New Formatting Proposal

[Andytrenom]

Guys. Drop this for now

 

[Damage3245]

This thread has gotten a bit weird since I looked away.

To be honest I can see both sides.

My original proposal for changing the P&A section was simply for the intended purpose of making the profiles look better.

This comes with the caveat that the profiles that look better will look inconsistent with the profiles that haven't been improved.

And realistically not all profiles can be improved in a short span of time without creating a huge amount of work.

But new standards can be set so that newly created profiles are changed to the new scheme and slowly older profiles can be updated over time.

I don't think the profiles look worse by having bolded abilities, and this is not comparable to bolding random letters or words in a profile.

If it were up to me alone, all named powers in that section would be bolded whether they're in the list format or the wall of text format. Preferably more profiles would use the list format than not, but I also want to respect people's choices when it comes to this and not enforce it uniformly on all fandoms.

 

[Antvasima]

Guys. Drop this for now

Okay. I will do so.

iI any case, I strongly apologise if I brought any offence or disrespect. It was definitely not my intention.

I am not sure what else I can do about this though.

 

[Antvasima]

This thread has gotten a bit weird since I looked away.

To be honest I can see both sides.

My original proposal for changing the P&A section was simply for the intended purpose of making the profiles look better.

This comes with the caveat that the profiles that look better will look inconsistent with the profiles that haven't been improved.

And realistically not all profiles can be improved in a short span of time without creating a huge amount of work.

But new standards can be set so that newly created profiles are changed to the new scheme and slowly older profiles can be updated over time.

I don't think the profiles look worse by having bolded abilities, and this is not comparable to bolding random letters or words in a profile.

If it were up to me alone, all named powers in that section would be bolded whether they're in the list format or the wall of text format. Preferably more profiles would use the list format than not, but I also want to respect people's choices when it comes to this and not enforce it uniformly on all fandoms.

Well, I wouldn't particularly mind if we pushed a button so the powers and abilities sections for all of our profile pages suddenly switch to using bolded text. My main issues here have been that we either need clearly defined standards for exactly in what types of situations that bolded text should be used, or to switch to them to heavily encourage only using it, in which case it would require a lot of continuous work for me and others.

Given that I messed up here earlier, I suppose that I can allow this change in order to try to make up for it, and hopefully make Armorchompy happy, but I still technically think that it looks less professional, and that it is a massive project to apply without sufficient benefits to motivate it.

We should wait to see what the other bureaucrats think though.

 

[Damage3245]

Bulk updating via a bot could take care of bolding the majority of abilities on the majority of profiles - but there'd always be some that list certain abilities differently and wouldn't be caught by a mass-updating script so a lot of double-checking would end up needing to happen.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that so many of our powers and abilities sections use [[Energy Projection|Laser Vision]]-style formatting for a part of their listed powers, that the pages would look worse if we handle the change via a script. A part of them would be bolded, and others not. No good consistency at all.

 

[Damage3245]

Indeed.

If you're looking for a written guideline for when bolding should be used if permitted, it should be:


* For profiles that make extensive use of justifications, such as for nearly every ability in the Powers & Abilities section, it is recommended that the abilities be bolded to make them distinct from the rest of the explanatory text of that section. Bolded abilities will generally be clearer to the reader especially when larger amounts of text are involved. See example here: , etc.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think some standards can be produced, potentially with Noneless' help given it's his thread. Personally I find that the format works really well in profiles with large amounts of text following most or all P&A, while it may look ugly on more basic P&A files. Demonstration (randomly picked from profiles I'm working on):

Superhuman Physical Characteristics, Weapon Mastery (Leader of the elite Rocket Knights and legendary for his skill across the entire world[3][4], Sparkster was skilled enough to repel an entire invasion on his first outing, and has done so again in all subsequent games, fending off first the Devotindos Empire's Pig Armada, then the reptilian Gedol Empire, then two different Wolf Armies and finally the Pig Armada once again, despite all of them being armed with hi-tech weaponry and machinery far beyond Sparkster's own. Sparkster's skills increase even more after every adventure[3], as he trains and develops new techniques with great fervor[4]. Cut through a giant so cleanly they only fell apart seconds later[2] and can destroy enemies' armor or clothes with an attack while leaving them uninjured. Also highly skilled in high-altitude combat[5]), Flight (Can use his jetpack for short bursts of fast, one-directional movement or for more sustained flight. With a power received in the first game, Sparkster can also fly through space[6]), Vehicular Mastery (Capable of piloting large mechs in combat well enough to consistently defeat others doing the same[2][5], even when having never piloted one before[6], or wipe out squads of enemies set to stop him[2]. Can also pilot Stampey-Do bird mechs with similar skill[5], ride minecarts while fending off numerous enemies and leaping across tracks or even dodge a boss' attacks for over a minute while stuck on a defenseless escape capsule[6]), Breaking the Fourth Wall (Will speak to the player if left waiting for enough time[6]), Light Manipulation (Sparkster's sword can emanate bright flashes of light[2])

