• 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.

Our rules regarding composite profiles (Staff only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Except that Link is never composite Link.

There is never a state or time where Link has everything we say he does in his composite profile. It's not a thing. It doesn't exist.
 
The whole thing of each Link having the Soul of Hero really doesn't work out. Each of the different Link's have different experiences, with different powers, different equipment and so on. Yes, many of them share certain things but that are each a different person with their own feats. Really, many of them, I believe, could be their own profile, so why composite them?

In addition, this speaks to problem I believe lies at the heart of Composites: what's the point? It just makes things messy and feels more like an overly glorofied caricature of the character, not an actual represetation of them.

Our profiles strive to give the most accurate representation of a character and their capabilities as possible based on the evaulation of evidence and logical reasoning. A composite is just a completely hypothetic idea that takes all those evaulations (which can be difficult to form consensus on in the first place and are constantly changing) and mashing them together to form something that actually doesn't exist.
 
That being said, Princess Zelda's profile is sort of composite; even though she's never composite at any given time. Though she is the incarnation of Hylia.
 
^^ I agree. Her profile might need to be handled like Composite Link's. Also, other Gozilla profiles like King Ghidorah (Composite) should be handled like Godzilla (Composite)'s.
 
I'm in strong opposition to compositing video game characters across their classes. Tabbers, lists of equipment, etc. can leave the profiles tidy while still portraying them accurately.

I'm neutral on most other composites. I think Pokémon profiles have good backing and are far from composite. I think a composite Dante is ludicrous and comparisons to existing composites are flawed. Dante being rejected does not mean Godzilla should be rejected.
 
I mean we already have a bunch of godzilla profiles, while there is no clear cannon for godzilla we already have many of his individual appearances subdivided across several profiles, I fail to see the point in a composite godzilla when we already have so many of his different portrayals in separate profiles/keys and can simply continue to make more as time goes on. Rather then sticking all the individual versions together into a single mess of a profile.
 
@Agnaa

Actually, with current rules (or lack of rules) Dante and just about any composite profile is allowed just as much as other composites. This thread is made to try and fix that.
 
I think there is like categories of composites

1. Canon "Composites". Barely composites, just characters who canonically possess the traits of other characters. Mr. Game & Watch comes to mind, but there are probably a few more.

2. Loose Canon Composite. Stuff like Mario and maybe arguably Bugs Bunny shorts and the likes. Characters who series are composed out of many loosely connected series who are all considered under one profile for the sake of simplicty. Of course Mario is a lot more legit than Bugs Bunny but they still fit under the same banner.

3. No Main Canon Composite. This is what most of our composites are. Black Rock Shooter, Link, Godzilla, etc. These characters comes from series which lack a singualr main version. It's just a bunch of series/instalements that are too sperated to be considered in the 2nd category. They're all roughly as "canon" as eachother and lack a central guiding canon. So there is no one main version of the character.

4. Wank Composite. Basically composites for characters that do possess one big main canon that's still ongoing, yet that we decided to add other non-canon work in for some reasons. Not sure if we have those yet, but stuff like composite Dante, composite Comics Book characters or composite Kirby would fit here.

Imo 1 and 2 are fine. 3 is certainly questionable and 4 is a definitive no.
 
@Saikou The Lewd King

1 seems fine but need more examples.

2 seems fine.

3 is a no. Having no main version of a character or a character has many interations that are equally canon shouldn't qualify a composite profile which is solely noncanon.

4 is an obvious no.
 
I mostly agree with Saikou's list, though I think the standards should be a bit stricter than that. Category 3, in my opinion, should just be outright not allowed with potential exceptions for specific examples. Only 1 and 2 seem legitimate to me.

Also, as another example of a category 1 character (since someone asked) I'm pretty sure the Soul of Cinder would fall under that.
 
Saikou The Lewd King said:
I think there is like categories of composites 1. Canon "Composites". Barely composites, just characters who canonically possess the traits of other characters. Mr. Game & Watch comes to mind, but there are probably a few more.
Click to expand...
G&W is an incredibly poor example of that. I've discussed the profile before, the justification comes from snippets from Super Smash Bros. Describing the character from Smash Bros, not retroactively establishing that every pixel-blob on the G&W console series 'was a single person the whole time!'.

'Characters that have characteristics of other characters' are just what the sentence says. They're not composites to begin with. Like, under that definition Gilgamesh (Fate Series) is a composite because he has 'characteristics of other servants', but obviously he's just his own character.

Saikou The Lewd King said:
2. Loose Canon Composite. Stuff like Mario and maybe arguably Bugs Bunny shorts and the likes. Characters who series are composed out of many loosely connected series who are all considered under one profile for the sake of simplicty. Of course Mario is a lot more legit than Bugs Bunny but they still fit under the same banner.
Click to expand...
If the verse's centralized story is so vague that we need to composite for the profile to exist, perhaps it's just that we shouldn't try and catalogue from a verse that isn't privy to being catalogued.

