Regarding abilities and their justifications

[Antvasima]

IDK about the whole Explanation Pages thing, a lot of them have debunks of various counterpoints from other users with names included and written in quite blunt languages with swear words and all. Debunk blogs are also prolly not suitable to be turned into wiki pages.

Those ones would not be suitable, yeah.

Like for example, suppose someone made a cosmology blog about why X verse is Universal or something and it addresses some debunks and has comments from other users to utilize in debunks. They could even be linking to specific forum thread links which might not even be available due to the Forum Move that happened.

Or for example, someone makes a debunk blog about verse tierings and stuff, and addressing the questions. Those are also most definitely not suitable for being Explanation Pages. Some of these are bound to have swear words or some shit down the line.

Agreed. We should only turn the explanation blogs that we currently officially link to and use in our verse pages or similar into regular pages, and also remove the "Explanation Pages" category from all of the ones that are not accepted as quickly as possible. The category is linked to in our wiki navigation bar after all.

 

[Elizhaa]

I think that mostly seemed fine, but I cleaned up the text a bit. How about this?

• When creating new character profiles it is strongly preferred that you add explanations for the extents and natures of less self-evident and more confusing powers and abilities, especially with references and evidence such as scans. Examples include Reality Warping, Conceptual Manipulation, Time Manipulation, Soul Manipulation, Mind Manipulation, and Causality Manipulation. Such powers are likely to be inaccurately interpreted, whether by casual visitors or in versus matches. As such, it is appreciated if you specify the nature and scope of these abilities, preferably in "Notable Attacks/Techniques" sections, near the bottom of the character profiles.
  • When applying approved changes from a content revision thread, the respective references, explanations, and evidence, such as scans, for these types of powers and abilities must be included.
  • When using evidence that includes text in other languages than English, it is mandatory to include a translation of it, a transcription of the text that's being translated, and the source of this text (like its name and specific page), with its name in its original language if the source doesn't have a localization. This way, people can easily research this on their own and even try their own translations if they distrust the one available. Here is an example.

Since the general rule was agreed upon earlier, I will make the updates.
Edits: Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, Elizhaa.

Agreed. We should only turn the explanation blogs that we currently officially link to and use in our verse pages or similar into regular pages, and also remove the "Explanation Pages" category from all of the ones that are not accepted as quickly as possible. The category is linked to in our wiki navigation bar after all.

It is still very important that we get this done though.

Does anybody here have any suggestions? I would also greatly appreciate volunteers for helping out with applying this project in practice, but suppose that a new staff thread might be best first.

 

[KLOL506]

Agreed. We should only turn the explanation blogs that we currently officially link to and use in our verse pages or similar into regular pages, and also remove the "Explanation Pages" category from all of the ones that are not accepted as quickly as possible. The category is linked to in our wiki navigation bar after all.

That is the problem tho. All those explanation blogs suffer from the problem that I just underlined.

IDK about the whole Explanation Pages thing, a lot of them have debunks of various counterpoints from other users with names included and written in quite blunt languages with swear words and all. Debunk blogs are also prolly not suitable to be turned into wiki pages.

Like for example, suppose someone made a cosmology blog about why X verse is Universal or something and it addresses some debunks and has comments from other users to utilize in debunks. They could even be linking to specific forum thread links which might not even be available due to the Forum Move that happened.

Or for example, someone makes a debunk blog about verse tierings and stuff, and addressing the questions. Those are also most definitely not suitable for being Explanation Pages. Some of these are bound to have swear words or some shit down the line.

Even the explanation blogs that we currently officially link to and use in our verse pages or similar that are marked as Explanation Pages, suffer from these issues.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I removed our wiki navigation bar link to the Explanations category a little while back, but as I replied to another post about this subject from you, the officially endorsed important cosmology explanation blogs should preferably be moved to regular wiki pages and, if necessary, cleaned up to use formal language and have their outdated links updated. It is not good for our purposes in the long run to use reference pages that cannot be properly edited/gradually updated by any knowledgeable member if unlocked.

 

[KLOL506]

if necessary, cleaned up to use formal language and have their outdated links updated.

