What makes a respect thread acceptable by staff?

[H3110l12345I20]

^^^, asking this question for any future profiles I want to make in this site and for recreational purposes (and to make the latter look more professional)

Like, what standards should a respect thread by subjected to specifically?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

The respect threads in question need to obviously have scans and references otherwise they wouldn't be capable of being evaluated properly. I think a thread about this was brought up I don't remember.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

The respect threads in question need to obviously have scans and references otherwise they wouldn't be capable of being evaluated properly. I think a thread about this was brought up I don't remember.

Do you remember any details of the thread? I would like to track it down.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Actually, I forgot, here are our rules regarding this topic from the Editing Rules page. This should help.

• Do not directly add any respect thread links from external sites to our pages, as they can't be properly monitored to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across. The same applies to calculations hosted on external sites, although exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted on FanVerse if they were previously accepted. If one desires to feature them, they must be backed up to archive.today, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s). It should then be requested that our staff and knowledgeable members evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections, and uncertain cases may be handled in content revision threads as well. On-site respect threads and direct feat sections may also be featured in profiles, but they must be evaluated and accepted in a Content Revisions Thread first.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Actually, I forgot, here are our rules regarding this topic from the Editing Rules page. This should help.

• Do not directly add any respect thread links from external sites to our pages, as they can't be properly monitored to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across. The same applies to calculations hosted on external sites, although exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted on FanVerse if they were previously accepted. If one desires to feature them, they must be backed up to archive.today, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s). It should then be requested that our staff and knowledgeable members evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections, and uncertain cases may be handled in content revision threads as well. On-site respect threads and direct feat sections may also be featured in profiles, but they must be evaluated and accepted in a Content Revisions Thread first.

Though what standards? I've read the rules on this earlier and there's still vagueness in that area (which is why I'm here in this section of the wiki). At the very least, are there CRTs that give examples of what standards need to be met?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Though what standards? I've read the rules on this earlier and there's still vagueness in that area (which is why I'm here in this section of the wiki). At the very least, are there CRTs that give examples of what standards need to be met?

Not to my recollection, the thread I mentioned before was just about links, not the standards so my bad but the above is all I know regarding respect threads on profiles.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Ok. Looks like I have to keep digging for information.