- 6,910
- 6,628
My feat timelines are fine though, right?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah previously-established on-site feat lists should be fine.My feat timelines are fine though, right?
In all honesty, I have no issue with offsite respect threads, but it'll be much safer if we could transfer it here so it doesn't get deleted under our watch.Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/respectthreads.
Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.
^ This.I strongly agree with this. The problem is especially bad when it is respect threads for Marvel and DC Comics characters, given that those verses run on "everybody can fight everybody" plot-induced stupidity.
Alot of our users use respect threads to make pages, or at the absolute least derive scans from them, which I think it would be dickish of us then, to not list their original source on the page itself. Why use respect threads? Coming from a more expansive verse, it's a more convenient, if not admittedly inadvisable, way to gather feats for the characters, and in cases such as Iron Man and most X-Men characters, who rack up thousands of issues needed to be read, they're often the only way
And I am with DT's stance on the matter, what's on the profile should automatically be apparent as what matters, and offsite respect threads should stay on files
You aren't obligated to do alot of things, Bob, like using fan renders without crediting the artist than worked days off on it.Users are free to use any research they find for our purposes, but we aren't obligated to feature credits of that kind to begin with.
This is the same shit but far worse and cluttered.If we want to give credit for the one that "found" the feats, just keep that on the verse page if anything in some new section
They're on the edits, external contributors aren't.currently we don't even give credit to users that have helped far more on keeping a page up to date and reliable
I think any user with basic comprehension skills can infer what's on the profile is more consistent than just a collection of feats, which is what respect threads are.than a list filled with content that's easily questionable for our standards to begin with, if we want to get there.
Giving credit on sources of research is quite lacking standards to say the least, if you want to go like "Credit to X for finding this series of feats" just because without it a ton of accuracy would most likely have been compromised, the Standard Format for Character Profiles would have to be adjusted accordingly to keep this kind of stuff listed consistently, and most likely at around the bottom of the page, this probably should also be done for fanart and the like while we are on that, assuming we end up doing this, which I'm neutral on.You aren't obligated to do alot of things, Bob, like using fan renders without crediting the artist than worked days off on it.
Doesn't mean it's not dickish if you don't do them.
This is the same shit but far worse and cluttered.
They're on the edits, external contributors aren't.
I think any user with basic comprehension skills can infer what's on the profile is more consistent than just a collection of feats, which is what respect threads are.
I don't think we should pander our pages to non-existent people with the lowest thought capacity possible, and honestly, for one I just don't think wiki's stance on outliers should be to never address them and other feats, this is literally just hiding context.
What's on the respect thread isn't meant to be an index to comprehensively derive tier from, it's a collection of all the feats performed by a character, and us as a wiki's job is to illustrate said collection of feats into a comprehensive compilation. They're not our rivals by any means and neither are contradicting us, if anyone who understands the purpose of a respect thread is asked.
If anything a good respect that lists all the significant feats performed a character, of course it shouldn't be the end-all, be-all for researching, yet still there are just characters that honestly can't be indexed otherwise unless the user takes months on a single file.
Also we're just straight up forgetting alot of other verses, like comic strips and TV shows, aren't really as easy to come by online, so researching them is a hellhole unless we decide to use the respect threads, made by people who either own these resources, or have the months on end of time to collect these feats.
At the end of the day I just don't think wiki should focus on feat-exclusion for any verse, hell for Marvel we just have an entire page explaining the reasons for feat exclusions, that anyone can read, so what's even the problem.
This extends beyond just "not familiar with Vs. Debating" you're presenting a scenario where people will not use basic common sense and will rather just believe anything shown on the screen.I mean, our demographic isn't exclusively people that are already familiar on the vs debating community at all, most of it is filled with casuals that just read and may not be aware of our proper standards to begin with, making stuff foolproof doesn't hurt. We also aren't hiding outliers, we are preventing contradicting ourselves by featuring content that isn't even explained on how it fits for our purposes.