In my opinion looks good and improves readability. Meanwhile:

Sound Manipulation (Thump Drum can harm enemies with a painful noise), Information Analysis (Rock of Rocks allows one to scan enemies), Water Manipulation (Can blast enemies with a surprisingly powerful Cola Bottle), Absorption (Bottle Gourd drains the health of enemies to heal the wielder), Fire Manipulation (With Bottled Fire and Napalm Grenades), Explosion Manipulation (With Dynamite, Napalm Grenades and Fragmentation Grenades), Smoke Manipulation and Poison Manipulation (Poison Spray unleashes a cloud of toxic gas), Electricity Manipulation and Paralysis Inducement (Can attack with a variety of electric moves with up to 5 million volts of power, paralyzing foes as well. Goldfish Shot immobilizes foes' limbs), Plasma Manipulation (With Plasma Spark), Earth Manipulation and Statistics Reduction (Savage Shot lowers enemy stats as well as hurting them with a volley of large rocks), Status Effect Inducement (Can render enemies woozy with Lacquer Mist), Animal Manipulation (With Goldfish Shot and Chick Shot), Explosion Manipulation, Petrification and Status Effect Inducement (Chick Shot shoots explosive chicks that can petrify foes or afflict them with vertigo)

Is maybe a bit tacky.

Your mileage may vary depending on usage of Dark/Light mode and platform (I think it looks particularly bad on Forum Dark Mode, so I advise people to just quickly paste these two in a sandbox to see how they look). I do not believe my reading capabilities to be below average but find it slightly annoying to parse large walls of text in VSBW's color scheme regardless, which is not an issue I have with most websites. This also allows readers to immediately know the abilities a character has which is helpful for matches, though this is secondary.

I think this is an unintrusive, simple fix and an overall good addition to the wiki. I do not think it would be good as a forced change on all profiles, but I believe it can improve a good percentage of them. This will be my final post on the subject unless help is needed in stabilizing those standards, which I am willing and happy to help with.

Anyway, I am fine. I appreciate the apology, I am still not happy with the events but choose to believe they were a honest mistake, though I do think they highlight some issues about the website/community that I am too tired to fully denounce. I may still appear less than I currently do in important threads in the future because I have realized over the course of the last few days that it is not what enjoy the most about my time on VSBW. I enjoy working on profiles the most, followed by helping people regarding simpler things, and as a tertiary, a good match every once in a while. Debating isn't something I enjoy and I think this website gets me into debates too often, which I plan to avoid in the future.

I am not going to resign though I have considered it. I do not harbor grudges against anyone involved.

 

[Antvasima]

The first example looks better, yes.

Thank you for accepting the apology and not quitting. It was an honest mistake, yes. The problem here is that I am too compulsively honest, and also intuitively socially clueless unless it is a type of situation I have previous experience with though.

Anyway, we would likely need to rewrite the instructions in our standard format for character profile page, both regarding bolded powers in large text blocks and when to use bullet point lists.

We should probably also consider DontTalk's suggestion to gradually begin to use reference sections for Imgur links, but I am not certain, as that would be even more work, and our present formatting has worked quite well until now.

 

[Armorchompy]

Anyway, we would likely need to rewrite the standards in our standard format for character profile page, both regarding bolded powers in large text blocks and when to use bullet point lists.

I think that's fine but I'll note that standards will always have a level of subjectiveness to them, we can encourage using formats for specific kinds of profiles but it's never going to be a hard science.

We should probably also consider DontTalk's suggestion to gradually begin to use reference sections for Imgur links, but I am not certain, as that would be even more work, and our present formatting has worked quite well until now.

I don't know if that's an unquestionable upgrade, on my browser at least it takes a second for the referenced test to be highlighted when I hover over it and the process is a bit annoying, I can see it being even worse on mobile. There's also issues of references applying to multiple links sometimes, I've done that a lot for my comic book profiles. Won't work for all profiles IMO.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that's fine but I'll note that standards will always have a level of subjectiveness to them, we can encourage using formats for specific kinds of profiles but it's never going to be a hard science.

