• 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.

VS Battles To-do list (Help greatly needed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So is it fine if I add the following text to our Attack Potency page?

"Characters with tiers between 9-A and 3-B are required to reach those tiers through accepted calculations, multipliers, and/or reliably stated precise Joule values. These calculations can be specific to the feat, or standard calculations. The lower borders of 5-B, 4-C, 4-B, 4-A, 3-C, and 3-B can be considered calculations for destroying a planet, a star, a solar system, two or more solar systems, a galaxy, and two or more galaxies respectively."
I just noticed that we have something similar, but slightly different, for our Tiering System page. Under Note 3.

Keep in mind that certain tiers don't necessarily correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are arbitrary values.

These tiers should preferably not be assigned unless there are accepted calculations that coincide with the respective specified thresholds for them. For example, someone who destroys a building does not necessarily qualify for "Building level" just because of the tier's name, since the calculated energy output of the feat could potentially exceed or fall short of the required energy threshold.

However, that note excludes fewer tiers than this new AP note does.

Should that note on the tiering system page be removed?
 
I think that the note should either be kept or have the information within it merged together with the other note.
 
Hmm, how about.

Keep in mind that certain tiers don't necessarily correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are arbitrary values. A list of these tiers can be found below.

[insert list here, or potentially after the next paragraph]

However, no tiers between 9-B and 3-B, even those which do correspond with their namesakes, should be assigned unless there are accepted calculations, multipliers, and/or reliably stated precise Joule values in line with those ratings, as many verses can have their own context result in these feats being above or below their namesakes. Still, the lower borders of 5-B, 4-C, 4-B, 4-A, 3-C, and 3-B can be considered standard calculations for destroying a planet, a star, a solar system, two or more solar systems, a galaxy, and two or more galaxies respectively, and adding those tiers based on those specific feats is allowed.
 
Yes, I also like it. Thank you.

Should the new note replace the current corresponding notes in both our attack potency and tiering system pages?
 
I worded it for the Tiering System page, but I guess it could theoretically replace both.
 
I slightly modified the text. Is this acceptable?

"Keep in mind that certain tiers do not necessarily correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are arbitrary values.

Tiers between 9-B and 3-B, even those which do correspond with their namesakes, should not be assigned unless there are accepted calculations, multipliers, and/or reliably stated precise Joule values that correspond with those ratings, as many verses can have their own context result in these feats being above or below their namesakes. The exceptions are that the lower borders of 5-B, 4-C, 4-B, 4-A, 3-C, and 3-B can be considered standard calculations for destroying a planet, a star, a solar system, two or more solar systems, a galaxy, and two or more galaxies respectively, and adding those tiers based on those specific feats is allowed."
 
Seems fine.

Should the list of tiers which don't correspond to their namesakes (that's currently on the Tiering System page) not be included?
 
None of tiers 9-A to High 6-B truly correspond to their namesakes as far as I recall, and possibly 6-A and High 6-A as well, but I may misremember.
 
Many of them did start with some basis; I listed the original reference objects in this page (mostly narutoforums' chart, with occasional blogs from our members made many years ago). Although, a lot of the time, that basis was fairly arbitrary (saying that a town has a radius of 500m, while a city has a radius of 5000m).

The current list in the current iteration of that note seems to take 9-B, 7-B, 6-C, 6-B, and everything 6-A and above as corresponding to their namesakes.
 
Okay, thank you for the information. Even so though, it still depends on the method of destruction and size of the type of object that is being destroyed, along with the timeframe involved if the energy expenditure was prolonged.
 
Aye. But still, should I be deleting the list we have when applying the new note, keeping it on just the Tiering System page, or including it on both pages?
 
Oh, we already have a list. Sorry about misunderstanding. Then it should be kept of course.

How about this then?

"Keep in mind that certain tiers do not necessarily correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are arbitrary values. A list of these tiers can be found below.

[Insert list here, or potentially after the next paragraph.]

Tiers between 9-B and 3-B, even those which do correspond with their namesakes, should not be assigned unless there are accepted calculations, multipliers, and/or reliably stated precise Joule values that correspond with those ratings, as many verses can have their own context result in these feats being above or below their namesakes. The exceptions are that the lower borders of 5-B, 4-C, 4-B, 4-A, 3-C, and 3-B can be considered standard calculations for destroying a planet, a star, a solar system, two or more solar systems, a galaxy, and two or more galaxies respectively, and adding those tiers based on those specific feats is allowed."
 
Alright, I'll go apply it.

I plan on changing "A list of these tiers can be found below." to "Here is a list of the tiers in question:" in line with how the page currently looks.

I also plan on bolding the tiers in the last paragraph there.

Do those changes to your suggestion sound fine?
 
Yes, of course. Thanks a lot for helping out.
 
Thanks a lot for helping out. I have updated the first post of this thread accordingly.
 
