the pages for each kind of profile (characters, weapons...), right?
Yes, that's the case, as I've explained in my previous post, most formats can just be slightly edited to mention something along the lines of "This section also covers respect threads, but make sure to check the Editing Rules for more details over those if desired." in the respective Feats section, given it's optional and it's where it should be for consistency and ease of finding purposes, given that several profiles tend to insert them arbitrarily around the end of the profile as well currently.
And as mentioned before, civilization and verse pages currently don't have proper places to feature this kind of stuff, the former could have this section right below the Weaknesses section, to remain consistent with the other formats that have it in the same way, and verse pages could feature them below the Calculations section.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Can you explain in an easy to understand well-structured manner what you currently want us to do here please?
 
16,715
3,198
- The Standard Format for Character Profiles, the Standard Format for Verse Pages, the Standard Format for Civilization Profiles, the Standard Format for Weapon Profiles and the Standard Format for Vehicle Profiles are updated in the "Feats" section to also be explicitly where respect threads may also be featured, and as outlined in the before-mentioned rule, by linking to the blog post that got accepted, which then links to the calculation and gives credit and so on, this is done to make it consistent on regards of where they are featured and ease the work of bot tasks in the future.
Civilization and Verse Pages currently don't have proper places to feature this kind of stuff, the former could have this section right below the Weaknesses section, to remain consistent with the other formats that have it in the same way, and verse pages could feature them below the Calculations section.

- All and every single one of the currently featured off-site (Emphasis on this part, on-site respect threads are far less problematic as they have been evaluated already (Being generally used for CRTs before being then recycled for featuring and all) and their content isn't as easy to suddendly get compromised as non-archived links to external websites of variable reliability, so they can stay by default) respect threads are removed from the pages, then they are manually eventually (re)added as certain users may desire with the process outlined in the first-mentioned editing rule on this post.
In a nutshell, the standard format pages need to be updated with mentioning where respect threads may be featured, namely the Feats section. Civilization and verse pages also need this added accordingly to remain consistent with how we treat calculations and the like, the former can have it below the Weaknesses section to remain consistent with the other cases, and the other under the Calculations section.

After this, we can proceed purging every single currently featured off-site respect thread that's linked directly, a list of the ones found may be made so certain users may try making their own blog post for the ones they find relevant enought to evaluate them.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
We probably have to wait for Saman and the others here. I do not have the time and focus to handle it on my own. My apologies.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
Personally I'd remove the "all of" from the standard "List all of the X's amazing feats", I find it a bit misleading but it's not a big deal

Civilizations can have a basic "Feats: List (all of) the Civilization's amazing feats" Under the weaknesses, as Bob proposed

Verse pages can have "Feats: List (all of) the amazing feats performed by the characters, civilizations, weapons and vehicles of the verse" under the calculations, always following Bob's good proposal.

All of the pages can have the following sentence added "It is possible to add Respect Thread links to the list, as long as they follow the policies on the subject provided on the Editing Rules page"
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Personally I'd remove the "all of" from the standard "List all of the X's amazing feats", I find it a bit misleading but it's not a big deal
That seems fine to me.
Civilizations can have a basic "Feats: List (all of) the Civilization's amazing feats" Under the weaknesses, as Bob proposed
Okay. As long as that follows the pattern structure of character profile pages, it is probably fine. I am uncertain though, given what I responded below.
Verse pages can have "Feats: List (all of) the amazing feats performed by the characters, civilizations, weapons and vehicles of the verse" under the calculations, always following Bob's good proposal.
I do not think that verse pages should have respect threads for all the characters and weapons combined.
All of the pages can have the following sentence added "It is possible to add Respect Thread links to the list, as long as they follow the policies on the subject provided on the Editing Rules page"
That seems fine to me.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
I do not think that verse pages should have respect threads for all the characters and weapons combined.
Yes, it sounds a bit too much for verses with many RT, and too les for others with just a few of them (like Pokémon).

Okay. As long as that follows the pattern structure of character profile pages, it is probably fine. I am uncertain though, given what I responded below.
The curent pattern of the character profile page is List all of the character's amazing feats. Strength feats, speed feats, durability feats, etc. You can judge a person's power by their feats. We can just adapt that one and replace the words character and person with civilization, vehicle or weapon.
 
16,715
3,198
The reason verse pages can have a ton of respect threads of anything that has been accepted for the verse is exactly for that reason, to ease finding the ones that are being featured in their pages, like how verses now can feature accepted calculations for anything related to it.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
The curent pattern of the character profile page is List all of the character's amazing feats. Strength feats, speed feats, durability feats, etc. You can judge a person's power by their feats. We can just adapt that one and replace the words character and person with civilization, vehicle or weapon.
Okay. That is probably fine.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
The reason verse pages can have a ton of respect threads of anything that has been accepted for the verse is exactly for that reason, to ease finding the ones that are being featured in their pages, like how verses now can feature accepted calculations for anything related to it.
I am not sure if it is realistic.
 
