The Current Ruling on YouTube profiles and other issues

[Antvasima]

That is a good point. Perhaps we should adjust the wording accordingly.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

How can you guys tell if there's a 4th wall or not?

The first thing to check is, "has anyone broken the 4th wall?" If so, then yes there is one. Just that alone answers most cases. I wrote out some other things above

 

[Agnaa]

Not going to go through all of them, but I can cover some of them. JonTron is not a fictional character. He's an actual person with a stage name. His show deals with real world issues in a satirical way.

WWE is practically a never ending tournement arc. It's characters are fictional, and to prove that all you have to do is look at Dwane Johnson. He's not a wrestler in every movie he's in, he's just acting. He's a character in WWE.

Plus you're telling me, this is genuine?

I'd really appreciate if you went through all of them, since this is your suggested rule, you should be the one deciding what the impacts of it will be.

What makes JonTron an actual person with a stage name and not a character?

I'm not telling you that it isn't genuine, I honestly could not give a shit how many or how few characters we allow here. I'm trying to tease out what you're fine with and not fine with and why, so that this can be properly accepted and implemented or rejected.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Ok, I'll cover all of them, give me some time.

 

[Agnaa]

The first thing to check is, "has anyone broken the 4th wall?" If so, then yes there is one. Just that alone answers most cases. I wrote out some other things above

I can't find the other things above, could you repeat them?

Also, simply requiring that would let Nostalgia Critic and AVGN get pages, as tvtropes says that they both break the fourth wall.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

@Andy
I think I can try and answer that. Just a heads up, I will likely be going to bed shortly. I think a good way to do this would take some borderline senerios and decide what they are, and then use them to set a standard

A fictional character in the form of an actor would have something like The End is Nigh. It is probably the closest to the line you can get. it has actors playing themselves in an apocolyptic senerio, but they decidedly are characters since the irl person Emma Watson probably would not actually go and almost kill multiple people with an axe (there is more to that case but you get the example). I think what breaks this is that they are never meant to claim that the actual real life person is like this, albiet incredibly close.

Yhatzee as he is seen on Zero Punction would be a stage persona. There is no 4th wall between him and his audiance, even if he is basically a cartoon in his reviews. They are not even breaking a 4th wall either, one just simply does not exist. I am aware Minecraft has a similar total absense of a 4th wall, but even so, they are explicitly a video game. Yhatzee (the persona) may be a being that has tortured and killed several people, has a complete hatred of his fellow man, put broken glass into his eyes on more than one occasion, done his hair with a vacuum cleaner, been sanctioned multiple times, used a time machine just to assault at least one member of Queen, etc. but Yhatzee (The person with that nickname) has not done this, and most of his traits are just his nihilism diled up to the extremes and things that someone with his dialed up traits my theoretically do given the chances.

I guess a good way would be able to distingush between the 2 is, "Is There A 4th Wall?" If a character can break a 4th wall, then obviously one must exist. That means this is not just a stage persona. If an author being part of that world is breaking that 4th wall, then that is an author avatar and not an author themselves. If a character talking with their author is just something that happens then any quivolent of a real character is probably just them. Obviously we need to hammer out this a bit more, but I think this is a good way to draw a line at the very least

Here you are Agnaa

 

[Andytrenom]

Someone like Armored Skeptic would be a harder case imo. And i do think McDonald could have one since its a full blown TV show. Once you reach that level then it becomes pretty clear

I definitely don't think Armored Skeptic should be allowed. Maybe I'm missing something but he seems like a blatant case of a persona being fiction but the narrative of the videos not.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Also, simply requiring that would let Nostalgia Critic and AVGN get pages, as tvtropes says that they both break the fourth wall.

I am not saying that is the only requirement, but that it is a good way to draw the line. tvtropes is also not completely accurate so we should also check up on the instances obviously

 

[Antvasima]

I added another relevant rule to the first post.

After reading them, I agree that the first two should preferably be expanded upon for better clarity.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, I thought the "other things above" was other things than just explaining 4th wall breaking.