This is the hard part. Most of the debunks are written by users that are essential to the blogs and I am not sure if they can even be cleaned up to use formal language without greatly altering the argument, and some of the outdated links straight up cannot be updated because they do not exist on the archive or anywhere else on the wiki, I tried looking at the Forum Move archives for some of them. NOTHING. Nada.

Also it feels kinda degrading to not include the names of the people who made the arguments that were added in the original blog.

 

[Elizhaa]

I did manage to add the explanation pages category to this explanation blogs a while back to verses with them. I don't think there are issues like swear words per se, but some blogs look somewhat outdated with some outdated verse ratings.
Blogs creator rarely updated their blogs to match the verse changes.

 

[Antvasima]

This is the hard part. Most of the debunks are written by users that are essential to the blogs and I am not sure if they can even be cleaned up to use formal language without greatly altering the argument, and some of the outdated links straight up cannot be updated because they do not exist on the archive or anywhere else on the wiki, I tried looking at the Forum Move archives for some of them. NOTHING. Nada.

I hardly think that it is an impossible task to improve on the language flow of the contents of our official cosmology blogs so they turn more formal, and only very few of the old forum links should be impossible to update to our current forum format. We have a system that can easily be used to find them if necessary, although I do not remember the exact procedure anymore.

Also it feels kinda degrading to not include the names of the people who made the arguments that were added in the original blog.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I do not think so, any more than leaving out every contributor to a regular wiki page.

A link to the original blogs can also be mentioned in the small edit summary boxes when creating the regular pages based on them.

 

[Antvasima]

I did manage to add the explanation pages category to this explanation blogs a while back to verses with them. I don't think there are issues like swear words per se, but some blogs look somewhat outdated with some outdated verse ratings.
Blogs creator rarely updated their blogs to match the verse changes.

Perhaps we need to start a project for writing updated regular wiki pages (that can later be more easily updated) based on them? That seems very beneficial for our wiki.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@Damage3245 @Elizhaa @Ogbunabali @KLOL506

Your further help here would be very appreciated.

Also, can somebody write a summary of our conclusions here so far please?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that mostly seemed fine, but I cleaned up the text a bit. How about this?

• When creating new character profiles it is strongly preferred that you add explanations for the extents and natures of less self-evident and more confusing powers and abilities, especially with references and evidence such as scans. Examples include Reality Warping, Conceptual Manipulation, Time Manipulation, Soul Manipulation, Mind Manipulation, and Causality Manipulation. Such powers are likely to be inaccurately interpreted, whether by casual visitors or in versus matches. As such, it is appreciated if you specify the nature and scope of these abilities, preferably in "Notable Attacks/Techniques" sections, near the bottom of the character profiles.
  • When applying approved changes from a content revision thread, the respective references, explanations, and evidence, such as scans, for these types of powers and abilities must be included.
  • When using evidence that includes text in other languages than English, it is mandatory to include a translation of it, a transcription of the text that's being translated, and the source of this text (like its name and specific page), with its name in its original language if the source doesn't have a localization. This way, people can easily research this on their own and even try their own translations if they distrust the one available. Here is an example.

Also, did we ever apply this to our Editing Rules page?

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr._Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @SamanPatou @Confluctor @Zaratthustra @Tllmbrg

Your help would also be appreciated here.

 

[Antvasima]

And yours as well, @Eficiente . My apologies about being strayminded.

 

[KLOL506]

A link to the original blogs can also be mentioned in the small edit summary boxes when creating the regular pages based on them.

I personally think that really doesn't do them justice. At the very least we should put something like "Credits to X for making the original Explanation Page" or something at the very top, and possibly even link to the original blog as well, just in case.

Also how do we deal with the Explanation Pages having some comments from the threads in the forum that were then put into the blog? We can't just leave them out as they are essential to the topics in the Explanation Page and they add more context. Should we just copy-paste those comments and then put them in the Explanation Page itself while crediting who wrote said explanations?

 

[imZer0Null]

We have another issue that needs to be addressed too. I will take Anos' page since it's the worst offender of it.
This links to an entire chapter in Japanese. No English translation anywhere in sight. And this isn't the only time an entire chapter was linked. Unless you can read Japanese, quite a number of the links on this page are rather... Useless.

