• 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.
For the Invulnerability note, I'd suggest something along the lines of...

Profiles whose invulnerability is limited to working on only certain kinds of attacks should have the ability listed as Limited and/or have the limitation described in the profile's weaknesses section.
I'd rather not get much more specific, since it's difficult to codify whether such an ability's lack of scope is a limitation (such as only working on magical attacks), or a weakness (such as not working on the character's heel).
 
Just to make triple sure (being pernickety as I am), is it fine to get rid of these profiles from the Knowledgeable Members List if that rule is accepted? I can't see inactive tags, or anything (I assume they no longer exist).
I'll also make sure to stop spamming comments after this.
Well, preferably only remove links to accounts that have not been active in either the wiki or this forum for over a year.
 
Well, preferably only remove links to accounts that have not been active in either the wiki or this forum for over a year.
That is the case with those accounts (both wikia and forum). I just wanted to make sure there wouldn't be any problem with specific people.
 
The definition for this would depend on where exactly we want to draw the line between animals that are merely Animalistic and those that are High Animalistic.
Yes, it would be very appreciated if somebody investigates the intelligence sections in our real world animal profile pages to find out more information.
 
I can do that.

I've also put a couple strike-throughs in the OP so people don't need to respond to those points.
There was a bit of contention against that with me and agnaa, can we wait for some more consensus?
 
There was a bit of contention against that with me and agnaa, can we wait for some more consensus?
Oh... I didn't notice. I already did it.

The RPG Maker category still exists though, and still has the verse pages inside of it + their categories.
 
Well, I think that it is necessary to distinguish between clever cats and insects, for example. Help with succinctly defining this distinction with a brief text segment would be very appreciated.

Ah, if it's more about pushing "animalistic" lower, to more be focused around insects and less complex animals, that sounds better. I was concerned that an intelligence rating for the 3 or 4 next-smartest species (or worse, if we took into account the genius-level equivalents of those species) could run into a very troublesome conflict with below average intelligence.
Well, I think that we already rate certain Chimpanzees as having below average intelligence.
Yes. Strongly agreed.

Do you know if there's any code that could be added to those explanation pages to stop them from popping up in searches?
I do not think so. Our administrators (who are the only people in our staff who can edit all blog posts) would have to directly remove the category from inappropriate blogs to place it in.
I mean that we currently use very incoherent punctuation standards depending on the section of each page. I do not suggest a massive wiki revision project, but maybe we could at least update our standard instructions to turn more logically coherent, and then let the change be applied gradually?

Yeah, I have noticed a few things like that, but they are hard to all grasp at once. I'd suggest having a thread where people can point out inconsistent grammar, a few people can discuss which way it should be standardized (or if to leave it up to the page's creator, such as is the case for spaces after asterisks), the page can be changed accordingly, and it can be gradually implemented.
Yes. If you or somebody else is willing to start a separate staff forum revision thread with this purpose at some point, that would be very appreciated.
 
I agree with Armor during number 15. Some characters are at least 9-B via being monsters who are much larger than various animals who are 9-B or being golems.
Yes, 9-B can be more self-rvident, but I was referring to 9-A and upwards, which is much harder to gauge via guesstimations.
Also, Asura is correct, all users who have disabled their accounts, were inactive for over a year, or are permanently banned should have their names removed from both knowledgeable members as well as Supporters/Opponents/Neutral of any verse.
Yes, agreed.
Also, in regards to naming procedures, (Verse) should be capitalized as does (Character).
Also agreed.
I may have more input for the other points.
Okay. Thank you.
 
Ok. I'll do what I can when I have time.

Ok.

Didn't know they were the same person. I'll make the changes.

Edit: Nvm on Zark. It was incorrectly redirecting me before. Now it's redirecting me to the correct page.
No problem. Thank you for helping out.
 
I can do that.

I've also put a couple strike-throughs in the OP so people don't need to respond to those points.
Thank you very much for the help. It is greatly appreciated.
 
For the Invulnerability note, I'd suggest something along the lines of...


I'd rather not get much more specific, since it's difficult to codify whether such an ability's lack of scope is a limitation (such as only working on magical attacks), or a weakness (such as not working on the character's heel).
I think that seems good to apply. Thank you for helping out.
 
I think it's perfectly fine as it is. But wouldn't hurt to say "this is reserved for low/1-A and above" characters only. Like how we do it with transduality
Maybe. As I mentioned above, this was an old and likely outdated to-do list entry.
 
That is the case with those accounts (both wikia and forum). I just wanted to make sure there wouldn't be any problem with specific people.
Okay. No problem.
 
There was a bit of contention against that with me and agnaa, can we wait for some more consensus?
Oh... I didn't notice. I already did it.

The RPG Maker category still exists though, and still has the verse pages inside of it + their categories.
My apologies if I messed things up.
 
: /

can you undo it?
The only way to do so that I know of is to check Damage's edit history, and click the rollback links a lot, but lets wait with that until it is decided if the category should stay in character pages or not. I personally don't think that it should.
 
The only way to do so that I know of is to check Damage's edit history, and click the rollback links a lot, but lets wait with that until it is decided if the category should stay in character pages or not. I personally don't think that it should.
There is the slight concern that, if we wait to wrong, we may inadvertently roll back other edits when doing that.

I think the best way to undo this, especially if we want to wait, is to save a list of all the pages that were edited to remove the category (such as the one used to run the bot in the first place), and use a bot to re-add them if we decide to.
 
Well, I personally don't know if any of our Bot scripts can do that. It may have to be handled manually.

