What is needed exactly to "accept" a character or verse? (Can a character like Kendrick Lamar be a legit profile? Why not?)

[ProfessorLord]

I know we cannot have every fictional character on this wiki. There's too much fiction with little to no effort and or general focus.

Here is what I think sums up what a verse needs:

- Need some sort of plot/story behind depiction

- Need to be somehow based in fiction, and only fiction (Mike Tyson is not okay, but Mike Tyson from Punchout is okay. Exception is of course animals and weaponry from the real world.)

- Need to have legitimate motivation from the plot/story beyond that of just humor and jokes (Plot revolving around ******** on Bugs Bunny just because he's annoying is not plot, its a skit)

- Must have a fair number of quantifiable feats (can't have a series where the characters literally just talk and do nothing more)

Going by these general guidelines (while also considering the official editting rules )

Would a character, such as Kendrick Lamar be a viable profile for us to create?

- His music videos clearly recognize themselves as artistic depictions, and entirely fictional.

- He has plot and story behind almost every single music video, some vague and open for interpretation, others very much so explicit. He is not a joke character, the story takes itself seriously and is meant to be taken seriously as well.

- He has a professional writer and director creditted in the description of almost every music video, proving there is some sort of coherency.

- Believe it or not he does display a variety of quantifiable feats.

- He is not the actual celebrity, but rather a depiction of himself, very much in the same vain as a the character Bruce Lee being different from the actor, or Mike Tyson not being the same as Mike Tyson from Punchout!

If the answer to creating a Kendrick profile is "no", then why? Are we sure we aren't gatekeeping certain characters just because they don't seem as fictional as others?

I would like to clarify that if there are other characters that meet said guidelines (perhaps even one day a Jake Paul character) then I am 100% in support. I just do not believe that there is not a strong enough argument for anyone else other then Kendrick Lamar at the moment.

 

[Antvasima]

Here are our Editing Rules regarding this:

"All characters in VS Battles wiki profiles should originate within actual stories, from notable or popular works.

Do not add any original or fan-made characters to the wiki. If you wish to create any original/fan-made character profiles, feel free to do so in the FC/OC wiki.

Do not create any joke profiles, as they do not fit into our tiering system. Also avoid creating profiles for fan characters, advertisement characters, YouTube personalities, music videos, memes, stage personas, and the like. If you wish to create such profiles, feel free to do so in the Joke Battles wiki instead.

Preferably avoid adding character profiles that may be inappropriate or perceived to be in poor taste. This may include characters, weapons, etcetera, that are ill-suited for a statistics-indexing wiki, due to having no reliable feats, or ones from media which may be too controversial or otherwise unnecessary to be featured. This includes content that would strictly be added as a joke, for example Barney the dinosaur or the Teletubbies."

I am very exhausted from recent events though, so I do not have the energy to extensively argue about it.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I agree with the requirements from Antvasima as well.

That being said, what is stopping someone like Kendrick Lamar from being accepted as a legitmate profile? I am talking about the fictional depiction in his music videos, not the celebrity.

Before you interject, yes he does meet all of the requirements.

- His music videos clearly recognize themselves as artistic depictions, and entirely fictional.

- He has plot and story behind almost every single music video, some vague and open for interpretation, others very much so explicit. He is not a joke character, the story takes itself seriously and is meant to be taken seriously as well.

- He has a professional writer and director creditted in the description of every music video, proving there is some sort of coherency.

- Believe it or not he does display a variety of quantifiable feats.

- He is not the actual celebrity, but rather a depiction of himself, very much in the same vain as a the character Bruce Lee being different from the actor.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Aren't we getting rid of the Bruce Lee page though? Was almost certain I heard something about that.

Anyhoo. My only objection would be that yeah its an artistic representation, but the character itself is taken from the real world. If it was, say, an alias of the real world person, that'd be different, as it would then be a totally different entity. The best example I can think of would be Slim Shady. If Kendrick had such an alter ego, I'd be totally for adding him because frankly music needs more love (I've calculated, for example, members of Tupperware Remix Party at 7-A).

But Kendrick is an artistic representation of a real person. He's real and, should he do something controversial (which is always likely), the page would have to be given a serious look because ultimately it is a REAL person.

TL;DR, I'm against Kendrick, but all for alter egos or fictional characters presented through music.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I never heard of us removing Bruce Lee.