Well, we still either need to instruct our members to gradually switch standards, or specify roughly when they should use each option.

I don't know if that's an unquestionable upgrade, on my browser at least it takes a second for the referenced test to be highlighted when I hover over it and the process is a bit annoying, I can see it being even worse on mobile. There's also issues of references applying to multiple links sometimes, I've done that a lot for my comic book profiles. Won't work for all profiles IMO.

Okay. Never mind then.

 

[Armorchompy]

Well, we still either need to instruct our members to gradually switch standards, or specify roughly when they should use each option.

I don't think a full switch is a good idea, we should just recommend situations where a format may or may not fit, but ultimately every profile is different and no matter what it will come down to the profile-maker's judgement. If it's a niche verse, they'll be happier with the profile and no one else will really mind unless it's a blatantly ugly profile, and if it's a popular one it will eventually be corrected by the greater opinion of the community if "wrong".

I understand the added difficulty this may add to patrolling the wiki still and on my part I will make sure to check any profiles that go by the bolded standard and tell the maker if it isn't fitting for the profile, though I wouldn't push too much since that would still ultimately be my opinion.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay then, but we still need to give some sort of instruction at least, even if it is just to try to distinguish between your two example types from earlier.

 

[Armorchompy]

Okay then, but we still need to give some sort of instruction at least, even if it is just to try to distinguish between your two example types from earlier.

Definitely.

 

[Antvasima]

I am open for text draft suggestions then.

 

[LordTracer]

* For profiles that make extensive use of justifications, such as for nearly every ability in the Powers & Abilities section, it is recommended that the abilities be bolded to make them distinct from the rest of the explanatory text of that section. Bolded abilities will generally be clearer to the reader especially when larger amounts of text are involved. See example here: , etc.

Something like this should work, no?

 

[Antvasima]

That seems fine to me at least.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree with DT, in that I'd rather have scans moved to references and rather not have bolded text in the P&A.

 

[Armorchompy]

I still don't see how those are directly related :v

If anything you should be in favor of this given how you yourself are very experimental in regards to Powers & Abilities

 

[Agnaa]

The reason for this format change seems to be to draw more of a distinction between linked abilities, and linked scans in a profile. If all of the scans are in references, that distinction gets made easily, since there are no linked scans in the main text of the P&A.

 

[Armorchompy]

The reason for this format change seems to be to draw more of a distinction between linked abilities, and linked scans in a profile. If all of the scans are in references, that distinction gets made easily, since there are no linked scans in the main text of the P&A.

No, it's to make P&A more immediately readable, separating it from all the remaining text, not just links.

I have also gone into why DT's solution isn't a one-size fits all.

 

[Agnaa]

No, it's to make P&A more immediately readable, separating it from all the remaining text, not just links.

It's hard for me to square this with you not wanting it to be mandatory.

If you're saying that, even without scans occupying the same type of text, that P&As aren't readable enough, that sounds like something that you'd want applied to every profile. Every single profile would have that issue with readability.

I have also gone into why DT's solution isn't a one-size fits all.

I'll respond to the points I think you're talking about, then.

I don't know if that's an unquestionable upgrade, on my browser at least it takes a second for the referenced test to be highlighted when I hover over it and the process is a bit annoying, I can see it being even worse on mobile.

If you hover over it instead of clicking it, yeah. There are some losses, but on net, I think it's better.

There's also issues of references applying to multiple links sometimes, I've done that a lot for my comic book profiles. Won't work for all profiles IMO.

I don't really understand what you mean by this. If you mean a single reference containing multiple links, you could do that, or you could not do that and instead have two different references. Either way I don't see it as enough of an issue, or something that is substantially worse for certain profiles than the status quo of having an arbitrary-length sea of blue text that arbitrarily switches between links at certain points.

 

[Armorchompy]

It's hard for me to square this with you not wanting it to be mandatory.

If you're saying that, even without scans occupying the same type of text, that P&As aren't readable enough, that sounds like something that you'd want applied to every profile. Every single profile would have that issue with readability.

Bigger P&A sections incur into this more, and it doesn't look good on ones with less text between powers. I think not wanting it to be mandatory is perfectly rational.

If you hover over it instead of clicking it, yeah. There are some losses, but on net, I think it's better.

