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.
I've been dying to do this for a while. While we have been going through with IRL verse pages with references of unwritten standards. I decided to set official standards in my blog here for 2 reasons.
To increased the credibility of our "The Real World" verse pages, especially the use of wikipedia as a source of information (anyone can change stuff on it).
The rise of realisticdeepfakes can lead our current and future video/image scans to be very distrusted in the future if nothing is done to justify how realistic/credible they are.
More or less, I want feedback, and necessary changes if needed for what will be future standards for The Real World verse. And first and foremost, should we extend this standard to all real world profiles?
We most likely should be making more elaborate clarifications for us to look up certain updates or news with more scrutiny in the future until we can prove that a study has more consistent approval yeah.
I personally agree with all of this, but I will pose a question that I think is very important for this. When posting citations, how does one go about posting things like ISBN links and such? For example, this profile on the Emu has a properly functioning ISBN link: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Emu
I personally agree with all of this, but I will pose a question that I think is very important for this. When posting citations, how does one go about posting things like ISBN links and such? For example, this profile on the Emu has a properly functioning ISBN link: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Emu
Replace stuff like "doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0095" with the link it's supposed to direct you to like any other source link (like "[(link) doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0095]" in the source code). That's a solution to my knowledge
I've been dying to do this for a while. While we have been going through with IRL verse pages with references of unwritten standards. I decided to set official standards in my blog here for 2 reasons.
To increased the credibility of our "The Real World" verse pages, especially the use of wikipedia as a source of information (anyone can change stuff on it).
The rise of realisticdeepfakes can lead our current and future video/image scans to be very distrusted in the future if nothing is done to justify how realistic/credible they are.
More or less, I want feedback, and necessary changes if needed for what will be future standards for The Real World verse. And first and foremost, should we extend this standard to all real world profiles?
To an extent, Wikipedia has become a fairly reliable source. I tested it once when this was mentioned a few years ago, and my edits were only marginally wrong- still, instantly removed (within minutes) and contacted by their staff. It can be changed by anyone in the same sense that VSBW can be changed by anyone, except their policing force is many leagues larger than our own.
This is not to say I disagree with using more direct sources where available, I just don't want to vilify the use of Wikipedia when it is, by basically all measures, an essentially accurate site in 99.99% of situations. I think your blog is very good and extremely sensible, so long as it is not actual standards that require us to use only said sources in all that we do. It is a fact that some of our questions will simply be too niche, and relying on, say, the posts of an individual whose title says "Professional Engineer" and little else on the matter. I simply don't believe it is possible, from our position, to guarantee not running into bias or some other issue.
Take the ideal when you can, scrap together what is possible with the non-ideal when you must. This is my position.
Yeah I agree people overhate Wikipedia a lot. That being said since Wikipedia always provides citations for their information, we could always just go directly to the source at least most of the time.
I vaguely recall some rare instances of wikipedia's information not matching what's said in the reference. Though how often does that happen, and how extensive are their countermeasures here?
Yeah I agree people overhate Wikipedia a lot. That being said since Wikipedia always provides citations for their information, we could always just go directly to the source at least most of the time.
So far, staff here have little problem with the blog. So how should we implement this blog into the IRL verse as a standard?
The only options I could think of right now is to slap it somewhere in the "power of the verse" or "summary" section of the real world official page as a note, or put it in some custom rules section for the real world verse. Any other ideas would be appreciated, though I'd recommend either of the first 2.
So far, staff here have little problem with the blog. So how should we implement this blog into the IRL verse as a standard?
The only options I could think of right now is to slap it somewhere in the "power of the verse" or "summary" section of the real world official page as a note, or put it in some custom rules section for the real world verse. Any other ideas would be appreciated, though I'd recommend either of the first 2.
Personally, I think this should be implemented into the References page if not done already, but I think an explanation section (I mean the Godzilla verse page had its own explanation section, so heck with it) works too.
Personally, I think this should be implemented into the References page if not done already, but I think an explanation section (I mean the Godzilla verse page had its own explanation section, so heck with it) works too.
