Slightly adjusting our rules for bolded "powers and abilities" links

[Antvasima]

Hello.

Our administrators and bureaucrats have had a private discussion in which I asked if it is a good idea to better clarify our current rules for using bolded text in "powers and abilities" section links, for the sake of improved readability and avoiding further edit-wars.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/S...les?so=search#Powers_and_Abilities_Formatting

Here is the draft for adjusted rules that DontTalk wrote in response:

Formats: It's up to the author of a page to decide whether it's best to put detailed explanations and justifications for abilities in this section, in the Feats section or in the Notable Attacks/Techniques section. Depending on how much is put in this section, we use several different formats. The decision on when exactly to start using which is made case-by-case.

• Unbolded Paragraph Format: Abilities are listed in a paragraph style, with the abilities (and their justifications) separated from each other by commas and the abilities not bolded. This format may be preferable for profiles that have few abilities such as here or for Power sections that feature few explanations and justifications compared to the number of abilities such as here.
• Bolded Paragraph Format: Abilities are listed in a paragraph style, with the abilities (and their justifications) separated from each other by commas and the abilities bolded. This format should be used if on average there is a medium amount of text between abilities. See successful examples of this here and here.
• Bullet Point Format: Abilities are presented using a bullet point list, with one bullet point for each ability. In this format, the abilities should be bolded. This format should be used if on average there is a lot of explanation for each ability. Examples of pages that have incorporated bullet points successfully here and here.

DontTalk kept the exact borders vague, so that people have sufficient wiggle room for their profiles based on what they think works best.

Do these suggested more specific rules seem acceptable to our staff, or should they be improved further?

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

Your input would be appreciated here.

 

[Damage3245]

Looks fine.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Yea, looks fine.

 

[Agnaa]

Looks good to me!

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

I like it, I'm fine with the draft.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your evaluations.

 

[Planck69]

Seems alright to me.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

So should we include the example links that DontTalk embedded to his text draft? Our wiki pages tend to be revised very continuously, so we do not know for how long they will remain accurate examples.

 

[Flashlight237]

As an oldhead, I personally don't care what the wiki does with this, they can do whatever they want. I just personally don't bother with it myself.

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, you're right that the revisions make those examples tough.

While you can link specific versions of pages, you can only do that by using the full links (i.e. [https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Father_Time_(Vertigo)?oldid=8539524 text here], which could itself cause problems if someone runs a script to fix those typically-invalid links into the shortened format (i.e. [[Father Time (Vertigo)?oldid=8539524|text here]]).

Although, pages explaining powers and abilities can run into the same problem, on a much larger scale, and maintaining that hasn't been too apocalyptic, so maybe this would be fine regardless.

 

[Antvasima]

Hm, you're right that the revisions make those examples tough.

While you can link specific versions of pages, you can only do that by using the full links (i.e. [https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Father_Time_(Vertigo)?oldid=8539524 text here], which could itself cause problems if someone runs a script to fix those typically-invalid links into the shortened format (i.e. [[Father Time (Vertigo)?oldid=8539524|text here]]).

Please explain why linking to a stored older version of a page would cause problems in this case.

Although, pages explaining powers and abilities can run into the same problem, on a much larger scale, and maintaining that hasn't been too apocalyptic, so maybe this would be fine regardless.

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

 

[Agnaa]

Please explain why linking to a stored older version of a page would cause problems in this case.

I remember some content mods undergoing projects where they'd automatically update improper full-size links within the wiki to the preferred shorter format. But because of the way those internal links work, they can't direct readers to old versions of pages. If such a project was implemented without care in the future, it would break those links.

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

Our power and ability pages have examples of characters who use those abilities. It's not too rare for these to be removed, or for the pages to be deleted all together. Yet, this has never actually caused much of an issue.

 

[Antvasima]

I remember some content mods undergoing projects where they'd automatically update improper full-size links within the wiki to the preferred shorter format. But because of the way those internal links work, they can't direct readers to old versions of pages. If such a project was implemented without care in the future, it would break those links.

Okay. So should we avoid linking to stored old versions of pages at all in this case then?

Our power and ability pages have examples of characters who use those abilities. It's not too rare for these to be removed, or for the pages to be deleted all together. Yet, this has never actually caused much of an issue.

Ah. Yes. That is correct.

So what should we do here then? As an open question to our staff.

 

[Agnaa]

Okay. So should we avoid linking to stored old versions of pages at all in this case then?

Yeah, that's probably for the best.

Ah. Yes. That is correct.

So what should we do here then? As an open question to our staff.

I think it's fine to include those examples, even if they need to be changed later.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I do not mind either then.

Is somebody here willing to properly apply DontTalk's draft text to the following page section please?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/S...les?so=search#Powers_and_Abilities_Formatting

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I do not mind either then.

