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.
Welp.
SCP supporters, which place do you think it would be best to migrate to? So far I've seen Bambu's wiki, Zark's wiki, CSAP, this wiki, or just making an entirely new wiki, all floated around as serious suggestions.
I also think we should ponder how we change some of our rules...
Since votes haven't really changed, I kinda wanna wrap this up, but @Saikou_The_Lewd_King hasn't commented yet; anyone know whether they intend to say something?
I think this is a terrible idea. We shouldn't be so entitled so as to ask them to operate differently.
Plus, as you mention there are writers who hate battleboarding; if you say "Please remove your battleboarding lingo or we'll delete you off the site" that has a real possibility of leading to...
As what should (hopefully) be a final point of clarification, I view "primarily focusing on powerscaling" to be about the verse as a whole. You could not take that one page of Thor talking about powerscaling to say that Marvel primarily focuses on powerscaling, even though that one page...
I think the tier 1 rule, re-quoted here:
Isn't meant to be piecemeal. I think the other one is clearly meant to be piecemeal by being a different point, but that this one includes two qualities ("being tier 1/0" and "primarily focusing on powerscaling") right next to each other, without any...
I'd also like to point out that I believe deleting SCP would involve an expansion of the Editing Rules we already have on vs debater involvement in works:
I think SCP as a whole easily clears the notability criteria, and clearly doesn't primarily focus on powerscaling purely for battleboarding...
It's treated the same as any other namedrop of something in WoG.
If the WoG is related to things in the actual text (i.e. if we know the character has 2,000 abilities, 20 are explored canonically, and 2 are explored in WoG) it's fine.
If it's completely unrelated to things in the actual text...
No, the 1-A/High 1-A changes passed, and now the 0 changes have passed.
All that's left to approve are the specifics of how various pages are rewritten, and how certain other tiers should be shifted around to accommodate.
I think it's feasible, a bunch of pages do it, it just doesn't address some issues some people have.
Only bureaus can give permission for multiple posts at once, but I'd have approved this response anyway. Just ask another staff member before any others.
We already deal with the fact that article canon references other stuff; we just ignore those references. As this page says, we only consider "original canon" to be stuff written by the same author, as part of a canon/series/collab, or in cases where both authors have written their own pieces...
While I could find one thing (which I'll quote below), looking back I think I connected stuff that wasn't explicitly connected.
People have said "It's bad for VSBW, not just the SCP wiki itself" and "They're inspired by VSBW" and "They're writing this way to make their characters stronger, and...
I believe some of them have, please don't make such sweeping accusations.
This entire thread involves people hearing those points out.
I literally suggested it in my first post, back when the "don't delete" view had more votes. I brought it up again because it wasn't mentioned in the OP, and...
I'd be willing to handle it.
Not yet. As I said, I'd want something like that to be something relevant to this thread; by other people thinking it's a good idea, and that shifting the way we'd decide to treat it.
God no y'all are getting this so horribly incorrect I have to stop backreading and respond immediately.
We do not decide whether something is fanfiction based on broadly-granted copyright exemptions. Otherwise we would need to treat most Touhou fanfics as canon.
Jaften's answer is...
Since I feel like this wasn't really considered by other people, my position isn't just a flat "Don't delete SCP", but rather, "If we want to manage our website being a bad influence on the SCP wiki, we should officially ask the SCP wiki staff what they think we can do to improve the situation...
Note the "on this scale" portion. I think our current standards refer to far more pervasive examples, not people spending 0.01% of the media's content mocking it, or struggling to answer questions about it after being bombarded with them.
I don't actually think many others are likely to. I'd...
I was talking about the actual sources for the ratings SCPs are given in our profiles, where that Suggsverse-esque writing is irrelevant.
And I was not using that to say that they're similar in terms of whether they should be deleted, I was simply using it as an explanation for why SCP has...
Again, it's not about whether it should be allowed.
Bambu said "SCP gets these high tiers through contamination".
I said "No, it got those high tiers through a similar process to Marvel/DC".
Stop reading that as "If SCP gets deleted, Marvel/DC should get deleted too".
Whether SCP gets...
My point is not "SCP is exactly the same as Marvel and DC, and so if one gets deleted, the others should too!"
I was just giving an explanation for how SCP got high tiers.
Not to be hostile, but I don't think you really did?
After I mentioned it, you responded to Tllm making a related but distinct point.
After Ovens and I mentioned it again, you said you couldn't keep up with all those points being made at once, and referred to an older message of yours to...
Last time I interacted with the series, we essentially took the inverse approach; requiring a page to be at +10 votes or above to be treated as acceptably canon for our wiki.
As such, I'd emphasize that Miscreation and Imperfectionism was on the road to being canon (sitting at a +9 rating when...
I think it should be easier. I plan to put each calc on its own sub-page, and so the links would simply need to be changed from [[References for Common Feats#Escape velocity of Earth]], one would link [[References for Common Feats/Escape velocity of Earth]], which I think is quite a simple task...
Damn really? I thought, if we chose correct names, it would only involve changing one character in pretty easily-identifiable link patterns. Especially after Idiosyncratic's sweep to properly format internal links.
That's not the reason for this revision; I'm suggesting it because it is...
I expect non-staff participation to be kept outside of the main threads until they're actually being applied, so they can ask questions about where verses they work on land.
Maybe this is just going too far into nitpicking the words, but this doesn't give off the impression of the vast majority of the light elements being returned, so I don't think you can say it explains away the 8 minute concern.
If most of them simply expired, while a few hundred lingered...
I could spend a day to convert the calcs into sub-pages, but I'm not confident in my bot script-writing abilities to do the link conversion. Would anyone else be able to help with that?
Damn, guess we might have to wait for someone willing to apply to come around then.
Or we could edit a disclaimer to that calc saying that it shouldn't be used any more.
Or we could try to rally people around fixing it, like I did last time.
Or we can try to push the change to the References...
Problem: It's really difficult to fix issues with calcs on the References for Common Feats page, since one can't distinguish pages that link to one calc from pages that link to another. Troubles resulting from this can be found here and here.
Proposed Solution: Rather than having the calcs...
I'm kinda concerned about doing that, because profiles may still link to it.
That's one thing I don't like about our references for common feats page; every time there's a revision to one of them, it's a massive hassle because there's no easy way to find which pages refer to which calc.
I don't think people would care too much, we have three Adolf Hitler pages.
I don't think the issue is it being a historical muscial, I think the issue is it not having notable stats, nor being from a combat-centric verse. Since that's already a well-established rule, I'm gonna go ahead and...
Notice how these prior conversations weren't about the logic of the verse, it was about the real-world physics. How it'd be quite weird for light to immediately reappear if he absorbed all of Solus' light, due to the lightspeed delay. The current topic about verse mechanics doesn't really...
Yeah, in the same way that it wouldn't be a stretch for a character with Reality Warping who has forcibly transformed other characters into dogs, mice, lions, and geese to be able to forcibly transform a character into a cat. We still wouldn't include that on a profile unless they'd actually...
The text doesn't establish that; that has been a part of my argument since the very start.
My argument was never that Kirito lacked the range, reality warping ability, or anything like that.
My arguments have only been:
The wording doesn't imply absorbing Solus' entire luminosity.
This...
You're right that the actions taking place in that scene are irrelevant; I think it's relevant because it shows a contradiction in how you interpret that sort of wording. With this historical comment you must interpret it as not referring to Solus' entire emitted luminosity, yet for the Release...