It's a really good argument, however, the blog is verse specific in a sense. I.e. built for researching stuff in IRL, not the majority of fictional francises on-site.
I'm in more favor of a form of "rules" section of "the real world" verse page now. And I do have an idea outline of it (unless someone has an even better idea of it).
It's a really good argument, however, the blog is verse specific in a sense. I.e. built for researching stuff in IRL, not the majority of fictional francises on-site.
I'm in more favor of a form of "rules" section of "the real world" verse page now. And I do have an idea outline of it (unless someone has an even better idea of it).
This section should be between the "Power of the Verse" and Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section of the page. I decided to be minimal and outline basic verse specific rules.vvv
==Verse-specific Rules==
The real world doesn't break the laws of physics or thermodynamics. Unless the scaling is based off of overwhelming by raw power, calculations, treated realistically and within common sense, battleboarding concepts like power scaling, calc stacking, et cetera don't apply to the real world.
*Conversely, if a real life entity that's traditionally and by common sense, far weaker in raw power and yet manages to harm another entity that should be able to have far superior raw power feats and durability, the scaling is unreliable.
*Follow the [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site|standards for real world page references]], as references are mandatory for new pages.
*Be more realistic and careful when scaling entities around tiers '''Below Average Human level''' to '''Street level''', as the tiering system becomes inconsistent due to the tiering system being oversimplified.
**Examples:
***Humans [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Average Human Strongest Attacks Page#This is a stomp!|having '''Street level''' energy output]] on their legs and gravitational potential energy when anyone is capable of injuring a person with a full punch. And yet, athletes can exert below this energy output.
***[[Gray Wolf|Wolves]] [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Wolf jumping 12 ft(force)|jumping and withstanding '''Street level''' energy]] when their usual strikes (or bites in this case) [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Crushing Otters Skulls|are around '''Human level''' to '''Athlete level''']] and they can get easily thrown around by a heavier [[Jaguar (Real World)|jaguar]].
^^^; make sure to replace the smiley emojis with a colon and upper case "d" in the source. Not to mention that the note in the "power of the verse" section is technically being moved.
I also outlined basic verse-based rules for scaling IRL animals here in this spoiler, but since that's off topic here, it can be discussed back in the IRL animals CRT, another staff discussion thread, or the like.
===Scaling Real World Animals===
Arguments based off of the aforementioned standards (such as credible raw power feats and statements), the animal's armor, typical size, weight, and pound-by-pound strength of the animals should be used as a basis for their tiers.
*While real life animal profiles can take into account the heaviest/largest or lightest/smallest adults of a species, the animal profiles should have their average weights and sizes scaled first. As they're supposed to be a profile for the general species.
*Due to factors like differences in gender, breeds, subspecies, et cetera, even the average sizes of a species will vary between the smallest and largest average sizes of themselves. Unless context shows that the feat is beyond the average adult size, low and high-end strengths of the species varying from "X" to "Y" rating, lifting strength on average are allowed on the profile.
*If a species is more consistently shown at a specific tier or has been shown to regularly use and/or withstand their full kinetic energy running at full speed, scaling animals based off of their kinetic energy at their top travel, swimming, flight, et cetera speed is fallicious. As they would get severely injured running into an immovable wall like [[African Buffalo|african buffalo]].
While it makes sense for the most part, size isn't everything. Other factors like armor (like in crustaceans and armadillos) come into play. I have recently made a calc for sea turtles of all things and managed to find 10-C+ certainties and 10-A extrapolations for mollusk shells based on turtle bite force. It's yet to be eval'd, however.: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...ife_Calc:_Loggerhead_Sea_Turtles_and_Mollusks
And yes, I made sure to only calculate based on minimums since durability in reality isn't "how strong is the attack that hurt someone?" but rather "what's the most they can withstand?"
This section should be between the "Power of the Verse" and Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section of the page. I decided to be minimal and outline basic verse specific rules.vvv
==Verse-specific Rules==
The real world doesn't break the laws of physics or thermodynamics. Unless the scaling is based off of overwhelming by raw power, calculations, treated realistically and within common sense, battleboarding concepts like power scaling, calc stacking, et cetera don't apply to the real world.