What is the other requirement than breaking the fourth wall?

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I definitely don't think Armored Skeptic should be allowed. Maybe I'm missing something but he seems like a blatant case of a persona being fiction but the narrative of the videos not.

I don't think so either. I was kinda just saying that he shouldn't but is a harder case in comparison. He does have a bit of plot to him but not much lore, especially since most of it is just reactive to whatever he is critiquing He also has an actual planetary feat, which is probably why he came to mind kek

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think so either. I was kinda just saying that he shouldn't but is a harder case in comparison. He does have a bit of plot to him but not much lore, especially since most of it is just reactive to whatever he is critiquing He also has an actual planetary feat, which is probably why he came to mind kek

Logicked has a persona about as fictional as Armored Skeptic's, but iirc he occasionally drops random bits of lore at the start of his videos. He also has a few crossover videos filled with various bits of lore to justify the crossover and the videos they're critiquing. Would he qualify?

 

[Antvasima]

Oh, I thought the "other things above" was other things than just explaining 4th wall breaking.

What is the other requirement than breaking the fourth wall?

Not being a character in a coherent story and/or taking place in a fictional setting with a defined canon.

 

[Agnaa]

The latter seems necessary to not exclude profiles like The Butto but it also seems ridiculously easy to hit. In that even the YouTube reviewer types would be able to easily meet it.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Okay, so some other examples.
Are YouTube reviewers with frequent skits and an overarching lore, such as Angry Joe, Angry Video Game Nerd, JonTro, Linkara, and Nostalgia Critic (who all used to have pages) allowed?

Are professional wrestlers, such as Brock Lesnar and Stone Cold Steve Austi (who both used to have pages) allowed?

Are corporate mascots allowed if they have a plot? If a character like Ronald McDonald, Lucky, the Trix Rabbit, the Cocoa Puffs bird, the Kool-Aid Man allowed to have profiles if they have story elements?

Are jokey advertisement characters with an overarching plot, like Terry Crews and Isaiah Mustafa, allowed to have profiles?

EDIT: Also, for the thread's information, here's where Adam Conover's profile deletion was discussed.

YouTube reviewers by definition use their audience interaction to drive opinions so already intent of their content is questionable. Their opinions, while exaggerated, are more or less their true opinion of the matter (Less so for AVGN, his opinions lean more on absurdist humor). So, not fictional. I can't speak for Angry Joe and Linkara, as I've never seen their content. AVGN and Nostalgia Critic I have surface level knowledge of them as I watched just a few of their videos. JonTron I can say for sure does not fit under the purview of this wiki as his videos have 1) No overarching plotline to prove that the show is fictional, 2) Powers that can or should be indexed, and 3) He's just being himself in the videos, he's not playing a character

Professional wrestling like WWE, as long as public consensus is that it's fictional should be fine. Profiles covering characters in the Scooby-Doo crossover should be completely fine.

Corporate mascots within media such as shows or video games should be allowed, not commercials however, as those tend to fall under the purview of corporate advertising and not entertainment. The intent of a commercial is to sell wares, thus indexing such a character would undermine the point of our wiki. Corporate mascots are tied to their corporate entities and are thus very real, and very not fictional.

No. See above.

Again, Adam's show should be allowed, not his CollegeHumor counterpart. The show, while maintaining the point of driving across facts that no one wants to know, has an actual story with Adam and his friends in the form of a serialization. Maybe a few videos from the channel that tie in to the show can be treated as secondary canon but that should be as far as it goes.

 

[Agnaa]

1) Agreed that there's no overarching plotline, but there's many verses without an overarching plotline, this can't be it by himself. 2) Jontron does have powers that can be indexed, from what I remember. 3) He's not always being himself, he often does play a character. But can I take it that these three points are intended to be the new regulations to replace the old ones?

Alright.