Which is what I already addressed, nonsensical point reiterating here.The purpose of the wiki isn't to "illustrate said collection of feats into a comprehensive compilation", but rather "discuss how to properly index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises", or in other words, we don't just collect and feature feats regardless of what they are, we rate them and obtain stats from the case in question for others to be aware of the information we got based on our resources and standards, not the standards of elsewhere, at the very least some moderation would be required as Ant said before, like how we do with off-site calcs being mandatory to at least post to this site then get it approved by a staff member, doing so also gives a "layer" of protection against whatever may go on the other website editing or removing details we were originally using, sometimes the entire page to begin with.
If you want so badly to credit off-site users for the way they made research easier or the like, which would be optional as usual, it could be a good idea to only do so in a way that clearly states that we're not "formally" affiliated with them and that we disagree with certain aspects, most of the staff seem to currently agree on this, as just blindly listing "Respect Thread" with a link and absolutely nothing else (As we currently do) brings the issue that has been outlined across the entire thread.This extends beyond just "not familiar with Vs. Debating" you're presenting a scenario where people will not use basic common sense and will rather just believe anything shown on the screen.
If people like that exist then they definitely shouldn't be in our community in the first place.
Which is what I already addressed, nonsensical point reiterating here.
"I'm not saying that we shouldn't use that sort of resources for our purposes, it's perfectly fine to go to another battleboard website to gather stuff you probably wouldn't easily find otherwise, the problem is featuring that content on profiles out of many before-mentioned reasons, you can always just make a Sandbox or blog post where you compile them and use them as needed later, with no direct mentioning of them on profiles."
This is "just be a content vampire", I'd rather not have people's credits for their months and months of research be hidden under bureaucratic structure instead of the file reliant on it.
If you want so badly to credit off-site users for the way they made research easier or the like, which would be optional as usual, it could be a good idea to only do so in a way that clearly states that we're not "formally" affiliated with them and that we disagree with certain aspects, most of the staff seem to currently agree on this aspect, as just blindly listing "Respect Thread" with a link and absolutely nothing else brings the issue that has been outlined across the entire thread.
Uh, I'd hesitate to put something as universal as that. Sometimes Respect Threads are added in by later editors simply because it's an RT for the character, even if it wasn't used in creating the profile. Also, I was considering writing an RT for a character and linking it on the profile, simply because I'd prefer listing 20 near-identical hax feats there instead of trying to squeeze them somewhere into a profile.I think the better option is to reword the way we list Respect Threads, and instead have it be "This profile was made with assistance from this respect thread by u/[name]"
Here, it's still non-concluded, howeverBtw: Speaking of giving proper credit to artists of fan images: Does anybody have a link to the thread where I talked about creating a wiki management thread for that purpose (along with the main topic of if we should use unrelated images to illustrate character profile pages or not)? It seems quite important to finish that discussion.
Anyway, about this...Well, the main problem here is that we have up to 583,000 individual visitors per month to the wiki, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them (97.2% to be exact) are not diehard regulars. As such, they will easily be misled by threads featuring all of Superman's most impressive sounding feats out of context, for example.
However, this is mainly a problem for Marvel and DC Comics, due to being two of the most irrational and inconsistent fictional settings ever, so maybe we could restrict the rule to these franchises only, and move all of the respect threads for such characters to a blog post?
(Armor doesn't exist now rip)So far it seems everyone but DontTalk, The Impress and maybe Eficiente agree on not featuring off-site respect threads on the pages.
However, we have yet to agree how to deal with them, so I'll drop some ideas:
When@Tllmbrg (Ant debunked him respectively, however)
Here, it seemsWell, the main problem here is that we have up to 583,000 individual visitors per month to the wiki, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them (97.2% to be exact) are not diehard regulars. As such, they will easily be misled by threads featuring all of Superman's most impressive sounding feats out of context, for example.
However, this is mainly a problem for Marvel and DC Comics, due to being two of the most irrational and inconsistent fictional settings ever, so maybe we could restrict the rule to these franchises only, and move all of the respect threads for such characters to a blog post?
Hmm, that may be an issue there. This isn't an exact estimate, but since most pages with "Feats" sections link to respect threads, whatlinkshere gives us a good idea of how many pages would need to be looked at, and there's over 1500...I am also fine with the blog post hosting solution.
Quite a lot of work would be required though.