• 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.

Standard Format for Vehicle Profiles

KarmodF

KarmodF

2,235
326
I recently made a draft for Standard Format for Vehicles

I based this draft of the profiles for vehicles that we have, using some parts from the format and uniting them to make it as complete as it gets.

I asked Prom about this a (not so) long time ago since I wanted to update the profiles, but we didn't have a format for vehicles, Prom agreed on its creation, I would like to see what the others think about the draft.

The hard part is the implementation of the format on the already existing pages, mostly on series with a lot of vehicle pages (Gurren Lagann (Verse) & Star Wars come to my mind).

I would also like to propose to change the E.g. used in our standard formats to I.e, for those unaware of it, e.g. stands for Exempli gratia, for example, in Latin, this term is long forgotten and barely used in pop culture, but for some reason we use it on our standard format pages, i.e. also stands for the same and uses the far more recognizable letters of the beginning of the words: "In Example".
 
Its just a preference honestly, I feel it would be better since, well, many people would be using an abreviation thats quite forgotten.
 
KarmodF said:
Its just a preference honestly, I feel it would be better since, well, many people would be using an abreviation thats quite forgotten.
Click to expand...
Well, I have always used e.g. and the way I've been taught, you use i.e. in places where you would otherwise say "that is". Might be a local thing i dunno
 
@Andy.

Most likely, I never heard of E.g, yet in some of my 2000s school books they use I.e. quite often.

@Prom.

I tought of being more specific and add the sizes even with Large Size being a thing, maybe put them as optional?
 
Might be good to make mass and material optional as well, there won't always be a way to know about them
 
I personally do not mind if e.g. is replaced by i.e., but I do not have the energy to do so myself for all of the standard format pages.

The new standard format page seems mostly fine, but I do not know if "Users", "Prerequisite for use", and "Power Source" should be required standards to include, as such things usually aren't clearly specified within fiction.

Promestein also has a point about the exact sizes.
 
Age sounds like a weird one... especially given many vehicles aren't specific ones, as such they may always have variable age.

Stuff like Power Source, Pilots and Prerequisites for use are pretty hard to find in fiction, especially in verses with less developed mythos, so those should be optional as well.

Getting exact sizes is IMO, basically the same as getting character height, weight, etc., etc., if the vehicle does have a remarkable size, Large Size and Small Size do the trick far better.
 
Age is quite basic, is just how old the design/specific ship is (In case of say, the Millennium Falco) , not to be specific which each ship ever used from the same model.

I can agree on Power Source, Pilots and Prerequisites being optional, I already addressed the size problem, I dont know why bring it out again.
 
That's still slightly confusing, but oh well.

I wanted to propose we remove the size thing completely, and not even make it optional? It's taking pointless space IMO, and is just kinda irrelevant and ugly
 
Leaving it to large sizes would be a bad idea honestly, I mean, the difference from Type 3 and 4 is from 1 Kilometers to the millions of km, I would prefer the leave them or maybe just have diameter.
 
An optional size section is probably fine.
 
I am personally fine with it, but we should wait for more staff input.
 
You can ask them to comment here again if you wish.
 
I think If they we're interested they would have already done so, taking into account many users already message them daily to check other CRTs I would prefer to not bother them even more and wait to see If any other staff checks it out.
 
It seems like this can be added then. Just make sure to be very careful to structure the page in a professiomal manner.
 
Finally after 3 years I made a page, Ive checked the grammar before publishing it, If anything I would need help updating the current vehicle pages, but is not super necessary right now.
 
Can you link to the new page here when you are done?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

McFriesGuy075
Help needed for creating character profiles
Replies
1
Views
328
Imaginym
Imaginym
Flashlight237
About The "Others" Section
2
Replies
77
Views
4K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Jinx666
'Continuity' Section for Verse Pages
Replies
13
Views
2K
Bobsican
Bobsican
DMUA
Removing Power of the Verse from Verse pages
2 3
Replies
101
Views
8K
DMUA
DMUA
Armorchompy
  • Locked
Minor Team Profiles Change
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Armorchompy
Armorchompy
Back
Top