*Conversely, if a real life entity that's traditionally and by common sense, far weaker in raw power and yet manages to harm another entity that should be able to have far superior raw power feats and durability, the scaling is unreliable.
*Follow the [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site|standards for real world page references]], as references are mandatory for new pages.
*Be more realistic and careful when scaling entities around tiers '''Below Average Human level''' to '''Street level''', as the tiering system becomes inconsistent due to the tiering system being oversimplified.
**Examples:
***Humans [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Average Human Strongest Attacks Page#This is a stomp!|having '''Street level''' energy output]] on their legs and gravitational potential energy when anyone is capable of injuring a person with a full punch. And yet, athletes can exert below this energy output.
***[[Gray Wolf|Wolves]] [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Wolf jumping 12 ft(force)|jumping and withstanding '''Street level''' energy]] when their usual strikes (or bites in this case) [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Crushing Otters Skulls|are around '''Human level''' to '''Athlete level''']] and they can get easily thrown around by a heavier [[Jaguar (Real World)|jaguar]].
^^^; make sure to replace the smiley emojis with a colon and upper case "d" in the source. Not to mention that the note in the "power of the verse" section is technically being moved.
I also outlined basic verse-based rules for scaling IRL animals here in this spoiler, but since that's off topic here, it can be discussed back in the IRL animals CRT, another staff discussion thread, or the like.
===Scaling Real World Animals===
Arguments based off of the aforementioned standards (such as credible raw power feats and statements), the animal's armor, typical size, weight, and pound-by-pound strength of the animals should be used as a basis for their tiers.
*While real life animal profiles can take into account the heaviest/largest or lightest/smallest adults of a species, the animal profiles should have their average weights and sizes scaled first. As they're supposed to be a profile for the general species.
*Due to factors like differences in gender, breeds, subspecies, et cetera, even the average sizes of a species will vary between the smallest and largest average sizes of themselves. Unless context shows that the feat is beyond the average adult size, low and high-end strengths of the species varying from "X" to "Y" rating, lifting strength on average are allowed on the profile.
*If a species is more consistently shown at a specific tier or has been shown to regularly use and/or withstand their full kinetic energy running at full speed, scaling animals based off of their kinetic energy at their top travel, swimming, flight, et cetera speed is fallicious. As they would get severely injured running into an immovable wall like [[African Buffalo|african buffalo]].
Edited in that calcs and animal armor are also a factor in judging scaling for IRL profiles. Mostly for the references implementation (and basic IRL animal scaling rules secondarily for now).
Yeah I agree people overhate Wikipedia a lot. That being said since Wikipedia always provides citations for their information, we could always just go directly to the source at least most of the time.
Well, I personally think that we should preferably usually use the reliable sources used by Wikipedia as references, rather than link to a Wikipedia article.
Well, I personally think that we should preferably usually use the reliable sources used by Wikipedia as references, rather than link to a Wikipedia article.
Well, I personally think that we should preferably usually use the reliable sources used by Wikipedia as references, rather than link to a Wikipedia article.
==Verse-specific Rules==
The real world doesn't break the laws of physics or thermodynamics. Unless the scaling is based off of overwhelming by raw power, calculations, treated realistically and within common sense, battleboarding concepts like power scaling, calc stacking, et cetera don't apply to the real world.
*Conversely, if a real life entity that's traditionally and by common sense, far weaker in raw power and yet manages to harm another entity that should be able to have far superior raw power feats and durability, the scaling is unreliable.
*Follow the [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site|standards for real world page references]], as references are mandatory for new pages.
*Be more realistic and careful when scaling entities around tiers '''Below Average Human level''' to '''Street level''', as the tiering system becomes inconsistent due to the tiering system being oversimplified.
**Examples:
***Humans [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Average Human Strongest Attacks Page#This is a stomp!|having '''Street level''' energy output]] on their legs and gravitational potential energy when anyone is capable of injuring a person with a full punch. And yet, athletes can exert below this energy output.