I don't understand why he'd need to be an alter ego. (Though, judging by his drastically different personality, he may as well be) At the end of the day it's a fictional portrayal of a real life person. It's in the same vain as Mike Tyson not being allowed, but Mike Tyson from Punchout being a-okay. We're not using Kendrick Lamar the celebrity, we're using Kendrick Lamar the character.

From what I understand you have a problem with the name which is a really weak argument in my opinion. He is not the same person in his music videos, Kendrick Lamar does not actively participate in criminal activites as is clearly displayed in his videos. He does not get in fist fights on the street, let alone befriend groups of panthers.

But yes I agree with your general sentiment, I think.

 

[Agnaa]

We're getting rid of the Bruce Lee page because it's a composite. It's a bunch of different characters only unified by the actor playing them.

The Kendrick Lamar page would be about a single consistent character.

I'm neutral on it getting a page or not, but this is an important distinction.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Well I mean... all of them do share the same name, appearance and personality. We already have composite profiles anyway, I don't see a problem with Bruce Lee's.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah, of course he's doing things in a music video he wouldn't do in real life (at least, not openly, depending on what music video and what artist you're looking at). But it's still him. His ideologies are being expressed one way or another. The degree of separation between Kendrick Lamar and Music Video Kendrick Lamar is paper thin, is the point I'm making.

Understand that this thing you're proposing goes for all music artists, not Kendrick Lamar. Just consider it.

On a more comical note, this suggestion allows the opening for characters like Jake Paul. Just sayin'.

 

[Agnaa]

Because those composite profiles need to meet pretty strict requirements to be made.

I'm not sure that Bruce Lee's characters all share the same name, appearance, and personality in every single movie that he's acted in. I haven't looked into it, but it just seems unlikely. In fact, the thread arguing for its removal states that the characters used for the composite are completely unrelated, except for all being played by the same actor.

Ant, since their removal was agreed upon, could you implement it to avoid any future confusion?

 

[ProfessorLord]

That's the thing, you're not making the seperation. It's not Kendrick Lamar, it's the character of him being portrayed. They seem to have varying personalities and lifestyles (though very similar if not identical ideologies) and do not share the same "story" so to speak, as in the character has been in fictional events and stories that the real life counterpart has not.

I think they are supposed to be similar, but what's being portrayed in the music videos is not meant to be taken literally and to be treated as fiction, as shown in the disclaimer I had presented in my OP.

That being said I do acknowledge that there is an uncomfortable amount of separation, I just don't think it's enough to disqualify him.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I also do not think Jake Paul comes even remotely close to the requirements. He would need to do a lot of work on his part in order to even be considered.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

1. Your proposition opens the door to any real life human being who has a semi-fictional portrayal of themselves (music videos). Nearly any musical artist can have a page under those rules, assuming they'd have a feat that would prevent them from being just 10-C to 10-A with no abilities.

2. I understand your point, which boils down to "These are different because this is an artistic representation of Lamar versus actually being him". That's nowhere near enough.

 

[ProfessorLord]

No, they would need to meet the requirements that I had initally suggested, along with the ones Antvasima had provided. I do not believe there are many whom are able to meet those, preventing any Joe Scmoe from just creating "OC" and getting it on this wiki.

In any case, we already do have characters on this wiki deriving from Youtube ARGs because they actually do meet the requirements.

It's not just that it's an artistic representation, they literally state it as fictional. They've already made the distinction from the celebrity and the character by doing so.

If that's not enough, then what more would Kendrick Lamar need to be valid?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

- Most music videos have a plot of some kind

- Pretty much all music videos are intrinsically fictional, as in, staged

- This third one of yours rarely come up

- "fair number" is sort of pointless. We have characters on here with no feats. A horse from a disney movie is on here at 9-C with their only ability as being a horse.

Any musical artist can do these, regardless of their controversies, history, and so on. Denying them would be cherrypicking. Putting Kendrick Lamar on here is opening the floodgates to many, many problems. If you want a Kendrick Lamar profile, FC/OC is a perfect place for it. This essentially falls under what I tried to do, ages ago. Create a set of rules for accepting Creepypasta, some of which are nice and tidy like your Kendrick Lamar page, but under any rules imaginable would allow in garbage profiles because "lolitstherules".

