• 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.

Profile Deletion Requests Thread (New forum)

Pathfinder's pretty bad yeah, but I asked @Mr._Bambu about it before and he said there wouldn't be an issue if we used pre-existing D&D calcs for it, since they run off of basically the same ruleset. Couldn't we just do that for the stats?
 
Yeah, sure, go ahead.
Done
Pathfinder's pretty bad yeah, but I asked @Mr._Bambu about it before and he said there wouldn't be an issue if we used pre-existing D&D calcs for it, since they run off of basically the same ruleset. Couldn't we just do that for the stats?
@Mr._Bambu just to verify
Although even assuming you can just use the same calcs we'd need to check what applies to who at what level and so on so it's not easy either way
So unless someone wants to revise it themselves it's better to nuke
 
Stats are poorly explained, no scans outside Revy (Although it doesn't justify her higher end stats)
@Zaratthustra and @First_Witch can further comment on the verse

Specifically the 2008 section as they lack calcs for feats that really need them + Needs scans
@KLOL506 can further comment on the verse

Needs overhauling in general, lacks calcs for feats that need it and lacks scans
@Antoniofer can further comment on the verse

The reasoning for the ratings are shaky and the verse lacks scans in general
Only supporter has been inactive for two years

Low quality pages, baring the Tin Man and The Scarecrow (Maybe Cowardly Lion too) the stats are either all Unknown for no good reason (Seriously there's no way it is just all that) or need calc/have no reasoning (The Oz pages need a calc for the 9-B rating and the Superhuman flight speed is not explained)
@SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Qawsedf234 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Damage3245

Would any of you be willing to evaluate if these verses are fine to delete, or if they are easily salvageable, please?
 

Mostly guesswork file. Character has like 1 appearance too

Pretty empty

Bad file

1 appearance and aside from AP, pretty meh

Meh page. Plus only 13 appearances.

bad
 

Pretty sure impress brought up this profile before for deletion. The formatting is actually pretty bad and doesn't need to be done like this. Also considering it's a new file, it lacks references too.

P&A is legit bad. Yes, AP and some other sections are done well, but the rest, not so much. It could use a complete rework but idk whose gonna do that. I don't have much time for it myself rn.

Pretty bad. Oh, and for ancient one, IIRC, they just copied and pasted what early Doc strange used to have

pretty bad

Bad

Extremely bad. Also a lot of bad justifications, formatting and listing of his p&a

Do we really need this file? And his tiering is just bad.
 
@Mr._Bambu just to verify
Although even assuming you can just use the same calcs we'd need to check what applies to who at what level and so on so it's not easy either way
So unless someone wants to revise it themselves it's better to nuke
That is accurate, yeah. As Pathfinder draws on the foundation D&D built, it quite literally has many of the same common feats- they are identical. So, for example, a lot of the spell calcs would be usable straight up in Pathfinder, as the two spells are the same. Paizo copied WotC's homework.

This can't just be applied flippantly, of course- like you said, someone would need to go through and carefully apply stuff. I am simply stating the math should be identical.
 
Pretty empty
Validus is just a brawler basically, file's kinda shit in terms of justifications but I don't think it's inaccurate. Neutral towards deletion still. Kinda weird he has a page still when almost no other LOSH character does
 
If that's the case, then his AP should probably get updated to 2C, possibly 2A since rn it was forgotten when everyone else got upgraded.

Idk why this page is closed tbh.
 
Anyways are the DC pages and the other stuff I've linked fine to nuke?
 
Do we really need this file? And his tiering is just bad.
I suppose this profile should be kept since it can help us distinguish normal Venom to this Venom, which is (in)famous for his ability of copying. It needs knowledgeable member to revise it, though.
 
This is literally akin to a what if issue and we don't have files for other what ifs. Comic ones anyway.
I feel that What If Venom can be kept considering that I have seen that there are people incorrectly claimed "Venom is OP" based on this What If Venom, meaning that this Venom has its notability.
 
Normally we don't allow What Ifs but I've seen this one talked about a decent bit, even outside battleboarding circles. I think it's notable enough to be an exception.
 

Mostly guesswork file. Character has like 1 appearance too

Pretty empty

Bad file

1 appearance and aside from AP, pretty meh

Meh page. Plus only 13 appearances.

bad
I think that all of these pages seem fine to delete.
 
Validus is just a brawler basically, file's kinda shit in terms of justifications but I don't think it's inaccurate. Neutral towards deletion still. Kinda weird he has a page still when almost no other LOSH character does
That is a good point. Validus is a pretty major character, and I think likely the physically strongest regular non-cosmic character in DC Comics history. Is nobody here willing to clean up the page instead?
 

Pretty sure impress brought up this profile before for deletion. The formatting is actually pretty bad and doesn't need to be done like this. Also considering it's a new file, it lacks references too.

P&A is legit bad. Yes, AP and some other sections are done well, but the rest, not so much. It could use a complete rework but idk whose gonna do that. I don't have much time for it myself rn.

