We will now use bold text for Intelligence, Stamina, and Range statistics

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

What do you think?

I think that "High" and "Low" are far too unspecific (do not provide almost any information on their own) to do anything but change them to "Unknown" instead.

I think case by case, it really depends on the page. If they have no descriptions, I'd say Unknown. But if there is a reason, it can be changed to above average, peak human, superhuman depending on circumstance if it original said high. Likewise, Low can be changed to below average if there is a statement.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

What do you think?

I think that "High" and "Low" are far too unspecific (do not provide almost any information on their own) to do anything but change them to "Unknown" instead.

The thing is that usually explanations are given in addition to those rankings. So they are not unknown and listing them as such would give the impression that the following explanation is in some way illegitimate or that we don't know how to evaluate it, when it is of course far more important than any ranking in itself.

Just leave the High / Low rating unbolded. Then they will be replaced with other ratings over time.
Or, if having a bolded rating for each stat is seen as really really important, then just bold them, too. But I think leaving them unbolded is the best solution.

 

[Firestorm808]

As far as I know, the most basic levels of stamina we might agree on are: Unknown, None, Below Human, Human, Superhuman, and Infinite.

In any case, I'm fine with using bolds the the stats mentioned.

 

[Antvasima]

The same ones that probably only figured out what the **** the verse was by seeing the profile in the first place?

I'd rather a Verse supporter potentially be wrong then have a mod be more wrong.

Cause the former is a lot less of a bad look then the ladder.

Intelligence ratings should always be easy to evaluate from the information within that statistics section (and sometimes the tiering scale of their feats via inventions) alone though.

 

[Antvasima]

Now that you mention it, I'm thinking of suggesting a new level of Stamina for this wiki. I'll make a CRT on it.

I think that stamina is too difficult to exactly evaluate for us to diverge from Promestein's current definitions for it.

 

[Antvasima]

I think case by case, it really depends on the page. If they have no descriptions, I'd say Unknown. But if there is a reason, it can be changed to above average, peak human, superhuman depending on circumstance if it original said high. Likewise, Low can be changed to below average if there is a statement.

Yes, I agree, if it is very easy to evaluate, but if ImmortalDread is going to be speed-editing many thousands of pages, it may be very hard for her to achieve in practice.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Intelligence ratings should always be easy to evaluate from the information within that statistics section (and sometimes the tiering scale of their feats via inventions) alone though.

Oftentimes there's more to it, Ant. Things not put into the intelligence section, no profile goes through every little detail, especially not profiles old enough to still have ratings like "Low" or "High" or "Very High" on them.

 

[Antvasima]

The thing is that usually explanations are given in addition to those rankings. So they are not unknown and listing them as such would give the impression that the following explanation is in some way illegitimate or that we don't know how to evaluate it, when it is of course far more important than any ranking in itself.

Just leave the High / Low rating unbolded. Then they will be replaced with other ratings over time.
Or, if having a bolded rating for each stat is seen as really really important, then just bold them, too. But I think leaving them unbolded is the best solution.

Okay. That likely works just as well as changing them to "Unknown", yes.

Thank you for your evaluation.

 

[Antvasima]

Oftentimes there's more to it, Ant. Things not put into the intelligence section, no profile goes through every little detail, especially not profiles old enough to still have ratings like "Low" or "High" or "Very High" on them.

Intelligence sections should ALWAYS provide a sufficiently good explanation/information regarding what the characters are capable of in that area to justify their statistics though. If that instruction is not stated in our Intelligence page already, we should add it.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Intelligence sections should ALWAYS provide a sufficiently good explanation/information regarding what the characters are capable of in that area to justify their statistics though. If that instruction is not stated in our Intelligence page already, we should add it.

I think you missed the "old" bit of that equation Ant, they're bad cause they show their age lol

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose so, yes, but if the available information strongly contradicts the listed intelligence statistics, we usually have to modify them, in lack of better option, until better information has been provided.

 

[Agnaa]

Mind giving an example, so I can imagine it what you meant (or check if I understood it correctly)

Well, inventing an example...

Stamina: High endurance (Walked for two days straight without breaking a sweat), Very High pain tolerance (Endured Control's enhanced interrogation techniques, which cause ordinary people to pass out after 13 seconds, for three hours)

As far as I know, the most basic levels of stamina we might agree on are: Unknown, None, Below Human, Human, Superhuman, and Infinite.

In any case, I'm fine with using bolds the the stats mentioned.

This is not true! Our Stamina page gives our accepted levels of stamina.