However, the RPG Maker and Roblox pages are not edited often at all currently by my experience, so I think that it can wait a little while.
 
What exactly are the arguments for keeping the characters listed there?

Because it looks good enough to me just to have the verses made using RPG Maker there. It's not a verse itself, and it's not exactly a medium otherwise it would be categorized under "Characters by Medium".
 
Personally as a fan of RPG Maker games I think it's fine to keep, given that while it is a platform, I know may seem really weird to someone who's not into it, but "RPG Maker" doubles as a sort of genre where mostly horror/surreal games are made on it (mostly inspired by Earthbound or Silent Hill), and as such there is an entire community built around this sort of games.
  1. It definitely shouldn't be considered a verse (as the category currently implies). It might be able to be turned into a Characters by Mediumsort of category, but I'm not sure if we'd want to divide up video game characters by engine like that.
    • I'd add that there is some utility to that category; there are some broad stroke similarities in RPG Maker games, making it almost function like a genre. It fits about as much as a "Flash Characters" category, and is much more fitting than a "Unity Engine Characters" or "Unreal Engine Characters" category would be.
Ultimately I understand while some might disagree I'd just like for there to be an actual consensus
 
Well, I personally don't know if any of our Bot scripts can do that. It may have to be handled manually.

Hmm, really? If they don't directly have the capability to, I think a potential workaround could be to have them replace "[[Category:Characters]]" with "[[Category:Characters]]{insert newline here}[[Category:RPG Maker Characters]]"
 
I can add this to the pages: "Category:RPG Maker Characters"

And create that category as a new "Characters by Medium" category.

Seems like the best solution.
 
What exactly are the arguments for keeping the characters listed there?

Because it looks good enough to me just to have the verses made using RPG Maker there. It's not a verse itself, and it's not exactly a medium otherwise it would be categorized under "Characters by Medium".
Yes. Agreed.
 
I can add this to the pages: "Category:RPG Maker Characters"

And create that category as a new "Characters by Medium" category.

Seems like the best solution.
It isn't really a medium in itself though, just a type of game.

By that logic we would have to add "Nintendo Characters", "Sega Characters", etc. categories as well, and Promestein and I spent a lot of time to try to clean up all instances of that in our wiki, as it is messy, very time-consuming, and completely redundant.
 
It isn't really a medium in itself though, just a type of game.

By that logic we would have to add "Nintendo Characters", "Sega Characters", etc. categories as well, and Promestein and I spent a lot of time to try to clean up all instances of that in our wiki, as it is messy, very time-consuming, and completely redundant.
Fair enough. I'll leave it as it is.
 
So have you kept track to continuously use strikethrough text for what we have already handled here, Damage? Preferably not the topics that we have just reached agreements about, but not solved yet, though.
 
Last edited:
I've only striked out 2, 4 and 7 so far. If any others have already been completed, somebody let me know and I'll strike them out too.
 
"21) We may need to rewrite the abstract existence definition.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/legio...and-nonexistence-downgrade.81930/post-2773757

"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.""

I don't agree with this, information and thought are abstract things, if they don't count as abstract it would because of in verse context
 
Last edited:
Okay. Thank you for the reply.
 
Since i was called, then I will contribute something.
9) The following category 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:
I agree with this, as Agnaa said, I think there was a concensus for that. I think the best thing to do would be to create a specific thread for that where the users that are on that page are called, so that they themselves create the regular pages and those who are inactive, well someone knowledgeable will have to do it, I also see it necessary to check that the blogs have been accepted.
14) 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.
I'm willing to help with that while I'm taking my daily wiki walks.
18) Should we start a project at some point to add categories for verses depending in terms of appropiateness rating? For example, a category for verses with content appropiate for minors, a category for verses with content only suitable for adults, etc.
I'm not sure, I share Agnaa's opinion... The templates would be more useful here, especially, I doubt that users are guided directly by the use of categories and templates have more visual impact.
 
8) Should Large Size type 11 be redefined?
It needs an easier definition to understand
20) 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.
Verse works, and the spinoffs should just get their full spinoff title mentions with (verse) mentioned next to it.
 
Since i was called, then I will contribute something.

I agree with this, as Agnaa said, I think there was a concensus for that. I think the best thing to do would be to create a specific thread for that where the users that are on that page are called, so that they themselves create the regular pages and those who are inactive, well someone knowledgeable will have to do it, I also see it necessary to check that the blogs have been accepted.
Yes, agreed, but I have limited time available, so I would appreciate help with this from experienced staff members.
I'm willing to help with that while I'm taking my daily wiki walks.
Thank you for helping out. It is very appreciated. Just please remember to check in both our wiki and this forum in order to make certain.

Here is how you find forum members. They are not always named quite the same thing as in our wiki.

I'm not sure, I share Agnaa's opinion... The templates would be more useful here, especially, I doubt that users are guided directly by the use of categories and templates have more visual impact.
Okay. Never mind then.
 
I mean where do you put the line between what is for Minors and what is for Adults? Its a pretty much subjective thing .... one could consider murder (be it mentioned or actually shown), sex (mentioned in little detail or a complex one, or actually being shown), cannibalism, gore, etc. It's hard to say what it is and what's now. Will you now go through each verse and read/watch them to see how far they go or just ask the supporters? For example, The Boys verse covers all these (not cannibalism from what I know).
 
It needs an easier definition to understand
Okay. From which tier that the definition becomes relevant you mean?
Verse works, and the spinoffs should just get their full spinoff title mentions with (verse) mentioned next to it.
Yes, but I prefer "(Verse)" over "(verse)".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top