- 18,393
- 14,311
Thank you for your valuable assistance!
-
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.
Small Acausality and Intangibility Example Revision
- Thread starter Deceived3596
- Start date
-
- Tags
- acausality intangibility
- Status
- 10,292
- 17,327
- Thread starter
- #43
Sorry for the wait everyone, I was sick during the past couple days so I didn't feel like debating all that much, but since that has subsided now, I can finally address everything with the proper care it needs.
@Antvasima
So for your initial question about why I removed those "popular" examples of Intangibility and replaced them with "not so popular" examples (these words are extremely relative, like Spawn's probably more popular then Shadowcat tbh) is pretty simple. Those previous profiles, like The Vision, Shadowcat and One Piece Logias, aren't the greatest in terms of quality, explanations or evidential provisions. See all three profiles generally lack quality explanations, which explain in an in-depth manner why these specific abilities and types are assigned to this character, nor do some even provide evidence of Intangibility in the first place, case in point; Shadowcat.
The level of "popularity" the characters used as examples isn't important, what's important is the explanation and evidence provided by said profiles. People aren't checking out the Intangibility page to see if popular characters are used as examples or not. They're checking out the Intangibility page to see what exactly you need to gain that type of Intangibility. Better examples, regardless of popularity, will always maximize that idea more than popular examples from profiles which aren't good at explaining why they have that type of Intangibility in the first place.
Just because they're "popular' doesn't mean everyone will know who they are or will know why they have that ability. That's why it's better to use the examples I've provided compared to the examples we previously provided.
As for your next question on why I removed The Doctor and replaced him with The Beyonder, it's for the exact same reason why I removed those specific characters from the Intangibility examples and replaced them. The Doctor profile, while providing a decent explanation of Type 2, doesn't have any sources, be them scans or references to why he should have that type of Acausality. The Beyonder provides a similarly in-depth explanation for his Type 2 while also supplying scans and references which proves why he has those types in the first place. I personally believe that's a better example to use instead of The Doctor.
Also, I didn't know these types of threads need to be made staff only, I'll remember that in the future when I create the rest of the revisions I have planned.
@Antvasima
So for your initial question about why I removed those "popular" examples of Intangibility and replaced them with "not so popular" examples (these words are extremely relative, like Spawn's probably more popular then Shadowcat tbh) is pretty simple. Those previous profiles, like The Vision, Shadowcat and One Piece Logias, aren't the greatest in terms of quality, explanations or evidential provisions. See all three profiles generally lack quality explanations, which explain in an in-depth manner why these specific abilities and types are assigned to this character, nor do some even provide evidence of Intangibility in the first place, case in point; Shadowcat.
The level of "popularity" the characters used as examples isn't important, what's important is the explanation and evidence provided by said profiles. People aren't checking out the Intangibility page to see if popular characters are used as examples or not. They're checking out the Intangibility page to see what exactly you need to gain that type of Intangibility. Better examples, regardless of popularity, will always maximize that idea more than popular examples from profiles which aren't good at explaining why they have that type of Intangibility in the first place.
Just because they're "popular' doesn't mean everyone will know who they are or will know why they have that ability. That's why it's better to use the examples I've provided compared to the examples we previously provided.
As for your next question on why I removed The Doctor and replaced him with The Beyonder, it's for the exact same reason why I removed those specific characters from the Intangibility examples and replaced them. The Doctor profile, while providing a decent explanation of Type 2, doesn't have any sources, be them scans or references to why he should have that type of Acausality. The Beyonder provides a similarly in-depth explanation for his Type 2 while also supplying scans and references which proves why he has those types in the first place. I personally believe that's a better example to use instead of The Doctor.
Also, I didn't know these types of threads need to be made staff only, I'll remember that in the future when I create the rest of the revisions I have planned.
- 165,227
- 72,258
It isn't about popularity, it is about the most easily recogniseable powers of characters that as many people as possible are aware of. Spawn is not recognised for his intangibility, so he is instantly rejected.
My apologies, but the pages ended up in a considerably worse condition after your changes than before, and this should have been a staff forum thread for staff members only to start with.
My apologies, but the pages ended up in a considerably worse condition after your changes than before, and this should have been a staff forum thread for staff members only to start with.
- 10,292
- 17,327
- Thread starter
- #45
That's not what examples are supposed to denote, examples are just users of this specific ability, it doesn't matter if they're the "most easily recognizable powers of those characters" or not. If those examples are from worser profiles then we should use better profiles which explain those powers in more in-depth manner.
They absolutely didn't, and three mods, including an admin who you consider a part of the "backbone" of this wiki are fine with the changes I've made. You can have that opinion, I just don't agree with it, and the vast majority of people who evaluated this thread also don't agree with it given the votes.