I think that stamina is too difficult to exactly evaluate for us to diverge from Promestein's current definitions for it.

fwiw I would prefer stamina ratings be extended to various milestones (such that characters who fought for 18 hours can be distinguished from characters who fought for 18 years), but such suggestions were rejected in the past due to the borders being exceedingly arbitrary, and occasionally hard to fit into fiction's unique feats.

 

[Antvasima]

As far as I know, the most basic levels of stamina we might agree on are: Unknown, None, Below Human, Human, Superhuman, and Infinite.

In any case, I'm fine with using bolds the the stats mentioned.

Well, not quite. See here please:

Below Average: Characters who may be exhausted and driven to their limits by mild exertion and/or disabled by basic injuries.

Average: Characters with typical human levels of stamina and pain tolerance.

Athletic: Characters with above average human levels of stamina and pain tolerance.

Peak Human: Characters who can push themselves to the limits of any normal human's stamina.

Superhuman: Characters who can push themselves beyond the limits of any normal human, exerting themselves for long periods of time, pushing on through exceptionally painful circumstances, and acting even when grievously injured.

Infinite: Characters with inexhaustible sources of energy at their disposal, allowing them to fight indefinitely, although not necessarily allowing them to ignore crippling pain or fight on through critical injuries.

 

[Antvasima]

fwiw I would prefer stamina ratings be extended to various milestones (such that characters who fought for 18 hours can be distinguished from characters who fought for 18 years), but such suggestions were rejected in the past due to the borders being exceedingly arbitrary, and occasionally hard to fit into fiction's unique feats.

Yes, especially for characters that are so fast that billions of years can pass in a second.

 

[Firestorm808]

Well, not quite. See here please:

Below Average: Characters who may be exhausted and driven to their limits by mild exertion and/or disabled by basic injuries.

Average: Characters with typical human levels of stamina and pain tolerance.

Athletic: Characters with above average human levels of stamina and pain tolerance.

Peak Human: Characters who can push themselves to the limits of any normal human's stamina.

Superhuman: Characters who can push themselves beyond the limits of any normal human, exerting themselves for long periods of time, pushing on through exceptionally painful circumstances, and acting even when grievously injured.

Infinite: Characters with inexhaustible sources of energy at their disposal, allowing them to fight indefinitely, although not necessarily allowing them to ignore crippling pain or fight on through critical injuries.

I didn't actually check the stamina page for what's current. I was just looking at the earlier messages of what people were saying and commented. Lucky that I was able to guess 4/6 of what's already been agreed on before.

 

[Antvasima]

So which of our wiki's official instruction pages currently need to be updated with our new bolding standards, and is somebody here willing to handle it please?

 

[Catzlaflame]

So which of our wiki's official instruction pages currently need to be updated with our new bolding standards, and is somebody here willing to handle it please?

Already handled the note on the Common Editng Mistakes page a while back, and I just added the "(in bold)" note that we have next to every other statistic on the standard format, next to the Range, Intelligence, and stamina. Besides that, I do not know anything else that should be modified.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks a lot for your help.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

I suppose so, yes, but if the available information strongly contradicts the listed intelligence statistics, we usually have to modify them, in lack of better option, until better information has been provided.

You grew increasingly reasonable as the conversation drew on, but I still feel like you're being elitist.

 

[Antvasima]

Intelligence sections should ALWAYS provide a sufficiently good explanation/information regarding what the characters are capable of in that area to justify their statistics though. If that instruction is not stated in our Intelligence page already, we should add it.

@Agnaa

Do you or somebody else here have any suggested wording for such an instruction text?

 

[Agnaa]

I think that's already included with the second paragraph of the summary.

Really, it seems like a general policy that pages should have explanations of statistics that aren't generic or explained in other sections. Since the only generic intelligence ratings are, like unknown, and most ratings average or below, and since they don't really come up in other sections, they should typically have explanations.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that we should preferably clarify that these are now our official standard terms for intelligence, and that it is mandatory to provide good reasoning/justifications for them within the accompanying Intelligence section text.

These two Intelligence page text segments likely need to be modified accordingly:

"As opposed to attempting to reliably quantify intelligence, pages should reflect that intelligence has many facets and, when describing the intelligence of characters, specifically detail their areas of strength while acknowledging any intellectual shortcomings they may have."

"There is no way to reliably quantify intelligence, and even these rankings are just suggestions and guidelines for pages. It is more important that a page discusses a character's intelligence and gives feats for their varying skills than have a solid ranking, although it may help with quickly summarizing their overall intellects and how they measure up to others."