9) The following category, and any other officially used explanation blogs, needs to be cleaned up, so only legimately accepted explanation pages are included, and the contents of them are moved from blogs to regular wiki pages:



In progress: https://vsbattles.com/threads/explanation-pages-reorganisation-important-help-needed.139846/

11) I would greatly appreciate if any members who genuinely have a deep understanding of our tiering system write themselves down in our Knowledgeable Members List (Wiki Terminology) page.

12) Should we update the standard code for character image gallery links in verse pages to the one used in the One Piece verse page, as it looks good for both light and dark mode, as well as explicitly mention that this is our preferred standard? We would also need to include instructions for linking to the associated most relevant wiki(s) for each respective verse near the top of the pages.



13) We need to check through all our wiki verse pages and remove the listed members who have been inactive in our forum for more than a year, and do the same to our knowledgeable members lists.

In progress.

15) Should we change our standards (and common editing mistakes page) so we begin to use considerably more proper punctuation?


In progress:
18) If anybody here knows people who are skilled in Japanese, can you please ask them if they are willing to sign up to this forum and help us out with our translations thread here?

19) There are many verses with inconsistent naming procedures.

A few examples:


We may need to decide on a more consistent system. "(Verse)" works in general for when a character is named the same thing, but if there are several spinoff continuities, the issue turns more complicated.

20) We may need to rewrite the abstract existence definition.


"Personally, I think that the misunderstanding might come from that somebody wrote "Abstract Existence is the ability to embody an abstraction, such as a concept, thought, or an information" instead of "Abstract Existence is the ability to embody an abstraction, such as a concept or idea" in order to keep the ability easy to understand. That should probably be adjusted."


"My concern is that this will set a precedent that all spiritual beings listed in the wiki should automatically get Abstract Existence instead of Incorporeality."
Here are the remaining tasks.

Should I mark task number 20 as done as well, as I think that it was considered to not be necessary? Or has the Abstract Existence page been updated elsewhere?
 
Could you elaborate on your concern with Abstract Existence?

Why do you think the current definition would lead people to believe that all spiritual beings would qualify?
 
I honestly do not remember anymore. It was a quite old note that I probably should not have included here in the first place.
 
I think Subjective Reality should have more examples included. Such as statistics amplification and power creation.
 
Okay, but that seems a bit off-topic here.

Anyway, does anybody have suggestions for our remaining official tasks here?
 
Hello.

This is just a note that I was apparently strayminded and did not notice that the "9-A to 3-B" was changed to "9-B to 3-B" above, which is against our traditional standards in this area, so I changed it back to how it was before.

 
19) There are many verses with inconsistent naming procedures.

A few examples:


We may need to decide on a more consistent system. "(Verse)" works in general for when a character is named the same thing, but if there are several spinoff continuities, the issue turns more complicated.
If there are several spin-off continuities of a certain verse, It would probably be best for the main continuity of the verse to be named "Verse Name (Main-Continuity)"

Edit: I just realized this thread is in the Staff Discussion Section... I thought this was the Wiki Management Section XD
 
Last edited:
Which topic was being discussed here again that needs my assistance?

Apologies in advance if I am unable to help, I already explained my lack of knowledge in this regard.
 
My apologies about that then. I just noticed that you had responded here previously.
 
I will review the tasks needed to be completed later.
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much for helping out so much. It is very appreciated. 🙏 🙂
 
Alr. Now i got time, let's see what we have left to do.
9) The following category, and any other officially used explanation blogs, needs to be cleaned up, so only legimately accepted explanation pages are included, and the contents of them are moved from blogs to regular wiki pages:
This one is practically pending, we agreed to use your draft and it was accepted by the other staffs, plus the only thing that was debated was whether to place it in the "Editing Rules", you can read the last posts in the thread for more context, plus I had already taken the time to compile the blogs that should be converted to regular pages here. I think it would be better if every supporter of X verse listed in the list I made should create the page respectively.
11) I would greatly appreciate if any members who genuinely have a deep understanding of our tiering system write themselves down in our Knowledgeable Members List (Wiki Terminology) page.
This one is Self-Evident.
12) Should we update the standard code for character image gallery links in verse pages to the one used in the One Piece verse page, as it looks good for both light and dark mode, as well as explicitly mention that this is our preferred standard? We would also need to include instructions for linking to the associated most relevant wiki(s) for each respective verse near the top of the pages.
Well, I am strictly arguing for that we should use the <gallery> </gallery> code rather than anything much more complicated. Customising the standard gallery code depending on what works best for each verse is perfectly fine.
If so, then I see no problem in accepting it.
I think it's simple and you just need general approval of what you want to be accepted, it's ok to use <gallery> </gallery> but it's ok for each verse to customize their gallery to their liking.
13) We need to check through all our wiki verse pages and remove the listed members who have been inactive in our forum for more than a year, and do the same to our knowledgeable members lists.