16,715
3,198
How exactly it isn't? The current respect threads that are being featured are just going to be removed for the most part, and it isn't an obligation to have every single one of them evaluated. Extreme cases with actual hundreds or the like can be sorted out by author and with some formatting help to prevent it from taking too much space, yet keeping it easy to navigate in.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
Calculations affect the verse in its entirety, as usually they cover tier and scaling of many characters, while RT are for single characters. Marvel and DC pages would have an extremely long section, even with a scrolling list I'm not sure if it would be good.

On the other hand, verses with just one, two or a handful of RT would have this additional section that just covers a few characters, and I'm not sure it would be good either.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Yes, I would also prefer to keep respect threads away from the verse pages. There would be too many of them, and turn too messy in terms of structure.
 
10,855
5,096
Calculations affect the verse in its entirety, as usually they cover tier and scaling of many characters, while RT are for single characters. Marvel and DC pages would have an extremely long section, even with a scrolling list I'm not sure if it would be good.

On the other hand, verses with just one, two or a handful of RT would have this additional section that just covers a few characters, and I'm not sure it would be good either.
I feel the need to note that on rare occasions, RTs happen for verses and not single characters. Since that subreddit has a 5 feat requirement for its respect threads, short verses with many characters each with only a few feats, like Juuni Taisen: Zodiac War, have the entire verse in one respect thread.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Okay. I still think that they would be out of place in verse pages though.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
At this point I guess I can apply the new sentence to the characters, vehicles, weapons and civilizations standard format pages, right?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Sorry, but I am dizzy in general due to never getting any proper breaks.

What new sentence are you referring to?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
They need to be placed in blog posts and evaluated and accepted first though.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
I've updated the standard format for Characters, Weapons, Vehicles and Civilizations.

The main purpose thread has been likely extinguished now, the only thing that remains to do is removing external RT from all pages, but it can be done overtime and by everyone, I guess.

I don't know if it's better to make a list of each profile that got a RT removed, but I guess people can leave a report of the pages they edited when they do it.
 
10,855
5,096
They need to be placed in blog posts and evaluated and accepted first though.
Does this mean that other profiles which have respect thread-like lists of feats in their Feats section need to be removed? Or should we assume that they've been grandfathered in?
 
16,715
3,198
On-site respect threads shouldn't be affected, and the rule currently only applies to off-site respect threads.
One of the main reasons they are basically being grandfathered in is because they have been evaluated before by being used for a CRT more often than not, although I wouldn't oppose yet another rule to clarify how to deal with on-site respect threads and feat additions in general.

It probably would go like:
"On-site respect threads and direct feat sections may also be featured in profiles, but they must be evaluated and accepted in a Content Revision Thread first."
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
What do we currently need to do here? My attention is constantly very split, so it is hard to keep track.
 
16,715
3,198
The main purpose thread has been likely extinguished now, the only thing that remains to do is removing external RT from all pages, but it can be done overtime and by everyone, I guess.

I don't know if it's better to make a list of each profile that got a RT removed, but I guess people can leave a report of the pages they edited when they do it.
This
On-site respect threads shouldn't be affected, and the rule currently only applies to off-site respect threads.
One of the main reasons they are basically being grandfathered in is because they have been evaluated before by being used for a CRT more often than not, although I wouldn't oppose yet another rule to clarify how to deal with on-site respect threads and feat additions in general.

It probably would go like:
"On-site respect threads and direct feat sections may also be featured in profiles, but they must be evaluated and accepted in a Content Revision Thread first."
And maybe this
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Okay. That seems fine to me. Your suggested modification to our rule text can probably be added.

Please link to where I added the old text, so I can do so.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Thank you.

Is this fine?

 
16,715
3,198
I think so.
Also, perhaps it would be a good idea to ask the following to see if more should be added:
Feat sections allow any kind of feat the character has been done, or ones that are relevant for tiering? As I've seen plenty of cases having listed a ton of tier 9 feats when they are overall irrelevant for our purposes as they're rated on a far higher tier, for example.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
I think that feat lists should focus on ones that are relevant to tiering.
 
10,855
5,096
Firstly, I think feat lists that only focus on ones relevant to tiering are completely pointless. Those should already be represented in the AP/Dura sections. Including them again would be completely and utterly redundant.

Secondly, I was hoping to use feat lists for other uses; i.e. for a character with a stamina draining ability I can show how potently it affected their target each time it was used. How exhausted it made them, how close it brought them to death, and how long it took for those effects to come about. This would be useful for battles but would really clog up any other section on the page if I tried including it there. I think this is a pretty compelling use-case for listing feats that aren't relevant to tiering.
 