Pretty bad. Oh, and for ancient one, IIRC, they just copied and pasted what early Doc strange used to have

pretty bad

Bad

Extremely bad. Also a lot of bad justifications, formatting and listing of his p&a

Do we really need this file? And his tiering is just bad.
This mostly seems fine to me, but Absorbing Man and Agamotto are pretty major characters, so I would prefer if somebody cleans up the pages instead.
 
That is accurate, yeah. As Pathfinder draws on the foundation D&D built, it quite literally has many of the same common feats- they are identical. So, for example, a lot of the spell calcs would be usable straight up in Pathfinder, as the two spells are the same. Paizo copied WotC's homework.

This can't just be applied flippantly, of course- like you said, someone would need to go through and carefully apply stuff. I am simply stating the math should be identical.
Thank you for providing information.
 
Anyways are the DC pages and the other stuff I've linked fine to nuke?
Let's wait a little. Also, what are the staff opinions so far about the pages that you suggested for deletion above and refer to currently?
 
I feel that What If Venom can be kept considering that I have seen that there are people incorrectly claimed "Venom is OP" based on this What If Venom, meaning that this Venom has its notability.
Normally we don't allow What Ifs but I've seen this one talked about a decent bit, even outside battleboarding circles. I think it's notable enough to be an exception.
I think that this character only appeared in a single issue. It would set a very bad precedent to allow it.
Put a note on Venom's page?
This seems like an acceptable solution, but what should it say exactly?
 
Also, what are the staff opinions so far about the pages that you suggested for deletion above and refer to currently?
Black Lagoon Confluctor supported deletion (The two pinged supporters have not responded yet)
Pathfinder the only person who is listed on the verse page does not wish to revise it
Others nobody commented about outside Prince of Persia which that part was nuked and saved in a sandbox
 
Black Lagoon Confluctor supported deletion (The two pinged supporters have not responded yet)
Pathfinder the only person who is listed on the verse page does not wish to revise it
Others nobody commented about outside Prince of Persia which that part was nuked and saved in a sandbox
Okay. That is unfortunate.
Stats are poorly explained, no scans outside Revy (Although it doesn't justify her higher end stats)
@Zaratthustra and @First_Witch can further comment on the verse

Specifically the 2008 section as they lack calcs for feats that really need them + Needs scans
@KLOL506 can further comment on the verse

Needs overhauling in general, lacks calcs for feats that need it and lacks scans
@Antoniofer can further comment on the verse

The reasoning for the ratings are shaky and the verse lacks scans in general
Only supporter has been inactive for two years

Low quality pages, baring the Tin Man and The Scarecrow (Maybe Cowardly Lion too) the stats are either all Unknown for no good reason (Seriously there's no way it is just all that) or need calc/have no reasoning (The Oz pages need a calc for the 9-B rating and the Superhuman flight speed is not explained)
@Damage3245 @Elizhaa @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Zaratthustra

Would you be willing to help evaluate if we should remove these verses please?
 
This mostly seems fine to me, but Absorbing Man and Agamotto are pretty major characters, so I would prefer if somebody cleans up the pages instead.
I don't think anyone is willing right now to read hundreds to a thousand issues for these two... It's better deleted until someone recreates it properly
 
Okay. Never mind then.
 
I feel that What If Venom can be kept considering that I have seen that there are people incorrectly claimed "Venom is OP" based on this What If Venom, meaning that this Venom has its notability.

I don't think I have seen one person ever claim that and I am extremely active in a number of comic book communities? Plus Venom already got a 2A key via king in black
 
Would any of you be willing to evaluate if these verses are fine to delete, or if they are easily salvageable, please?
Pathfinder is likely rather easy to salvage since the majority of its justifications can be calced like our D&D stuff. But for the profiles afaik a lot of the later keys are based off either novels, WoG or adventure text images which are fine to use. Some of the scaling is a bit weird though and presumably based on scaling gun and lightning die values to the damage values of some of the characters.
 
Okay. Thank you for the reply.
 

Also bad
 
Stats all around are an utter mess, doesn't follow formatting that well and lacks scans
@GoldenScorpions can further comment on the verse if they want to save it
Thankfully I had preemptively saved the profiles in a blog, since I knew I needed to heavily rework them, otherwise I'd have been really annoyed that I wasn't given a chance to say anything. At least it wasn't one of the verses I was deeply passionated about. I understand the reasoning for the deletion, and I don't argue against it, but please offer more time for the supporters/creators of the pages to respond.
 

Also bad
It can probably be deleted, yes.
 
I think so, yes. Or does anybody here have any objections?
 
Thankfully I had preemptively saved the profiles in a blog, since I knew I needed to heavily rework them, otherwise I'd have been really annoyed that I wasn't given a chance to say anything. At least it wasn't one of the verses I was deeply passionated about. I understand the reasoning for the deletion, and I don't argue against it, but please offer more time for the supporters/creators of the pages to respond.
I definitely agree here by the way, we should absolutely wait a couple weeks for deletion.
 
Okay. I suppose that we can probably wait with deleting that verse then.
 
Oh. If it has not been backed up to a sandbox, perhaps somebody should do that instead then?
 
Back
Top