Saikou The Lewd King said:
3. No Main Canon Composite. This is what most of our composites are. Black Rock Shooter, Link, Godzilla, etc. These characters comes from series which lack a singualr main version. It's just a bunch of series/instalements that are too sperated to be considered in the 2nd category. They're all roughly as "canon" as eachother and lack a central guiding canon. So there is no one main version of the character.
Click to expand...
These have no reason for existing; they aren't characters from a series but characters that we made up ourselves.

Saikou The Lewd King said:
4. Wank Composite. Basically composites for characters that do possess one big main canon that's still ongoing, yet that we decided to add other non-canon work in for some reasons. Not sure if we have those yet, but stuff like composite Dante, composite Comics Book characters or composite Kirby would fit here.
Click to expand...
These have less of a reason for existing, and should be scrubbed from the site as well.

My personal take is that the definition for 1 doesn't describe composites to begin with and has an incredibly faulty example, 2 shouldn't have to exist on the site if we do proper feat cataloging and ignore verses with no definitive story, and 3/4 should be purged entirely.
 
I've been meaning to make a thread about canon composites before. These are characters like Medaka Kurokami, Fukurou Tsurubami, Scion (Worm), Yü Otosaka, and some others who I either don't remember or aren't on the wiki. These canonically have powersets partially derived from a group of characters in their canon. There are some inconsistencies between these types of profiles that probably need to be resolved with coherent guidelines.

For example, the canon composite from (Bleach?) has a key for abilities he's confirmed to have, and another key for ones he should have. Medaka only has abilities she's confirmed to have, Fukurou has abilities he's confirmed to have and ones he should have in the same key. But if this deserves its own thread it can wait.
 
I think that Saikou's list makes sense. Thank you for helping out.
 
I agree with Dargoo. Composites should not exist at all. And no, Pokémon does not qualify as composite, believe it or not. That verse is (for lack of a better terminology) canonically composite.

Composites mainly exist to give a character extra stats and powers. It'd be no different than making a composite Goku that has all his powers, transformations, and fusions and giving him head canon like abilities like stacking Kaio-ken on SS4, all despite the fact that not every DB series shares the same continuity, in fact most of them don't. Under any other circumstances we'd call that an FC (which aren't allowed), so I'm not sure why we allow composites.

This is no different than using non-canon material to amp up character files for matches. It shouldn't be acceptable. Why even keep their versions separate from the "main canon" iteration if we're going to make a composite anyway?

This goes for all composites with the exception of characters with floating continuity like Mario and verses like Pokémon which aren't even the same as the base composites I've described above. Link and all other composites need to go.
 
Honestly I agree with Dargoo again. When I read Saikou's list 2, 3 and 4 did not seem like things that should be allowed on the wiki.
 
@Sera & Dargoo

So do you think that we should get rid of the Looney Tunes characters and similar cases, or do they fit under floating continuity?
 
It's a bit tricky but Spongebob seems fine and it has the same crazy scaling as toons usually have. So long as, for example, Bugs Bunny from the original cartoons (from the early 30s to like the late 80s iirc) only uses feats from those cartoons, it's fine. The trick to dealing with composites is to only use feats from one version of the character at a time. It's not really a composite character in that manner.
 
I agree, it's better to draw a line as to which series we'd be compositing. The current Mickey Mouse shorts, for example, are agreeably a completely different series when compared to like, the original Iwerks-Disney shorts. Same goes for characters like Tom and Jerry, where the Hanna-Barbera shorts were recognizably different than the Chuck Jones ones and the modern Warner Bros ones.
 
Okay. It would be quite a project to go through all of these profiles and remove, for example, all scaling from comicbooks from the cartoon versions of either Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny.
 
I suppose Sera is making good points regarding Composite profiles. And for characters who originate from Floating canon continuities; I need to point out that some of them were never really "Composite" to begin with. Mario was never composite to begin with because it's just him appearing in a lot of games which are all confirmed by Miyamoto and Nintendo to be canon; just that the canonocity is nonlinear and simply never been organized into a single linearity.
 
I think the Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny profiles have to be deleted and rewritten entirely, those profiles are compositing literally everything.
 
I think we also need to address something I would call lore stacking with composite profiles, where we combine aspects of one story with aspects of another story to make the world seem stronger.

Like for example, in one story they mention an alternate dimension, and that alternate dimension is refer to as seperate universe. And then in another story they mention multiple other diemnsions, but in that story the dimensions aren't stated to be unvierses at all and can be interpretted as pocket realities, but soemone will say that since in story one, dimensions were considered universes, then in story two those dimensions are considered universes as well.

And note, these stories were created by different teams. (team being writer, producer, developer etc.)
 
