- 15,920
- 2,694
It looks fine to me since the movie is indeed pretty different from the manga, only issue is a few formatting things, but considering it already has calcs, I don't see any harm to it.
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.
It looks fine to me since the movie is indeed pretty different from the manga, only issue is a few formatting things, but considering it already has calcs, I don't see any harm to it.
I would agree but the only calc is a generic storm calc. The other justification is just "They caused a lot of damage"it already has calcs
I don't think it has enough of its own canon to have a page.This page, I'm not sure whether or not it needs to be deleted since the movie is technically an alternate retelling of the original FotNS. Just thought I would bring it to attention. However, it does have several unknowns, rather weak justifications for stats, and some (albeit easily fixable) formatting errors.
See here. We do not allow sitcom characters and similar.Here are our Editing Rules for this:
"Low-powered characters are allowed to be featured here as long as the characters come from popular/notable verses that are overall worthy of indexing, they are important to their stories, and the profiles are reliable and well-made, although sitcom characters and similar should be avoided. This wiki's main purpose is to index characters, not to feature fights between them."
I feel as if we need to revise those rules, since they still leave a lot of glaring holes. As mentioned, I am sure many users, such as Promestein and myself, would be quite opposed to removing certain pages of more gambling-focused fighters and people. But at the same time, there are far more 10-Bs in the world than simply sitcoms.See here. We do not allow sitcom characters and similar.
Extensively? As we can see in the thread the rule came from, it just got quickly approved and even some staff disliked the idea, it just went across without much discussion out of the inability on making a proper CRT at the time.Also, the staff have already talked extensively about this subject previously before we accepted our current standards. We cannot constantly modify the same regulations.
HereAnyway, I agree with Promestein.
Does anybody have a link to the backup of the thread in which this rule was approved?
As far as I recall, we had a staff discussion about this issue. It was not solved in a deletion requests thread.
Just checked, the rule indeed was made here, and as it can be seen on later replies, it got "concluded" there.As far as I recall, we had a staff discussion about this issue. It was not solved in a deletion requests thread.
We should reword our standards to more directly imply this rather than simply condemning sitcoms, specifically.Moritzva:
As long as they are important characters originating in a verse focused on either some form of fighting or the supernatural, they should be fine.
Would they? As an example, The Joker (Arthur Fleck) is from a rather mundane, if dark fiction.I do not think so, no. They would largely be covered by the above rule
I think adding this is causing more confusion. This implies that only characters that are action oriented should get profiles. Just going by the current rule for Yumeko Jabami:(meaning ones that are either at least partially action-oriented and/or focus on the supernatural)