 

[Agnaa]

Main change I can see is altering the latter to

There is no way to reliably quantify intelligence, and even these rankings are just suggestions and guidelines for pages. But it's important that a page both discusses a character's intelligence, gives feats for their varying skills, and provides one of these terms, as these help with quickly summarizing their overall intellects and how they measure up to others.

I could also see the first sentence of that being cut entirely, and the "but" removed from the second sentence.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

How about something like this?

"These are our official standard terms for intelligence. It is required to include at least one of them in each intelligence section, as they help to quickly summarise the intellectual scale of our characters.

It is also mandatory to provide good reasoning/justifications for each intelligence statistic within the accompanying text, preferably by stating the most impressive feats for each character's varying skills, including by linking to scans and using references."

 

[Agnaa]

Sounds good!

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I will add it then.

 

[Antvasima]

I handled it, and also clarified a potential misconception regarding the supergenius statistic.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Intelligence?type=revision&diff=8244479&oldid=8188901

 

[Phoenks]

Is this how this is supposed to be? A content mod deliberately edited my edit for it to be like this. Page: Saitama

I'm asking because if so, this is pretty horrible-looking, ngl. Especially if it only applies to "Standard melee range"

Should reconsider that.

 

[Tllmbrg]

My logic here is that since we for example do: "Human level physically" the last word is definitely suppose to be not capitalized if we are suppose to have consistency with the other sections we bold

Then we stuff like LS and Speed we capitalize both words since it goes "Average Human" rather than "Average human" and range would be like level

 

[Tllmbrg]

I'm asking because if so, this is pretty horrible-looking, ngl. Especially if it only applies to "Standard melee range"

Should reconsider that.

Btw it also applies to Extended Melee range (At least if it gets agreed on to do it like that)

Ngl we probably should have established the standard before saying we started mass edits

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah I don't think we should bold the word "range", it's kind of a redundant word to begin with.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I think "Nigh-Omniscient" is being missed.

 

[Antvasima]

Is this how this is supposed to be? A content mod deliberately edited my edit for it to be like this. Page: Saitama

I'm asking because if so, this is pretty horrible-looking, ngl. Especially if it only applies to "Standard melee range"

Should reconsider that.

Btw it also applies to Extended Melee range (At least if it gets agreed on to do it like that)

Ngl we probably should have established the standard before saying we started mass edits

Yeah I don't think we should bold the word "range", it's kind of a redundant word to begin with.

We should in fact bold the entire range term phrases,, like we do for all other statistics, including Extended Melee Range and Standard Melee Range, not make self-selected exceptions by wrtiting them as Extended Melee range and Standard Melee range

Please change back all of the pages that have been inaccurately changed in this manner.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Okay now we need to in fact get a vote, since it's now fairly evident this is just not an agreed upon thing among staff

 

[Antvasima]

We cannot suddenly change our standards and make exceptions on your say-so.

See here:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Range

Why should we suddenly begin to not use a capitalised first letter and bolded text for some of our listed statistics and not others?

 

[Tllmbrg]

We cannot suddenly change our standards and make exceptions on your say-so.

I am not even the only one who showed support for it

Why should we suddenly begin to not use a capitalized first letter and bolded text for some of our listed statistics and not others?

As explained above by Bambu the word is redudant to begin with, it's basically to me like the word "physically" or "via x ability" in the thing to begin with
Ideally we'd remove it, but for now this is easier I imagine

And either way that doesn't change the fact that a standard was not even established in this thread on how to bold to begin with, everyone sorta winged it

 

[Antvasima]

We haven't winged it. All of our other statistics have always been entirely bolded, and you also did not capitalise the word "Range" as it is written in the related statistics page, both of which would make our standards incoherent and impossible to make our members remotely consistently adhere to.

And the alternative of writing "Standard Melee" or "Extended Melee" alone would be incomplete phrases, whereas "Up to One Meter" or "One to Two Meters" sound comparatively unappealing to me, and would require us to edit many thousands of pages for no gain.

So again, please fix the pages that you messed up in this manner. Thank you.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree strongly with Ant.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I still think that it's redundant to list the word "Range" in a small selection of stats in a section already called "Range", in the same way that I don't think we should rename our intelligences to "Average Intelligence", "Genius Intelligence", etc.

If people insist, aight. Shit's a small point.

 

[Agnaa]

We've already had this conversation (maybe multiple times?) when working out the capitalisation of these ratings.

It seems really weird to rehash this argument here of all places, or for Tllm to unilaterally decide to change that.