• 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.
Okay. Sorry about forgetting your previous response.
 
I would still greatly appreciate help with writing proper explanation texts for these lower Intelligence levels.

Here is a first basic draft. Suggestions for improvements would be appreciated.


Instinctive: Beings that are incapable or virtually incapable of conscious thought, and merely carry out simple pre-programmed behaviour patterns. For example, Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, and individual insects.

Animalistic: Beings, such as most animals, that only possess very basic reasoning, awareness, and problem-solving skills.

High Animalistic: Highly intelligent animals that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats. For example, dolphins, chimpanzees, and certain octopi.


I think that "instinctive" seems better to use than "instinctual" based on the information in the following linked page.

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Damage3245

Your input would also be very appreciated here.
 
Instinctive looks fine to me, but I'm neutral about High Animalistic. I know some animals even out do human in some fields, which is why I'm somewhat hesitant to treat something like "High Animalistic" as something that's below humans. But I suppose the name being specific is inherently less controversial to have instead of simply "Below average" for those animals such as Dolphins or the Great Apes.
 
Thank you for the feedback. Constructive suggestions for how to improve the wording and information in my draft descriptions would be very appreciated.
 
Anyway, I think that chimpanzees are currently listed as varying between animalistic and below average, depending on the individual, so we could simply change it to varying between high animalistic and below average instead.
 
I can't offer much on this regard except suggesting certain types of birds such as crows as another example for high animalistic, as they're famously capable of using tools for problem solving. The phrasing itself is fine.
 
Instinctive: Beings that are incapable or virtually incapable of conscious thought, and merely carry out simple pre-programmed behaviour patterns. For example, Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, and individual insects.

Animalistic: Beings, such as most animals, that only possess very basic reasoning, awareness, and problem-solving skills.

High Animalistic: Highly intelligent animals that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats. For example, dolphins, chimpanzees, and certain crows and octopi.
Thank you for the reply. How about this then?
 
Thank you very much for the replies. Are the current, somewhat vague, specifications sufficient for the time being, or do they need to be expanded?
 
Instinctive: Beings that are incapable or virtually incapable of conscious thought, and merely carry out simple pre-programmed behaviour patterns. For example, Snails, jellyfish. microorganisms, fungi, and individual insects.

Animalistic: Beings, such as most animals, that only possess very basic reasoning, awareness, and problem-solving skills.

High Animalistic: Highly intelligent animals that can use tools or have comparable problem-solving feats. For example, dolphins, chimpanzees, and certain crows and octopi.
See above for my current draft.
 
Bump. I think you already have enough support to apply the changes to the intelligence section.
 
Okay. I will do so then, but I would still appreciate future help with improving on the definition texts above.
 
10) Should we insert a description for how to insert inter-wiki links into the Standard Format for Verse Pages page?

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.

14) We preferably need an official rule text about always using calculations as a basis for statistics between tiers 9-A and 3-B, except for very self-evident cases of 5-B and upwards.



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."
The above subjects seem to be what is left to deal with in thIs thread.

Does anybody here have any evaluations or status reports to share with us?
 
10) Thinking back on it, would this be necessary, considering that it's already explained on the Common Editing Mistakes page? If so, we could just port over the explanation from there.

14) I wrote up some text for that earlier

Characters with tiers between 9-A and 3-B are required to reach those tiers through accepted calculations and/or multipliers. 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.
 
Would it be a good idea to feature the explanation in both pages?
Hmm, maybe it would be a good idea to just link to it?

"A link to the Fandom wiki for the verse can be placed here. Click here for information on how to properly format such a link."
 
I think that seems uncontroversial to add to the page in question. You can probably do so if you wish.
 
Thank you very much for helping out. I will update the first post of this thread accordingly.
 
I think task 1 can be marked as completed. There are practically no categories left in sandboxes or blogs, there may be in some random category but I already took care of checking almost all the categories and they are clean, I am also taking care of any new blog or sandbox that include tier templates or categories and I am taking care of giving the proper instructions to the users. I am also adding the categories corresponding to the calculations blogs, so I don't think the other staffs should focus on 1.
 
Okay. I will update it. Thank you for the heads-up.
 
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 checked over the start of the thread since I remember there being a little bit of discussion about it. Armor disagreed with it, and while he did disagree with the rule entirely, he also brought up how that statement doesn't account for stated joule values. So I'd modify it as so (bolded part is changed)...

"...through accepted calculations, multipliers, and/or reliably stated precise joule values. These calculations..."
 
I have updated the wording accordingly in the new regulation text draft above.
 
Regarding task 19
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?
Verse works, and the spinoffs should just get their full spinoff title mentions with (verse) mentioned next to it.
This issue does get complicated when one franchise has multiple very similar named series. I'm not sure it'll be possible for a standard to be both consistent and able to encompass every possibility.
Personally in these cases I think characters for spinoffs should just have the name of the spinoff as simplified as possible without losing clarity, for example: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/The_Joker_(Injustice).
Then for the verse, it should contain the full title if it has one, but otherwise if there's no distinction a universal (Verse) should work.
This doesn't address the bigger picture but the John Clowder verse doesn't have an official name and was based off the author's name. I suppose the first game's title plus verse might be better "Middens (Verse)"
I have also renamed some pages according to what has been discussed here by capitalizing them.
 
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."
@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Damage3245

Is this fine with you?
 
Thank you for the reply. Given that Agnaa also agrees, and it is a rather self-evident change, would it be fine i I apply it now?
 
Okay. I will apply the text then. Please continue to discuss solutions for task 19 and the other remaining ones while I am going on vacation for a few days.
 
Thank you for the well wishes. I appreciate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top