• 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.

Stricter Verse-Specific P&A pages standards

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uh... should we lower the minimal amount of users required then, or not? Staff input on this area overall seems inconclusive so far, so we may need a bit more staff input on that regard.
It should be more than two in my opinion and I'm skeptical about whether or not a verse-specific power would be warranted for three.
 
Well, would four users as a minimum be acceptable, or is five already low enough as it is?
 
Well, if five as a minimum was accepted by the other staff members here, we seem to have gained sufficient support at this point to apply the latest draft to our Editing Rules.

However, isn't there a risk that we will have to delete several existing pages that are already heavily integrated into the structures for the associated character profile pages?
 
Well, the criteria is rather generous as is, and I've already mentioned in another thread that currently only about five verse-specific powers currently would break these standards.

In any case clean-up shouldn't be too difficult as it'd be just a matter of sending the current ones to sandboxes for the supporters to pick up if they desire then just editing the affected pages by manually listing the P&As involved, which even a non-supporter can do out of the justifications being there to mostly copy-paste and all.
 
Well, the criteria is rather generous as is, and I've already mentioned in another thread that currently only about five verse-specific powers currently would break these standards.
Which verse-specific powers are these?
 
Eh, I'd rather keep talk about them for a new thread or else this thread will be derailed with talk specifically about them, unless it's really necessary.
 
So do we have a draft text written for our editing rules page yet? If not, somebody needs to write a draft for one.
 
  • Regarding Verse-specific Powers and Abilities, keep in mind that these pages should only be made when at least 5 characters possess the relevant ability or a resistance to it in total, while also being indexed with them on the site, and said ability includes at least 10 other powers and abilities, in order to avoid redundant repetitions in character profiles. The required number of powers and abilities to be acceptable can be lowered to 5 for cases that require particularly large explanations for their powers and abilities, without bloating with information unrelated to our purposes. Some examples: Puella Magi Physiology, Nen, Haki, Sword Logic
    • Verse-specific powers and abilities that have several subtypes for certain kinds of characters should only have them if the power as a whole is related enought to them, as such it's inappropiate to merge several verse-specific powers and abilities into a single page if they'd be better having their own page, especially if this is being done to bloat the page in content to qualify.
    • Before creating this type of page, please make sure to have its addition accepted in a thread in the Content Revisions forum. This is because verse-specific powers and abilities often tend to be controversial and they should be scrutinized by the staff and the community before being published.
There's this, and it seems it's fine to apply at this point given the discussion on potential changes from that point being deemed unecessary/counterproductive and lack of objections beyond that. It also already has approval overall as it can be seen from the original post.
 
Okay. I will add it then.
 
I have done so:

 
Okay, I've gone ahead and did a thread in the News and Announcement board (if it was inappropiate to insert there, a mod is welcome to move it) to cover the page updating.

This thread can be closed now.
 
Okay. I will do so. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top