Subjectively, you think it's better. Have you checked what that's like on all browsers? And on mobile? I think it's quite a pain to have to move up and down, it's three clicks compared to one, there's a ton of objective "losses" just for something you perceive as better.

I don't really understand what you mean by this. If you mean a single reference containing multiple links, you could do that, or you could not do that and instead have two different references.

Ah, yes, two identical references that reference the exact same piece of text, that seems stupid as hell. Just put the links where they belong.

Either way I don't see it as enough of an issue, or something that is substantially worse for certain profiles than the status quo of having an arbitrary-length sea of blue text that arbitrarily switches between links at certain points.

Don't care, make your own thread. You're pushing your own thing on an unrelated thread, be more respectful of OP and those that have debated it before.

 

[Deceived3596]

Can people stop coming in this thread without reading the OP? this thread isn't about your personal feelings on how you should organize the P&A section, this thread is about one specific style and if we should allow that one specific style or not.

Agnaa, read the ******* OP, stop derailing.

 

[Agnaa]

Subjectively, you think it's better. Have you checked what that's like on all browsers? And on mobile? I think it's quite a pain to have to move up and down, it's three clicks compared to one, there's a ton of objective "losses" just for something you perceive as better.

Yep, this is a subjective topic. I wouldn't call you feeling like it's a pain an "objective loss". I don't think there's much point in me regaling the reasons I think it's better since it is subjective, after all.

Ah, yes, two identical references that reference the exact same piece of text, that seems stupid as hell. Just put the links where they belong.

I still don't understand what you're talking about. If they're identical references for the same thing they'd use the <ref name> system.

Don't care, make your own thread. You're pushing your own thing on an unrelated thread, be more respectful of OP and those that have debated it before.

Agnaa, read the ******* OP, stop derailing.

It isn't unrelated. I said "I disagree with the OP because I think this other solution is better." You did not have to debate me on the merits of the other solution. Just treat it as me disagreeing and move on if you don't want to talk about it.

And it is extremely common in threads to disagree with the OP's solution to a problem and then propose an alternate solution. People don't start entirely new CRTs every single time they interpret a scan as "Status Effect Inducement" instead of "Paralysis Inducement".

EDIT: Also, Deceived, could you please not be so aggressive? It seems pretty uncalled for and makes me feel pretty bad.

 

[Deceived3596]

It isn't unrelated. I said "I disagree with the OP because I think this other solution is better." You did not have to debate me on the merits of the other solution. Just treat it as me disagreeing and move on if you don't want to talk about it.

And it is extremely common in threads to disagree with the OP's solution to a problem and then propose an alternate solution. People don't start entirely new CRTs every single time they interpret a scan as "Status Effect Inducement" instead of "Paralysis Inducement".

That isn't a counter to what's being proposed, you claiming this one option is better than the other isn't an argument against letting this option through, that's dookie ass reasoning, actually counter the argument.

Non-Analogous to what we're talking about.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

About the links in the references and mobile, as someone who the last months was visiting the wiki only with a mobile and tablet I can confidently say that see references is actually hard in those, so I generally believe would be better to not put the scans in inside them.

 

[Armorchompy]

Yep, this is a subjective topic. I wouldn't call you feeling like it's a pain an "objective loss". I don't think there's much point in me regaling the reasons I think it's better since it is subjective, after all.

No, I would consider it an objective loss given the time required to check the scan is, objectively, higher.

I still don't understand what you're talking about. If they're identical references for the same thing they'd use the <ref name> system.

Say a character in a comic book issue performs a Stealth Mastery feat, then showcases Fire Manipulation. There would be two different Imgur links to the two feats, but the reference would be "Captain Superdude Vol 1 233" for both.

It isn't unrelated. I said "I disagree with the OP because I think this other solution is better." You did not have to debate me on the merits of the other solution. Just treat it as me disagreeing and move on if you don't want to talk about it.

You're right, third disagreement versus what, fifteen agreements?

And it is extremely common in threads to disagree with the OP's solution to a problem and then propose an alternate solution. People don't start entirely new CRTs every single time they interpret a scan as "Status Effect Inducement" instead of "Paralysis Inducement".

There's a difference between "this is wrong, it's actually this" and "I think this is wrong because this unrelated, unaccepted thing does a similar job". We have over a dozen people agreeing with bolded P&A while you couldn't prove that more than three do yours. So no, it's not an "alternate solution".

 

[Agnaa]

That isn't a counter to what's being proposed, you claiming this one option is better than the other isn't an argument against letting this option through, that's dookie ass reasoning, actually counter the argument.