- 165,227
- 72,258
No. The entire point of the listed characters are to be easily understood examples for as many visitors as possible.
Again, all instruction page revision threads should be handled in our staff forum, period, definitely not hidden away from inspection by most of our highest ranked staff. That is the way we fundamentally handle things in this community.
- 10,292
- 17,327
- Thread starter
- #47
Yes, and having better examples, which explain those abilities in an in-depth manner will always maximize that idea more than examples which don't explain those abilities in an in-depth manner. That's why my examples are better than the previous examples we had.
This thread wasn't hidden away from anyone, the title of the thread is direct in intent, it's easily accessible by everyone on this site.
But I'm not going to go back and forth with you on basically us debating on personal opinions. Re-call the mods who commented on this thread and we'll see if they have changed their mind or not.
- 165,227
- 72,258
I am not adverse to you improving the listed examples in these two pages, but they have to be actual improvements, with the most easily understood and recogniseable examples for each type of power. This is how we have continuously attempted to handle the presentation in powers and abilities pages, and that is how we will continue to handle them. This is not up for discussion, but you are free to rework your intended changes to improved alternatives in collaboration with me, and then repost these in a new thread in our staff forum, if you wish.
The point is that I am other higher ranked staff members do patrol every addition to our staff forum, but definitely do not have the time to constantly skim through our content revision forum. All acceptable policy revision threads should be posted in our staff forum without exceptions. That is also the way we fundamentally do our work here, and it is not up for discussion. My apologies.
- 10,292
- 17,327
- Thread starter
- #49
These are actual improvements, that's why mods, including an admin who you hold in high regard, agrees with my changes. Just because you believe they aren't doesn't mean they objectively aren't, it's just your personal opinion, and that opinion doesn't hold more evalutory weight compared to three different mods with evaluation rights. Call in more mods, including admins to evaluate this thread, I'm not having this back and forth with you Ant.
Also no, if this is the level of bureaucratic bullshit I have to deal with just to do simple example changes that everyone who participates in my thread agrees with, ranging from normal members to admins, then I'm done revising them. It just isn't worth the mental stress of dealing with you over something this inconsequential.
Alright, and I already said I'll start doing that in my future revisions because I didn't know about that rule until now. But now, since it's in the staff discussion thread where it rightfully belongs, let's call in some staff to evaluate this thread. Simple.
- 29,914
- 25,070
Why not as a compromise we just include the notable characters from the previous list and the new characters that Deceived has added?
- 165,227
- 72,258
I am fine with keeping the most notable characters from the previous lists and the most notable characters from the new lists for whom the abilities in question are easily recogniseable and distinctive, yes, but I am not letting Deceived just bullrush his revisions without any modifications, especially as this revision thread has been inappropriately handled in conflict with our our standard praxis, and I do have veto rights regarding wiki policy revisions.
- 29,914
- 25,070
Okay, then it looks like we have a solution then.
- 10,292
- 17,327
- Thread starter
- #53
How is me asking for MORE mods to evaluate my thread, which by definition would take this thread longer to complete and could cause some mods to potentially disagree with my thread, prolonging the thread's conclusion even more, me "bullrushing" my revisions through.......
Now, on the topic of the compromise, previously I would have fought against it because of personal reasons, but I just don't care anymore, I'm fine with the compromise.
- 165,227
- 72,258
Okay. That is good then.
Basically, you or/and others here need to select as easily recogniseable characters as possible with these abilities as highly distinctive parts of their abilities, so Kitty Pryde would be a much better example for intangibility than Spawn, for example.
Basically, you or/and others here need to select as easily recogniseable characters as possible with these abilities as highly distinctive parts of their abilities, so Kitty Pryde would be a much better example for intangibility than Spawn, for example.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,887
- 3,358
Bump.
- 165,227
- 72,258
- 10,292
- 17,327
- Thread starter
- #57
I don't really care about this project anymore, the amount of time it would take for me to find characters, for 1: whose main distinguishable characteristics are intangibility/acausality-based, for all those separate types for each respective ability and 2: who have better profiles, with better explanations of those specific types than what we currently have on those pages, would just be too mentally taxing. I just don't feel like dealing with that level of hassle for such a small change that's completely disconnected from my original goal.
Just revert the changes and close the thread.
- 165,227
- 72,258
Okay. I have done so.
Crabwhale started a more general thread with a similar purpose though:
vsbattles.com
Crabwhale started a more general thread with a similar purpose though:
Powers and Abilities Diversification Project
Overview VSBW has over 200 standard power pages, and the number is rising all the time. I believe, and I think most others do as well, that they should seek to be as comprehensible and representative of our wiki as possible. However, the latter part of those requirements is not present in a...
- Status
Similar threads