Is somebody here willing to properly apply DontTalk's draft text to the following page section please?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/S...les?so=search#Powers_and_Abilities_Formatting

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @Damage3245 @DarkDragonMedeus @Planck69 @Just_a_Random_Butler @Celestial_Pegasus

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I remember some content mods undergoing projects where they'd automatically update improper full-size links within the wiki to the preferred shorter format. But because of the way those internal links work, they can't direct readers to old versions of pages. If such a project was implemented without care in the future, it would break those links.

I assume I’m part of what you’re talking about. This has never been a problem for me because my scripts are designed to automatically skip any links with unescaped question marks.

 

[Agnaa]

I assume I’m part of what you’re talking about. This has never been a problem for me because my scripts are designed to automatically skip any links with unescaped question marks.

Oh? And they wouldn't break your DPL queries either?

Okay. I do not mind either then.

Is somebody here willing to properly apply DontTalk's draft text to the following page section please?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/S...les?so=search#Powers_and_Abilities_Formatting

I've got some time to do this now.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not quite sure how to squeeze that in. DontTalk's draft was written differently to the current formatting of that section, but it also can't fully replace it. And I don't have the time to rewrite DT's draft sufficiently right now, but I'll try to look at it later if no-one gets to it first.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Oh? And they wouldn't break your DPL queries either?

I handle the links manually if they show up on the queries.

 

[Agnaa]

Sure, but the cluttering of that list wouldn't be of concern?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Sure, but the cluttering of that list wouldn't be of concern?

There’s a few tricks I know of to use magic words to link diffs without using full urls, though that’s inconsistent enough that I don’t prefer it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Okay. I do not mind either then.

Is somebody here willing to properly apply DontTalk's draft text to the following page section please?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/S...les?so=search#Powers_and_Abilities_Formatting

EDIT: Actually, I'm not quite sure how to squeeze that in. DontTalk's draft was written differently to the current formatting of that section, but it also can't fully replace it. And I don't have the time to rewrite DT's draft sufficiently right now, but I'll try to look at it later if no-one gets to it first.

Isn't it ok like this?

 

[Agnaa]

All the other bullet points in that section are written differently; they're entirely within parentheses, state whether they're mandatory or optional, and don't have colons after the bolded words. Those are all clear but minor. On the more tricky note that had me unable to rectify it, it seems to be replicating some information from other sections (now, both Justifications and Formats talk about long explanations going to the NAT section), and the Formats one just feels a bit out of place as an element of that list.

But if that stuff doesn't really matter to anyone else, I can let it slide.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I see what you mean.

I could put it in parenthesis. Personally, I think it's a weird style choice, though. I would consider to remove it from the rest of the section instead. I.e. instead of

Links (Mandatory: When listing Abilities which have pages on the wiki already, it is important to link directly to them so that users can see explanations and examples of other users of these abilities. Surround the ability with links using square brackets: [[Example]])

do

Links: Mandatory. When listing Abilities which have pages on the wiki already, it is important to link directly to them so that users can see explanations and examples of other users of these abilities. Surround the ability with links using square brackets: [[Example]]

or something.

Listing Mandatory, Optional or Default for the section makes no sense with the current ruling IMO. You will just inevitably end up with a format. So I would omit it.

The Notable A/T part could probably be removed from the justifications section, seeing how people were so eager to put them in the P&A section that the bullet point format exists. (Even if it personally still is my recommendation to put long stuff in the notable A/T section instead)

 

[Antvasima]

I personally prefer your style choice, DontTalk. I think that you should feel free to update the other entries accordingly.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I personally prefer your style choice, DontTalk. I think that you should feel free to update the other entries accordingly.

@DontTalkDT Can you apply this now?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Standard Format for Character Profiles

When there are multiple versions of a character that are distinct enough to be split into several profiles, whether it is due to the length and complexity of the page or versions from different mediums, then the multiple pages that are created as a result of this have to be linked by a tabber...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Done.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Standard Format for Character Profiles

When there are multiple versions of a character that are distinct enough to be split into several profiles, whether it is due to the length and complexity of the page or versions from different mediums, then the multiple pages that are created as a result of this have to be linked by a tabber...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Done.

@Antvasima Can we close this now?

I remember some content mods undergoing projects where they'd automatically update improper full-size links within the wiki to the preferred shorter format. But because of the way those internal links work, they can't direct readers to old versions of pages. If such a project was implemented without care in the future, it would break those links.

There’s a few tricks I know of to use magic words to link diffs without using full urls, though that’s inconsistent enough that I don’t prefer it.

Just a note, I should probably explain this better - it's not a magic word, it's a special page with this functionality. To link an old revision as an internal link, use

[[Special:PermanentLink/<REVISION ID>]]

To link a diff as an internal link, use

[[Special:Diff/<NEW REVISION ID>/<OLD REVISION ID>]]

 

[Agnaa]

Interesting, but if it's inconsistent we may want to avoid it.

Closing.

 

[Agnaa]

Regarding this: I said it was inconsistent initially because I was referring to a different technique involving using magic words to generate URLs, which I've found to be unreliable. I only discovered the method of using Special: pages after I commented that.

Oh, I'll go use that to link those pages then.

EDIT: Done.