• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
I have an alternative issue.

A lot of offsite links get deleted from their website, which the respect threads fall under.
We get a lot of calcs from Narutoforums, and the calc might get deleted or the origin/important parts of the calc gets deleted, and then we'll have to redo it in the future since we don't have it.

This same issue happens with some respect threads I've seen. Whenever I want to find a feat to add on to a page or a CRT
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.
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.
 
Fo once I disagree with DontTalk, as according to my experiences, these threads mainly focus on comic book characters with feats all over the place, even more so in terms of fighting characters with power levels all over the spectrum, with no regard for if it makes any sense or not, if the feats were outliers, PIS, "everybody can fight everybody" insanity, taken out of context, or all of the above.

As such, I think that we are shooting ourselves in the feet by allowing them to be listed without any editorialising whatsoever on our part, as we will essentially help to incite our visitors who are fans of the characters against us. If necessary, our members can just copy the feat lists to blogs in our wiki instead, and preferably edit away the ones that we have previously rejected.
 
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

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.

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, currently we don't even give credit to users that have helped far more on keeping a page up to date and reliable, than a list filled with content that's easily questionable for our standards to begin with, if we want to get there.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
This is the same shit but far worse and cluttered.
currently we don't even give credit to users that have helped far more on keeping a page up to date and reliable
They're on the edits, external contributors aren't.
than a list filled with content that's easily questionable for our standards to begin with, if we want to get there.
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.
 
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.
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.

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, meaning that at least some explanation on our part would have to be included to make it more reasonable to consider, as said before.

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.

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.
 
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.
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.
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.
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.
 
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, 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.

There's also the matter that unlike fanart they can't really sue as this kind of information can't be "owned" beyond what Fair Use covers anyways (Unless you straight up want to also give credits to piracy websites out of featuring the feats themselves), but I can get that you want to just be nice to them.
 
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.
lol yeah i forgot people just listed respect threads with no context whatsoever

I mean doesn't matter what most staff think, I'm not a staff member to conform to others' opinions, I am just putting out points needing addressed and my concerns to proposals
 
I frankly find the main concern about RT here overblown
As Zark said the people in theory that we’re worried about likely don’t exist and if they did they shouldn’t be using the site to begin with

Plus if someone’s RT thread paints a whole different picture then their profile I think that’s more telling about the page rather then the RT, since as mentioned they just index feats
Plus we already forced citations on comics in general so it could be viewed as merely an add on to that since a decent amount of scans we use is from RT and we’re at least I hope not total ***** who can acknowledge when we burrowed stuff from others
 
I'm of the opinion they should be kept as well. I sure as hell would have struggled a bit more in making a profile or two without the appropriate respect threads, I'd feel like a piece of shit if I didn't at least credit the person making them.
 
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]"
 
I think that's such a minor change that it feels like a waste of time. It also makes it sound like that person was straight-up asked for permission which often isn't the case
 
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]"
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.
 
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?
 
Btw: 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.
 
Btw: 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.
Here, it's still non-concluded, however
 
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?
Anyway, about this...
 
I still believe we shouldn't link anything that has not been evaluated by us, for a series of reasons I've already expressed.

I also disagree with crediting who made the RT on the profile, it may not be honest to just copy paste them, but we don't credit any single user that had a major role in creating or revising a profile.

I agree with giving them credit if we copy paste their RT into a wiki blog.
 
Last edited:
Bump.

This seems like an important discussion to finish.
 
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:

1: Off-Site Respect Threads are removed from all pages, instead they are replaced with a link to a blog post (emphasis on this part, they must be hosted in this website, as we do with calculations) that contains the accepted content after it was evaluated by at least one staff member, and thus basically evaluated like a calculation before being linked to in the profile, based around on factors regarding how it fits our standards and the phrasing used not confusing our audience with stuff that goes against our standards with no explication (for example, "this feat is an outlier for X reason", or "sections such as Y were skipped as they didn't serve for our purposes out of Z"), as this isn't as technical, knowledgeable members on the subject can evaluate as well.
Such blog post also would give credit to the user that originally did this.

2: Off-Site Respect Threads are still featured on pages, but now they must contain a detailed summary on what they hold and what parts do fit for our purposes, such links also have to be archived in archive.org to avoid having to deal with such page not being avaiable for reasons that are simply beyond us (separate site and all). Such alternative wouldn't be as reliable, especially if the same respect thread is used for multiple pages, let alone the process evaluation being even more messy here out of basically requiring a full CRT each time, so I would suggest option 1 more.

If we go with option 1, we could also make a "Respect Thread Evaluation Thread", to deal with them like how we do with calculations for pages, such accepted Respect Threads can also be featured in the respective verse page.

In any case we also probably require to edit a bit the Standard Format for Character Profiles, and the Standard Format for Verse Pages to remain consistent on how these are added to profiles, if at all.
 
that's four staff members lol, you sure you got the majority?
 
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?
Here, it seems
 
I'm fine with them being removed from DCMarvel i don't really care
 
I'd prefer Option 1. I'm not sure if a dedicated thread is the best way to go about it, I'd suggest them being added during CRTs, or accepted by knowledgeable members in the blog posts themselves, like calculations are.
 
I am also fine with the blog post hosting solution.

Quite a lot of work would be required though.
 
I am also fine with the blog post hosting solution.

Quite a lot of work would be required though.
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...

With that in mind I think I'm pushed to the Disagree camp. If y'all are worried about inaccuracies on Marvel/DC respect threads I think that can/should be handled separately from nuking all across the site.
 
Okay. So should we only use this rule for Marvel and DC Comics instead, given that they are the most inconsistent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top