So it has to be "entertainment" to get a profile? Many advertisements try to sell wares by entertaining people, such as the Old Spice ones I linked, why aren't these allowed? Hell, you could reasonably argue that quite a few cartoons were simply long advertisements to get toys sold. I don't quite get what you're saying with that corporate mascots part, why does this only apply to corporate mascots and not anything else that has ties to reality?

I wasn't trying to start the argument about Adam again, I was simply linking the thread since it's heavily tied to the current rules that we go by.

 

[Antvasima]

The latter seems necessary to not exclude profiles like The Butto but it also seems ridiculously easy to hit. In that even the YouTube reviewer types would be able to easily meet it.

Good point. Perhaps the regulations should mostly remain as they are then, just expanded for greater clarity?

 

[Andytrenom]

Would many Internet reviewers really have videos purely take place within a fictional setting though? With a consistent canon?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Having a plot just adds to the justification of fictionality that should be one of the factors regarding our standards. The mere basis of a plot already signifies that something can't be real if it's something that's acted out or scripted. The arguement against JonTron being on the site is that 90% of the time, he's using clever editing and cutaway gags to improve the quality of the show. He's not playing a character, and he's not fictional by our standards.

No argument here.

Corporate entities are very real, and so are their mascots. Their feats in commercials or advertisements, while fictional, does not override the fact that they are not a fictional entity.

Understood.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Would many Internet reviewers really have videos purely take place within a fictional setting though? With a consistent canon?

No, the ones that do should stay, but the ones that do reviews for the sake of doing reviews shouldn't.

We must also see if the reviewer themselves are playing a fictional character, or they are just being their real selves.

 

[Agnaa]

@Sir Ovens I agree that JonTron has a really weak case but he's apparently the only YouTube reviewer you're familiar with, and he's not at all close to the others in terms of plotlines. Starcade's probably the closest he's gotten.

Actors are real. Cities are real. Guns are real. Why does having a real counterpart only matter for corporate mascots?

Would many Internet reviewers really have videos purely take place within a fictional setting though? With a consistent canon?

Depends what you consider a "fictional setting"

 

[Antvasima]

Having a plot just adds to the justification of fictionality that should be one of the factors regarding our standards. The mere basis of a plot already signifies that something can't be real if it's something that's acted out or scripted.

I agree with this.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Agnaa A fictional world where s fictional events can happen?

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa A fictional world where s fictional events can happen?

Many series are meant to take place in representations of the real world with really possible events happening. Are these fictional settings or not?

Is Logicked in a fictional setting because he has an eldritch abomination creeping onto the screen? Is AVGN in a fictional setting because of the existence of blatantly fictional monsters?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Actors play a fictional character. The idea of the character is it's own entity, and not in any way connected to a product. There are some exceptions but they are usually the exception and not the rule.

Cities are not indexed on this wiki.

Guns are used as references to help us index other things, so they are more used as tools here rather than profiles.

Mascots are not their own entity. They are tied to their company very closely and everything they star in sans entertainment media is used to shill products. While yes, their entertainment media is also a tactic to make money, they at least have the secondary benefit of being a self-contained fictional story with a plot, something we can index and fits under the purview of other things we have on this wiki. In my eyes, mascots are not characters, they are the face of businesses.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Is AVGN in a fictional setting because of the existence of blatantly fictional monsters?

Depends, does AVGN acknowledge that the monsters are real within the setting, or is he just using them as a device to bring across a point?

 

[Agnaa]

Yes but that fictional character exists the same amount as a company mascot does. There's no speaking cereal-loving rabbits walking around, but they are the face of a company, as Son Goku is the face of Dragon Ball.

I didn't realize you were taking this route, I was just listing things that appear in fiction and reality yet we still treat as fictional.

Same as above.

And characters are tied to their show very closely, being tied to something that's real doesn't make a fictional character real. Does the second part of this mean that company mascots with some sort of self-contained fictional story in their advertisements should be allowed to have profiles?

 

[Agnaa]

Depends, does AVGN acknowledge that the monsters are real within the setting, or is he just using them as a device to bring across a point?

He acknowledges that they're real, talks to them, fights with them, etc.