16,715
3,198
I think the restriction here would be based on the feats in question being listed serving some purpose that isn't redundant, which I'm fine with.
Anyways, such rule could be worded as:
"Content featured in the Feats section of a page shouldn't be redundant to what's already featured in other sections of it, in addition, they must serve some use for our purposes, for example, listing several wall-level feats is irrelevant for a character that's already rated on a far higher tier."
Also, @Agnaa , that sort of stuff would go in the Notable Attacks/Techniques section.
 
10,855
5,096
I am well-versed with the NA&T section, but listing and describing a dozen feats would clutter it up way too much.

And I really don't understand what y'all expect the Feats section to be used for if it's not "Feats that give them their current tier" or "Feats that are below their current tier".

Like, should SCP-3812's currently listed feat against 239 be removed because 239's a far lower tier than him? Almost all feat sections would have to be deleted.
 
16,715
3,198
TBH I wouldn't mind if all Feats sections got removed, given that this "feature" is showing to be counterproductive out of promoting listing stuff that's either redundant or belongs on other sections of a profile.
However, if the plans is to just use it to avoid cluttering, then I'm fine with that, but it should be specified or we'll remain with the same issue as it won't be encouraged or enforced at all otherwise.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
I think feats lists are fine and good to stay, they can be compressed and put in a scroll box if they are too long.

I disagree with only adding feats relevant to the tier, it's pointless and I'm sure it would severely shorten the list or just make it redundant. And about the latter, I think it's good to add feats that are already listed in the AP or P&W, for sheer coherence with what a feats list is. It wouldn't be too much redundant as long as they are followed by other feats.

About wall level feats, instead of listing every single instance of a character breaking a wall or making a hole into the ground, a bunch of scans of the same thing can be included in the same sentence; like "consistently shown to be able of breaking doors" "repeteadly cracked walls with their bare hands" "destroyed furniture multiple times" and so on.

It's also good to add feats for other statistics and factors, like stamina, range, skill, experience and more. Even the effectiveness and other details of a power, a technique and such could stay there, as they don't necessarily fit well in the NA&T sections.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
So should we start a wiki management thread for removing respect threads, especially from Marvel and DC Comics characters, or let it happen gradually on its own?
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
I don't think another thread is necessary, we should just keep a list of the profiles from which RT have been removed and update it when someone reports a removal, either because them or someone else did it.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
On a second thought, yes, the op could host this list.

Maybe I can open it, so I can follow and update it when people report a profile that needs to be listed.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
You can start a thread in the wiki management forum if you wish.

It should not be stuck to the top of the forum though.
 
16,715
3,198
In that case I guess content within the Feats section of a page can just be any sort of feat the character has done, regardless of usability or redundancy?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Well, it should preferably not be redundant or useless at least.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
About wall level feats, instead of listing every single instance of a character breaking a wall or making a hole into the ground, a bunch of scans of the same thing can be included in the same sentence; like "consistently shown to be able of breaking doors" "repeteadly cracked walls with their bare hands" "destroyed furniture multiple times" and so on.
This is my proposal for redundant or "useless" feats.
 
16,715
3,198
We still need to word it for the rule or else chances are the Feats section will be filled with virtually redundant or useless content more often than not.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
Would something like this work?

If a character performed the same type of feat multiple times (for example, the destruction of a door or a wall) please don't list it more than a single time in their "Feats" section. Alternatively, a sentence describing a feat can link to a collection of images about that kind of feat.

It definitely needs some tweak, especially the repetition of feat in the second part, but atm I couldn't think anything better. I also realized that a collection of images, like on imgur or in a blog, is better than linking more images to multiple words.
 
10,855
5,096
Well that kinda defeats the point of something I was hoping to do with the feat lists.
Secondly, I was hoping to use feat lists for other uses; i.e. for a character with a stamina draining ability I can show how potently it affected their target each time it was used. How exhausted it made them, how close it brought them to death, and how long it took for those effects to come about. This would be useful for battles but would really clog up any other section on the page if I tried including it there. I think this is a pretty compelling use-case for listing feats that aren't relevant to tiering.
I guess I'd just have to make a blog for this then?
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
I don't see why it defeats your idea.

What I wrote above is to avoid adding 10 times a character performing the same feat and instead group it in the same sentence with a collection of images, yours is about the effectiveness and details of an ability.
Both things seem completely different to me.
 