***[[Gray Wolf|Wolves]] [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Wolf jumping 12 ft(force)|jumping and withstanding '''Street level''' energy]] when their usual strikes (or bites in this case) [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Crushing Otters Skulls|are around '''Human level''' to '''Athlete level''']] and they can get easily thrown around by a heavier [[Jaguar (Real World)|jaguar]].
^^^; make sure to replace the smiley emojis with a colon and upper case "d" in the source. Not to mention that the note in the "power of the verse" section is technically being moved.
^^^; so how are we going to implement this and Antvasima's suggestion?
Also, there's the problem that we may not be able to access some of the wikipedia sources if they're behind a paywall or book to read. But like wikipedians say, that's no excuse for excluding the source.
I would agree with Ant that we should use the direct sources if available within our time (or some cases, budget). Not every user has the money to get to the scan, but someone has to buy or get into "X institution" to fact check a specific fact.
^^^; so how are we going to implement this and Antvasima's suggestion?
Also, there's the problem that we may not be able to access some of the wikipedia sources if they're behind a paywall or book to read. But like wikipedians say, that's no excuse for excluding the source.
I would agree with Ant that we should use the direct sources if available within our time (or some cases, budget). Not every user has the money to get to the scan, but someone has to buy or get into "X institution" to fact check a specific fact.
^^^; so how are we going to implement this and Antvasima's suggestion?
Also, there's the problem that we may not be able to access some of the wikipedia sources if they're behind a paywall or book to read. But like wikipedians say, that's no excuse for excluding the source.
I would agree with Ant that we should use the direct sources if available within our time (or some cases, budget). Not every user has the money to get to the scan, but someone has to buy or get into "X institution" to fact check a specific fact.
Without being too on the nose about the "article behind a paywall" thing (this has been adapted to by many sites, but not all), I still maintain that Wikipedia is basically fine to use if nothing else adequately presents itself. I recognize that for scholarly articles one prefers the original source, but if Wikipedia is itself cited and regarded as reliable in that regard, I figure it is fine in a pinch.
As for the 'how to apply'... what do you mean? I think your rules are basically acceptable, we would simply add them.
Without being too on the nose about the "article behind a paywall" thing (this has been adapted to by many sites, but not all), I still maintain that Wikipedia is basically fine to use if nothing else adequately presents itself. I recognize that for scholarly articles one prefers the original source, but if Wikipedia is itself cited and regarded as reliable in that regard, I figure it is fine in a pinch.
As for the 'how to apply'... what do you mean? I think your rules are basically acceptable, we would simply add them.
Though should we care about the users on-site that don't have the money to get to "X source"? Is the 12ft.io or other similar sites enough to get to "X source" behind a paywall? I'm not sure if Ant considered the paywall factor since he has limited time on forum, for each notification.
Ok. Is any staff here going to add these rules w/ my suggestions on how to do them? Or do you guys have better ideas?
Though should we care about the users on-site that don't have the money to get to "X source"? Is the 12ft.io or other similar sites enough to get to "X source" behind a paywall? I'm not sure if Ant considered the paywall factor since he has limited time on forum, for each notification.
Ok. Is any staff here going to add these rules w/ my suggestions on how to do them? Or do you guys have better ideas?
Though should we care about the users on-site that don't have the money to get to "X source"? Is the 12ft.io or other similar sites enough to get to "X source" behind a paywall? I'm not sure if Ant considered the paywall factor since he has limited time on forum, for each notification.
Ok. Is any staff here going to add these rules w/ my suggestions on how to do them? Or do you guys have better ideas?
Though should we care about the users on-site that don't have the money to get to "X source"? Is the 12ft.io or other similar sites enough to get to "X source" behind a paywall? I'm not sure if Ant considered the paywall factor since he has limited time on forum, for each notification.
Ok. Is any staff here going to add these rules w/ my suggestions on how to do them? Or do you guys have better ideas?
arlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Wolf jumping 12 ft(force)|jumping and withstanding '''Street level''' energy]] when their usual strikes (or bites in this case) [[User blog