Moving on. YouTube ARGs are different as they are wholly fiction as opposed to being pseudo-fiction featuring non-fictional characters. ARGs are essentially low-budget films, nothing more.

In my eyes, Kendrick Lamar will never be valid purely because his being here would mean two things. One, that we have the possibility of letting in many, many, many controversial characters purely because they fall under very loose requirements, and two, we would therefore have to allow theoretical battles to the death between real and breathing, living human beings, that are in the REAL WORLD, RIGHT NOW, purely because they made a music video. That sounds like a good way to get into a lawsuit or controversy to me.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Not all music videos have a plot. From what I've seen, most resemble a Demon-reel/splash of life of some sort, far from any coherent story. Furthermore most do not depict any sort of "plot" or general story. (Including some of Kendrick's)

If there are musical artists whom are not only able to do this but have demonstrated this than I am all for supporting them just as much as Kendrick Lamar. I don't know of any off the top of my head though, and I am not as interested.

I don't want to create any fictional character involving Kendrick Lamar. I do not want to create a story around him, but rather demonstrate and display a serious plot/story revolving around the character that currently exists. This is why I do not want a profile for him on other wikias, as they do not fit the purpose, I'm not creating a character, I'm displaying one that already exists.

I am not trying to gatekeep other artists nor am I trying to create a set of rules that disqualify them and not anyone else, but rather, I am trying highlight few guidelines that make the character possible. If a character qualifies, than they qualify. We cannot say "no" just because we don't like said character.

You said that this would open the floodgates to other artists like Jake Paul. I am saying this now, I am 100% okay for a Jake Paul profile... so long as he meets Antvasima's and the wik's guidelines. As of now he does not, so I am not okay with it right now. Kendrick Lamar does. I'm not creating any new rules here, I am establishing that a character such as himself currently fits within the current rules.

The character is not controversial just because they are similar to the celebrity portraying them. We don't have to delete the Mike Tyson profile just because the celebrity has been involved in numerous scandals in the past. The two simply aren't related. And while hilarious as that sounds, we are not using the real life Kendrick Lamar and making him participate in battles to the death. We are using the character that he has created that just so happens to share some of his likeliness such as the name, while having drastically different lifestyles, physical abilities, and personalities. I will add this as a note to his profile 100%.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'll wait for others to respond. I've made my points and pretty accurately described the real and potent danger that would come from having any of these profiles here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As a side note, you very much are attempting to establish new rules, or at least edit current ones. Did you read Ant's post? Kendrick Lamar currently is literally the definition of a rule breaker in those rules.

 

[ProfessorLord]

There's no danger, I feel you are 1000% exaggerating. We are quantifying abilities of fictional characters. There can be no lawsuit just because we quantified a certain character.

In any case, I will count how many people are on what opinion (this is in no way a vote, but just a general tool to see who stands where):

Those that believe Kendrick Lamar should be acceptable: ProfessorLord, Antvasima

Those that believe Kendrick Lamar should not be acceptable: Mr. Bambu

 

[ProfessorLord]

As a side note, you very much are attempting to establish new rules, or at least edit current ones. Did you read Ant's post? Kendrick Lamar currently is literally the definition of a rule breaker in those rules.

yes but based on my reasoning ant himself has said that it should be fine. not including stage personas is a blanket term, and does not apply to kendrick because he has special circumstances that separate himself from others.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Wait, what proof is there of his videos sharing a canon?

And if it's a composite profile, I'd be against it in the same reasons we're getting rid of the Bruce Lee page.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

"There's no danger in making profiles using images of real people that are being themselves in theatrical representations and making them kill each other in hypothetical fights"

Yeah no I see nothing wrong with this

"There's no danger in allowing a site of mostly underaged peoples discuss which of their favorite real world musical artists could kill each other"

And so on.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Again, your exaggerating what's being proposed to win the argument.

As said before, the start of the video clearly says it's a fictional potrayal. He is not being himself. He is being a character who shares only his name. We are not using the celebrity. We are using the character.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

"He's not being himself"

Tell that to Kendrick Lamar. Tell that to any one of what I suspect will be dozens of musical artists added here. Hell Katie Perry has feats of surviving in space, among others.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I don't have to, he already admitted it by including the disclaimer saying "hey guys its not me in the video its a fictional character"

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yes, it's a fictional character.