For LOZ, here are all the same versions of Link:

The Legend of Zelda/The Adventures of Link

A Link to the Past/Link's Awakening/Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages

Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask

Wind Waker/Phantom Hourglass

Tri Force Heroes/ A Link Beteen World

Breath of the Wild 1&2
 
About Composite Link, it is true that he shouldn't be a "composite" anymore and just be "Link". We should stop considering it as a "composite" of the different Links and consider him as just "The Spirit of the Hero" himself, which would lead to consequences like separating his Standard Equipment with his Optional one, or separation into keys. After all, all the Links are meant to be the same person, and the similarities are so big that people thought that OoT, MM, AlttP, LA, OoA, OoS, Zelda I, AoL and FS Link to be the same person till Wind Waker came and considered the events of OoT as a far off legend. Lastly, there is a reason why the Zelda official site and Hyrule Encyclopedia all have a single page for Link defining him as a single character, just as they do with Ganondorf, who IS literally always the same guy. He simply is a single character. Assuming he were not, that would mean that they grouped together different people as a single one, or, in other words, they "composited" him, legitimizing Composite Link.

I'm fine with stopping considering Composite Link a composite and starting to consider him like characters like Mario or Kirby.
 
I feel like specific characters should have their own thread for discussing. I, for one, feel like Composite Link being seperated into keys is uneeded because... he already has profiles for different continuities, and if some happen to share abilities that should be on those profiles.

But again, I don't feel like specifics should be discussed here. I do agree with Dargoo.
 
Antvasima said:
@Sera & Dargoo
So do you think that we should get rid of the Looney Tunes characters and similar cases, or do they fit under floating continuity?
Click to expand...
So, I'm going to go out and say that Looney Tunes doesn't meet many of the standards for a cohesive story that we established in the YouTube discussions.

There is an argument that it does, although that argument kind of hinges on the 'Who Killed Roger Rabbit' interpretation of Toons, in that oldie cartoons have a unique set of physics, and the characters in them are super-hero like immortals that can 'reset' themselves for every 'episode', so massive inconsistencies in the story can be handwaved to 'toon logic'.

My personal take is that it's just skit-based comedy like a series of modern-day shitposts, just with a cast of recurring characters for recognizability with the kids. There isn't a plot because there isn't a need for one, the only plot that exists is whatever sets up the joke so there can be more payoff. I think 'toon logic' and 'toon force' are just terms we made ourselves to try and explain stuff that doesn't make sense because it never needed to.

Modern-day cartoons have seperated themselves from this greatly, however, there is a large amount of overlap where you see cartoons that do have a plot, but that plot isn't consistent for the sake of comedy (Ed, Edd, and Eddy! is a good example of this). Serialized cartoons in the early 2000s would often end in a way that makes future episodes outright impossible (major character gets sent to mars, earth is nuked, etc), so the next episode would start as if the previous didn't happen. But you'd have callbacks to previous episodes, and even an overarching story that comes up now and then.

Finally you get cartoons that meet our criteria with no gray area, which is where most of the late 2000s - today cartoons fall under, with a few exceptions (Early Adventure Time and Chowder can be inconsistent like oldies, for example). The closest to Loony-Toons like comedy you see nowadays is, as mentioned above, shitposting and memes.
 
Isn't that like saying that Atari games aren't vedeogames because they doesn't match up to what games are today ?

Like, no cartoons back there didn't have plot, it was the standard of how stuff was, mostly because the were a brand new concept of entertainement and still developing..
 
@Overlord

What Agnaa said, I think you're focusing on me comparing 'old cartoons' to 'new cartoons' as an example.

A cartoon made in the 50s can have a more coherent plot than a cartoon produced in the 2010s, and meet our standards better. I'm just talking about general trends in the TV animation industry to discuss the kinds of profiles that meet our basic profile criterial.
 
Anyway, if we wish to perform the type of revision suggested by Sera and Dargoo, or Saikou if more staff members agree with him, we still need to get this project organised. Meaning, first we need to rewrite the Alternative Canon and Composite Profiles rules, and then start to get rid of all the profiles that do not fulfill our new standards, along with updating all of the pages that link to them.
 
I believe the word you guys are looking for is "continuity" rather than "plot". No comedy-based cartoon really has a concrete plot but modern toons have more continuity than older ones. I apologize for the semantics but it just reminded me of the eventual rewrite of the canon page. Regardless, I agree with Dargoo.
 
I do believe Link should be fine as long as he doesn't have cross continuity stuff. (Like that manga or cartoon). But other than that. The games should be fine. It's confirmed each link is the same. Simply reborn. And all his gear and powers are stuff he could have on him. So, shouldn't be an issue there either. Though I think we should remove the word "Composite" from Links page as it really isn't a composite. As they are all the same character confirmed by creators
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Sandboxes and CRTs
Replies
11
Views
1K
Catzlaflame
Catzlaflame
H3110l12345I20
(NEEDS VOTES) Creepers fight Pando. Australia edition (Composite Tree (Community Made) vs 40000 Creepers (Minecraft))
Replies
19
Views
2K
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Composite Human and Meme Tree Nostalgia Trip (Composite Human (Real World) vs Composite Tree (Community Made))
Replies
29
Views
4K
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top