The page does a fine job with explaining things, however, the links not so much.

All links to the original raw Japanese chapters in Anos' profile page should now have been moved to his references section btw. All justification links now link to decently translated scans on Imgur, and more scans will ofc be added in the future.
I hope that is all right.

 

[Confluctor]

Yeah that's fine

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think that really doesn't do them justice. At the very least we should put something like "Credits to X for making the original Explanation Page" or something at the very top, and possibly even link to the original blog as well, just in case.

I am fine with placing a credit note at the bottom of the pages, but not at the top. The main point of a wiki page should not be who contributed to it.

Also how do we deal with the Explanation Pages having some comments from the threads in the forum that were then put into the blog? We can't just leave them out as they are essential to the topics in the Explanation Page and they add more context. Should we just copy-paste those comments and then put them in the Explanation Page itself while crediting who wrote said explanations?

Would regular reference sections work?

 

[Antvasima]

All links to the original raw Japanese chapters in Anos' profile page should now have been moved to his references section btw. All justification links now link to decently translated scans on Imgur, and more scans will ofc be added in the future.
I hope that is all right.

Thank you for helping out.

 

[KLOL506]

I am fine with placing a credit note at the bottom of the pages, but not at the top. The main point of a wiki page should not be who contributed to it.

Fair.

Would regular reference sections work?

I don't think they would, some of the explanations are particularly long, span multiple paragraphs and involve usage of multiple images. Also what if we have to shift forums and links change again?

One way I think this works is like this.

Suppose the blog says "X user explains it far better than I could", then it is done like this

"User X's explanation:"

And then you put in the explanations below in a collapsible box or tabbers if there are multiple users clarifying on the information in the blog.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I am not sure how that works in practice though. Can you link to an example perhaps?

 

[KLOL506]

Here is an example: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Tony_di_bugalu/Scans_fixed#4:_Creation_of_the_Universe

I am myself making a sandbox for the accepted blogs with updated scans and fixing the dead links as much as I can.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I meant that I would prefer to see an example of what you have in mind as solutions though.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. I meant that I would prefer to see an example of what you have in mind as solutions though.

Basically, I would copy-paste the comment from the threads into the blog itself and put it in a collapsible section, writing "Member X's explanation". If there are multiple people contributing to it, make them into tabbers within the collapsible section.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems reasonable to me.

 

[Ian2296]

Sorry for interrupting this thread, but I want to ask. Can I put the justification inside the linked feats? For example I have a comic scan on Imgur, and then I put the chapter number of that panel on the caption or on the title of the Imgur post, like this.

Is this allowed or we still have to put all those source at the bottom of the page?

 

[Confluctor]

If it's too long to explain or hard to do so without visuals, sure. I have done the same before.

 

[KLOL506]

Sorry for interrupting this thread, but I want to ask. Can I put the justification inside the linked feats? For example I have a comic scan on Imgur, and then I put the chapter number of that panel on the caption or on the title of the Imgur post, like this.

Is this allowed or we still have to put all those source at the bottom of the page?

Yeah it's fine, though I personally would do both just to be safe. Usually just giving reference to Chapter number is enough.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally agree with KLOL.

 

[Elizhaa]

Also, did we ever apply this to our Editing Rules page?

Yes, it was already applied.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, it was already applied.

Thank you for the information.

So what, if anything, is left to do here then?

 

[KLOL506]

Thank you for the information.

So what, if anything, is left to do here then?

Something about turning Explanation Blogs into full-blown verse pages? Or would you have that reserved for another CRT?

 

[Antvasima]

Something about turning Explanation Blogs into full-blown verse pages? Or would you have that reserved for another CRT?

Well, I think that I asked @Elizhaa to look through our currently used verse explanation blogs, to see if any of them can be converted to regular wiki pages, a while back, but help from other staff members would also be appreciated in this regard.

I do not have the available time and focus to start a staff forum thread regarding this topic at the moment though. Would somebody else be willing to write a draft text for it here?