Okay. On top of me finding another proposal better, I subjectively think the suggested proposal of having bolded sections scattered across the P&A looks bad.

No, I would consider it an objective loss given the time required to check the scan is, objectively, higher.

Which presupposes that the only (EDIT 2: "main" is a better word here) thing we care about is "time taken to click a single scan" and not any other aesthetic preference, or any other way of looking at scans (i.e. clicking down to the references section and pulling up multiple properly delineated scans vs searching through the sea of blue text for 4 different scans by checking the URL in the on-hover hyperlink preview).

EDIT: I really think that this chain of argument is pointless, can we stop?

Say a character in a comic book issue performs a Stealth Mastery feat, then showcases Fire Manipulation. There would be two different Imgur links to the two feats, but the reference would be "Captain Superdude Vol 1 233" for both.

Oh, so something like the this page mentioned earlier? I subjectively think that that's fine and good.

You're right, third disagreement versus what, fifteen agreements?

More like 4th or 5th; Ant and AKM's views weren't reflected in the OP, but yeah.

We have over a dozen people agreeing with bolded P&A while you couldn't prove that more than three do yours. So no, it's not an "alternate solution".

I am perfectly okay with being outvoted. I am not looking to bulldoze your consensus with my lone voice, I am just providing my voice.

 

[Armorchompy]

About the links in the references and mobile, as someone who the last months was visiting the wiki only with a mobile and tablet I can confidently say that see references is actually hard in those, so I generally believe would be better to not put the scans in inside them.

Thank you!

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Can you guys just make the draft for the page so we can start editing the profiles that benefit the most from this, please?

 

[Armorchompy]

It wouldn't be a page, just an addition to the standard format for character profiles

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

The current draft for the instruction page is something like this:

* For profiles that make extensive use of justifications, such as for nearly every ability in the Powers & Abilities section, it is recommended that the abilities be bolded to make them distinct from the rest of the explanatory text of that section. Bolded abilities will generally be clearer to the reader especially when larger amounts of text are involved. See example here: , etc.

 

[Antvasima]

Would you be willing to write a new draft instruction text based on the above post, Damage3245?

 

[Armorchompy]

I tried doing it, this is a modification of what the page currently has for bullet point + list things

4) Bullet Points and Bolding Formats (Optional: Abilities can be listed in paragraph format as above, but for more than just a small number of abilities, it may be clearer if the abilities are displayed in a list which displays the abilities in an organized fashion. See examples of pages that have incorporated bullet points successfully here and here. Abilities in this format should be bolded to help distinguish them from the rest of the text. It's also possible to bold abilities while maintaining a paragraph format, which may work particularly well in profiles with larger amounts of text between abilities. See successful examples of this here and here)

 

[Damage3245]

That looks fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I tried doing it, this is a modification of what the page currently has for bullet point + list things

4) Bullet Points and Bolding Formats (Optional: Abilities can be listed in paragraph format as above, but for more than just a small number of abilities, it may be clearer if the abilities are displayed in a list which displays the abilities in an organized fashion. See examples of pages that have incorporated bullet points successfully here and here. Abilities in this format should be bolded to help distinguish them from the rest of the text. It's also possible to bold abilities while maintaining a paragraph format, which may work particularly well in profiles with larger amounts of text between abilities. See successful examples of this here and here)

That looks fine to me.

Yes, I also think that seems fine to apply, but we should preferably wait for @DontTalkDT and @AKM sama .

 

[Noneless21]

bump?

 

[LordTracer]

I tried doing it, this is a modification of what the page currently has for bullet point + list things

4) Bullet Points and Bolding Formats (Optional: Abilities can be listed in paragraph format as above, but for more than just a small number of abilities, it may be clearer if the abilities are displayed in a list which displays the abilities in an organized fashion. See examples of pages that have incorporated bullet points successfully here and here. Abilities in this format should be bolded to help distinguish them from the rest of the text. It's also possible to bold abilities while maintaining a paragraph format, which may work particularly well in profiles with larger amounts of text between abilities. See successful examples of this here and here)

That looks good to me. For the examples, I think you could use this profile, which already shows how the format works, and this profile, which doesn’t have the bolded format yet, but would benefit from it.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

If the method is now accepted, we can use Mash's profile as an example. Originally the profile used the bolding formats, but it was later romoted for nonsense

Mash Burnedead: Difference between revisions | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com