In progress.
This one I have been gradually taking over and have removed a lot of inactive members, deactivated accounts, etc. Although to be honest I had completely forgotten about it because I was focusing on other tasks as a moderator, I will see if I will come back to this task later. And as I said previously I would like not to be the only one in charge of this task, I hope that others can also check sometimes if the listed users are active or inactive.
15) Should we change our standards (and common editing mistakes page) so we begin to use considerably more proper punctuation?
It's ongoing here. Unfortunately I already stated a few times that I can't help in that specific task and Agnaa was creating some images, but more help will be needed.
18) If anybody here knows people who are skilled in Japanese, can you please ask them if they are willing to sign up to this forum and help us out with our translations thread here?
Self-Evident.
19) There are many verses with inconsistent naming procedures.
We may need to decide on a more consistent system. "(Verse)" works in general for when a character is named the same thing, but if there are several spinoff continuities, the issue turns more complicated.
I think this already received enough approving input that for verses would be treated as (Verse) and that spinoffs would simply have the full name of the spinoff along with (Verse).
Yes, agreed. We should preferably make an addition to our Editing Rules page about this?
Seems necessary so yeah. Practically all that is needed is a rule, a bit of approval and the task would be ready.
Yes, but I am not certain how to write it properly.

@Agnaa @Damage3245

Would one of you be willing to write a draft rule text based on article 19 and our following discussion about it please?
As for No. 19, that is 99% done. There's a couple examples left of verses that have multiple series which have their own verse pages which haven't been renamed yet. Aside from that, think the other verse pages have a consistent naming scheme now.
Oh, you have actually taken the time to correct them? That is great in that case. Thank you very much for helping out.

Anyway, what I asked for above was a rule text regarding the issue, so such errors are not repeated much in the future.
When I was promoted, I took the time to rename a lot of characters and some of the verses and to make them right, and I don't think there are any characters left. But what would be missing would be the rule, which is not done yet... I'm not good at making rules so I can't help more than this. Here's more info regarding this specific task.

And finally
20) We may need to rewrite the abstract existence definition.
I have no real opinion on this. I think is good as it's rn.
 
9. I agree with the draft and I don't mind it being put in the Editing Rules page too, but the users knowledge on those verses need to be the ones to make the explanation pages as Dereck suggested.

12. I guess, if it looks the best, I don't mind. instructions for linking to the associated most relevant wiki(s) for each respective verse near the top of the pages seems... alright I guess but I only take issue from the fact that other wikis do different interpretations from use so in a sense, they might have contradicting information then what wr have on our pages but it's whatever I guess.

13. Not to sure I can help much with searching the verses for inactive users because I'm soon going to be steeped in real life stuff but I can try and help.

15. What was the final results for the proper punctuations, has a full draft been made? I'm don't have much input regarding the topic that hasn't already be said.
 
9. I agree with the draft and I don't mind it being put in the Editing Rules page too, but the users knowledge on those verses need to be the ones to make the explanation pages as Dereck suggested.
Thank you. So is the following text fine to add to our editing rules then?
"Keep in mind that the contents of Explanation Pages should strictly use formal language, and not rely on content such as fan terms or personal pronouns referring to the author(s) of the page in question. They should also strictly focus on explaining content that can't properly fit into profile pages, such as extensive reasoning for the scale of a verse cosmology or other complicated functions and structures within it, to provide justifications and background context for their currently listed powers and tiers in this wiki, without overlapping with the structure and function of verse-specific powers and abilities pages. Explanation Pages should be linked to as justifications in the associated relevant verse and character profile pages."
It seems best if we handle the issue within the relevant thread that Dereck03 linked to above though.
12. I guess, if it looks the best, I don't mind. instructions for linking to the associated most relevant wiki(s) for each respective verse near the top of the pages seems... alright I guess but I only take issue from the fact that other wikis do different interpretations from use so in a sense, they might have contradicting information then what wr have on our pages but it's whatever I guess.
Well, the main issue is that we need to modify our Standard Format for Verse Pages page to not allow image galleries to use too complicated code for other members to easily understand and adjust it, but rather stick with customised versions of Fandom's standard gallery sections.

I would appreciate if somebody here is willing to properly update the page in question in this regard.
13. Not to sure I can help much with searching the verses for inactive users because I'm soon going to be steeped in real life stuff but I can try and help.
Thank you very much for the help. It is greatly appreciated.
15. What was the final results for the proper punctuations, has a full draft been made? I'm don't have much input regarding the topic that hasn't already be said.
I think that we are waiting for Agnaa, but help from our staff members by responding within the relevant thread that Dereck03 linked to above would also be very appreciated.
 
Okay. That is unfortunate. I hope that he is alright.

Is somebody else willing to help handle it instead please?
 
I've been pretty tied up as of late and have been tackling things at my own pace, but I do share a lot of thoughts as Griffin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top