But there is nothing suggesting any of the videos sharing a story. His music videos are as related to each other as much as Bruce Lee's movies are.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I am 100% fine for a Katie Perry profile so long as she meets the numerous other conditions, which I am not sure she will be able to meet.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Yes, it's a fictional character.
But there is nothing suggesting any of the videos sharing a story. His music videos are as related to each other as much as Bruce Lee's movies are.

I will get to that in a second, let me gather up the links and evidence.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Also, is this important enough to highlight?

Seeing as it's gotten a positive response from Ant, and it regards our guidelines on our criteria for profiles, I feel like it's important enough to get more eyes from the wiki on.

 

[ProfessorLord]

If we do highlight it, would you like me to create a cleaned up thread? There's been a lot of argument so far, I think it's best if we wipe bias off the table first.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

There isn't a bias. There's points presented. Wiping that would mean wiping any context.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I just feel that the arguing has made this thread "dirty" and that we should start over.

It shouldn't change anyone who has currently commented, but it would make it easier to provide input rather than having to navigate walls and walls of text to see if an argument has already been said or not.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If we do highlight it, would you like me to create a cleaned up thread? There's been a lot of argument so far, I think it's best if we wipe bias off the table first.

Nah, I feel like the stuff above is important.

However I'd request that you try and make the OP a bit more presentable.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We have 32 posts here so far, the last few of which have been spent discussing if a new thread is needed or if it should be highlighted. Walls and walls comes later.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Alright I agree with Dargoo. I will clean up the OP.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Also, before I highlight this (I'm waiting for an OK from Ant)

Prof, Bambu, both of you feel very passionately on this, I can tell. Please keep the thread respectful, and I will not hesitate to remove comments or close the thread if it derails and becomes toxic.

 

[ProfessorLord]

of course. i mean no disrespect to those with other opinions, even if i disagree with them.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm gonna avoid the wiki tomorrow because of it. Got places to be anyways. Or, at least, I plan on avoiding this thread in particular. Whatever ugly happens here, it isn't on my head.

This will be my last post here. I hope you make the right decision. Cheers lads.

 

[ProfessorLord]

But there is nothing suggesting any of the videos sharing a story. His music videos are as related to each other as much as Bruce Lee's movies are.

Let's go through the evidence that it seems to be a consistent character:

- They are all played by the same actor, Kendrick Lamar. Admittedly this may not be very strong evidence, and is very reminiscent of the Bruce Lee argument however they all reference the character by various nicknames (K-Dot, Kung-Fu Kenny, etc) which are all nicknames of the real life actor, suggesting there may be a connection of sort

- In this one it literally says to be continued , implying that this is connected to a story of some sort. This means there is continuity between music videos

- From what I have seen, they have all been written and directed by the same man, David Meyers, according to the description of the videos (admittedly though, some are left uncredited) so they seem to be related in a writer/author aspect

Now here's the argument for it being a composite profile:

- Every single music video seems to be consistent with the general character, and are all equally considered as "valid" and none of them are more relevant than others

- I do not see a single depiction with wildly different abilities than any other. In general, Kendrick seems to have a bunch of bizarre abilities, some such as his duplication even reoccuring throughout the videos

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I really feel like none of those arguments give enough support for a shared canon, even if all of them were true.

Being played by the same actor and having similar nicknames isn't enough evidence, you're even saying this yourself. You can argue this "suggests" a canon, but it isn't proof. For example, I can't say "Dio lost his part 1 powers because Jonathan's body resisting him 'suggests' it", and leaving it at that.

"To be continued" in one video doesn't state or imply it is connected to any other video, just that there may or may not be a video that is connected to it in the future.

Being written by the same author isn't evidence of a singular plot.

None of your composite arguments apply as there isn't any relation in the plots of the music videos beyond having the same writer and the same actor. The fact that the main character goes by different names in many of the videos supports this.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I am in agreement that the arguments may not be enough for a shared canon. That was just what I could find at the moment, I hope I can find more things to support it in the future. I hope others can help me, though I don't really expect anything much from other people lol.

I don't see the requirement that plots need to be related? Composite Link does not have the same plot from game to game, but rather similar story elements. Kendrick Lamar does have similar story elements, having a gang/group by his side in lots of the videos, physically and metaphorically struggling against some sort of emotion/oppresion, lots of booze and drugs, etc. My point is there are a lot of similarities between his depictions (including physical feats) to warrant a composite.