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

[SamanPatou]

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.

 

[Agnaa]

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]

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.

 

[Bobsican]

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.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What is left to do here?

 

[Bobsican]

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]

Okay. I am afraid that I have forgotten the details at this point.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you write an explanation regarding what we currently need to do here please?

 

[Bobsican]

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]

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.

 

[Bobsican]

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.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What still needs to be done here?

 

[Bobsican]

This

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]

Okay. I would appreciate further community input here, as I am too distracted and stressed out right now to properly focus on this task.

 

[Bobsican]

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.

 

[SamanPatou]

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.

 

[The_Impress]

...wait this hasn't been applied? I was removing RTs already...

 

[SamanPatou]

The would have been removed anyway, we just need to write the rule itself about making internal Respect Threads in blog posts.

 

[The_Impress]

Rq can anyone recap the consensus of the thread? Last time I remember it was split on linking non-comics RTs

 

[Antvasima]

...wait this hasn't been applied? I was removing RTs already...

I don't remember well anymore. Sorry.

A continuation thread for this discussion may be a good idea, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

They would have been removed anyway, we just need to write the rule itself about making internal Respect Threads in blog posts.

Okay. Help would be appreciated in that case.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody check through this thread and write an explanation post for our conclusions here so far, and what we still have to evaluate, please?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Can somebody check through this thread and write an explanation post for our conclusions here so far, and what we still have to evaluate, please?

From my hazy memory

• Complete ban / removal
• A CRT or equivalent to discuss if it's useable for the site

For the sake of the thread, I'd say go with option 2 rather than option 1. Since profiles with them sometimes miss aspects that can relevant to a debate, like minor instances of stuff, power usage consistency or standard battle tactics.

Its also easier for people to get a general grasp of a character with an RT imo, but that's more a personal thing than an actual thing probably.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Is there some kind of more thorough explanation post for the purpose of this thread that I can quote here, and is somebody willing to list the staff and knowledgeable members who participated here, please?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Is there some kind of more thorough explanation post for the purpose of this thread that I can quote here, and is somebody willing to list the staff and knowledgeable members who participated here, please?

Bump.

 

[Agnaa]

The procedure I was told to undergo, in the wake of this thread, was creating a blog which contained a link to an archive of the respect thread, and the username of the respect thread's creator. That blog would then be evaluated by people knowledgeable on the verse; if they agreed with it, it could be added.

 

[Antvasima]

The procedure I was told to undergo, in the wake of this thread, was creating a blog which contained a link to an archive of the respect thread, and the username of the respect thread's creator. That blog would then be evaluated by people knowledgeable on the verse; if they agreed with it, it could be added.

@Agnaa

Well, that seems rather reasonable to me. Should I call for our administrators to help out with evaluating this? We also seem to need a draft text for a new editing rule.

 

[Agnaa]

That editing rule was already drafted and implemented. Quoting from Editing Rules...

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 on external sites, although exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted on FanVerse 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 content revision threads as well. On-site respect threads and direct feat sections may also be featured in profiles, but they must be evaluated and accepted in a Content Revisions Thread first.

It was agreed to be added around page 2/3 of this thread.

After that it seems like the following happened:

• Bob suggested adding a note on the standard format pages that points to that rule.
• Bob suggested trimming down "Feats" sections on pages, to only the ones relevant to tiering. I disagreed with this, since such feats would already be included in the relevant sections, making this redundant.
• You asked if a thread should be created for removing respect threads from pages.
• Bob, Saman, and I discussed how to format "Feats" sections, if they focused on showing demonstrations of a character's hax.

After that it was mostly people wandering into here, and forgetting what had happened.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the concise explanation.

@Agnaa @SamanPatou @Bobsican

Are any of you interested in continuing your discussion, or should we close this thread?

 

[Agnaa]

So ig my thoughts on each of those are:

• A note pointing to that rule, while fine conceptually, kinda struggles practically since we can't link directly to bullet points, afaik.
• I don't care too much about enforcing standards on how elaborate/redundant feat sections on profiles should be, since they're collapsible and would vary a lot from character to character. As long as the information's cleared by verse experts.
• Neutral for a thread on removing respect threads from pages. If a thread is made for that, I'd prefer that they get moved to archived blogs, but it's not very important.

If others don't have anything to say, no more discussion could really happen, so closing this would be fine.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think that removing links to respect threads is remotely a prioritised task given all of our other more important ones that we haven't got done yet, so I am personally fine with closing this thread.

 

[Bobsican]

So ig my thoughts on each of those are:

• A note pointing to that rule, while fine conceptually, kinda struggles practically since we can't link directly to bullet points, afaik.

Nowadays there's a feature in web browsers to link to specific parts of a page based on certain words, like this, but I'd note this kind of link would have to be updated whenever that part of the page is changed.

• I don't care too much about enforcing standards on how elaborate/redundant feat sections on profiles should be, since they're collapsible and would vary a lot from character to character. As long as the information's cleared by verse experts.

Yeah, this is difficult to monitor, keeping it to the verse's experts is fine beyond glaring stuff like extremely irrelevant feats, although those that lean more into mere experience could be moved to the Intelligence section.

• Neutral for a thread on removing respect threads from pages. If a thread is made for that, I'd prefer that they get moved to archived blogs, but it's not very important.

It's a quite spread out thing, so it'd be best to clean this up long term as discussed previously on the thread multiple times. I recall @The_Impress already did some work on cleaning up this stuff.

 

[Agnaa]

Nowadays there's a feature in web browsers to link to specific parts of a page based on certain words, like this, but I'd note this kind of link would have to be updated whenever that part is changed.

Doesn't always work; at least, it's not working for me on Firefox.

 

[Bobsican]

I'm a Google Chrome user, but in that case we may require to either make a subheader to ease linking, which I'm not too much of a fan as it'd quite stick out here.

 

[Agnaa]

Maybe we could just link to it, while describing where to go? Such as:

For information about linking off-site respect threads, read the rule concerning that on our Editing Rules page.

 

[Bobsican]

I'd be fine with that.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.