10,855
5,096
It would be more nuanced, but it would all be "Drains some amount of energy from other characters". If I were to substitute stamina drain for destroying walls, it might look something like:
  • Took a few seconds to destroy a supernaturally-strong wall.
  • After a few seconds of attacking, barely cracked an ordinary wall.
  • After half a second of attacking had destroyed a human-sized chunk of wall.
  • After a split second had completely destroyed a supernaturally-strong wall, and could have vaporized it given a few more seconds.
  • After a few minutes of attacks had fragmented an ordinary wall.
When I draw that analogy in my mind, it sounds like something that wouldn't be allowed by that proposed rule. But maybe y'all just draw a distinction between AP feats and hax feats.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
I think this would be a different case, although similar in some points. First, this would be in its own tabber/section about energy/stamina drain and not just together with other feats, so there would be less spacing problems, which was the main issue with redundant feats. Then I guess one of the possible applications would be like "X can destroy a wall with a few punches, or even a single one depending on the occasion" and any possible variant. The formula may be adapted to similar instances with hax and powers, maybe using a single paragraph instead of several points, but I think it could be evaluated on a case by case basis. The primary objective is avoid listing the exact (or just slightly different) thing many time and not clog up the feats section. Granted, a blog has much more freedom, so thats's also an option.
 
16,715
3,198
I'm fine with the above, but I would like to see how it could be worded for the purpose of the editing rules, and/or being showcased with some example in detail in the standard format pages over the feats section.
 
16,715
3,198
We are still making some standards as to what's fine to index in the Feats section and respect threads in blogs for our purposes, to avoid listing redundant or otherwise unecessary details.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Okay. I am afraid that I have forgotten the details at this point.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Can you write an explanation regarding what we currently need to do here please?
 
16,715
3,198
So should we start a wiki management thread for removing respect threads, especially from Marvel and DC Comics characters, or let it happen gradually on its own?
This
We still need to word it for the rule or else chances are the Feats section will be filled with virtually redundant or useless content more often than not.
Would something like this work?

If a character performed the same type of feat multiple times (for example, the destruction of a door or a wall) please don't list it more than a single time in their "Feats" section. Alternatively, a sentence describing a feat can link to a collection of images about that kind of feat.

It definitely needs some tweak, especially the repetition of feat in the second part, but atm I couldn't think anything better. I also realized that a collection of images, like on imgur or in a blog, is better than linking more images to multiple words.
It would be more nuanced, but it would all be "Drains some amount of energy from other characters". If I were to substitute stamina drain for destroying walls, it might look something like:
  • Took a few seconds to destroy a supernaturally-strong wall.
  • After a few seconds of attacking, barely cracked an ordinary wall.
  • After half a second of attacking had destroyed a human-sized chunk of wall.
  • After a split second had completely destroyed a supernaturally-strong wall, and could have vaporized it given a few more seconds.
  • After a few minutes of attacks had fragmented an ordinary wall.
When I draw that analogy in my mind, it sounds like something that wouldn't be allowed by that proposed rule. But maybe y'all just draw a distinction between AP feats and hax feats.
I think this would be a different case, although similar in some points. First, this would be in its own tabber/section about energy/stamina drain and not just together with other feats, so there would be less spacing problems, which was the main issue with redundant feats. Then I guess one of the possible applications would be like "X can destroy a wall with a few punches, or even a single one depending on the occasion" and any possible variant. The formula may be adapted to similar instances with hax and powers, maybe using a single paragraph instead of several points, but I think it could be evaluated on a case by case basis. The primary objective is avoid listing the exact (or just slightly different) thing many time and not clog up the feats section. Granted, a blog has much more freedom, so thats's also an option.
I'm fine with the above, but I would like to see how it could be worded for the purpose of the editing rules, and/or being showcased with some example in detail in the standard format pages over the feats section.
And this, the second wave of quotes basically summarizes the talk so far over the second issue, and it seems it should be concluded first to have some more consistent criteria for the first part to begin with.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Well, I suppose that you can start a wiki management thread (that is not stuck at the top of the forum) about the first issue if you wish

@Agnaa @SamanPatou

Your further help would be appreciated regarding the second issue.
 
16,715
3,198
As said before, the second issue should be done first so there's some proper criteria as to what may be acceptable within such sections.
 
16,715
3,198
All of this post, the first part can be handled in another thread for users to post what they find as an off-site respect thread to remove, but I still think the second part should be concluded here first to have some basic ideas on what an off-site respect thread should meet in terms of feat indexing to be acceptable for our purposes.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Okay. I would appreciate further community input here, as I am too distracted and stressed out right now to properly focus on this task.
 
Last edited:
16,715
3,198
Bump.
Perhaps a new thread should be done to continue where we left off? I'd rather if someone else picked that up, however, given that I've been quite busy lately.
 
Last edited:

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
Iiirc we need to write down the actual rule and start removing external RT from the wiki.

About redundant feats and details, I proposed to just list them under a single sentence and link a few notable examples in it.

Like, Repeteadly showed to be able to easily destroy walls with his bare hands.

Just link some notable scan about X character busting walls, there's no need to list every single instance.
The same applies to whatever feat or demonstration has multiple examples and its basically identical.
 
Top