(Logicked also acknowledges his eldritch abomination as real).

 

[Andytrenom]

@Agnaa Yes because they are not meant to be the world we live in, just a world that is identical to it in laws and history. Imscared is one of the rare cases where it can be argued that world the player/viewer/reader is living in is where the story is taking place but that's still just a metafictional element of a still fictional video game.

Being realistic is not the point, not taking place in an actual made up world is.

 

[Agnaa]

How can you say that for all fiction? How can you say that internet reviewers aren't meant to be in a copy of the world we live in?

It's just that I don't think it's possible to distinguish between a perfectly realistic copy of the real world and the real world as a setting. There's definitionally no way to tell the two apart.

Also I'd like a response to the second part of my earlier comment.

 

[Andytrenom]

>I am not sure if this can be considered as fiction

>How can you say that about all of fiction?

Notice anything strange? I'll respond seriously in a bit

 

[Agnaa]

"How can you say that about all of fiction" was in reference to "they are not meant to be the world we live in, just a world that is identical to it in laws and history."

 

[Andytrenom]

Yeah I'm realizing that. Sorry

Honestly, it's a very obvious thing. When you play a game, the events within it aren't supposed to be happening in the world you, as in the literal you exist in; a certain amount of meters/kilometers away from your actual physical location. When you watch a movie, the events aren't supposed to be happening in the same world where a studio shot that movie and actors starred in the movie, it is supposed to be happening completely separate from that reality.

In YouTube reviews people may have a made up persona, but that doesn't mean the things he says and the place where he says it in is supposed to be detached from reality and is actually taking place in an imaginary world where you may not even exist.

In cases where there is supernatural stuff happening, I guess the question comes down more to "Do they actually have proper rules and history set up to explain these elements, in a way that things like canonical information and consistency can be applied to everything thst happens?" rather than if the content of video isn't supposed to take place in reality.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sir Ovens

I think that you mostly make sense and seem to have a good grasp of this. Would you be willing to help flesh out our regulations so they are easier to understand?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Give me some time to type something out.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the help.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Depends, does AVGN acknowledge that the monsters are real within the setting, or is he just using them as a device to bring across a point?

The Former

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

There's a difference between constantly breaking the fourth wall and being acknlodged yourself as fiction

I so badly wish I could have High 1-C PBS Nova profiles tho

 

[Sir_Ovens]

VS Battles Wiki is first and foremost, a fictional character indexing site. Please refrain from creating profiles for characters that exist outside the scope of a fictional setting, or characters that have no notable means of combat in a fictional VS debate setting. In addition, please refrain from creating profiles for internet celebrities playing a persona, or corporate mascots who appear in advertisements.

Internet celebrities like JonTron for example, do not operate under the context of a fictional environment, do not act as a fictional character, and are for the most part, grounded in reality. To add to that, JonTron also has no overarching narrative, the basis of which would signify fictionality. Profiles that could be made however, would be for characters like Brandon Rogers, who exist as fictional characters within the setting of their show or storyline, and not their actual selves.

Corporate mascots are tied to corporate entities, and are usually created to promote and sell products. While their advertisements are fictional, the character being the face of a company - a very real entity - makes them more tied to reality than fiction. However, mascots that appear in media such as television shows, or games, have the benefit of a fictional setting and storyline, and can thus be indexed for the wiki.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

It seems a bit long, but I've tried to be as clear and concise as possible. Let me know if it needs to be shortened.

Also, I have omitted characters in music videos because I think there needs to be discussion on what should be viewed as fiction within the setting of a music video. I feel like music videos should be looked at with more scrutiny as most music videos have a plot with characters being played by the singers themselves, or actors portraying the narrative of the song.

I think that music videos need to have a story outside of the videos themselves that supplement them to be regarded as a canon, such as Gorillaz, or Steam Powered Giraffe. This way, we minimalise the addition of characters from music videos such as This is America or ...Ready For It? without undermining overarching plot of the aforementioned verses.