• 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.

Something Important

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gwynbleiddd

Gwynbleiddd

VS Battles
Retired
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
316
We currenlty have over 11400 pages and unfortunately most of them are in this state, either completely lacking any kind of explanation for their stats or having only a few words without any good evidence such as calcs/videos/images of the feats.

I think it's time for this to change, newly created pages should get deleted if they don't have evidence for their claims and old ones that are on that state and their creators/supporters fail to present evidence should be deleted as well.
 
I agree with that pages without valid explanations should preferably be deleted, but we cannot remove all of the ones that do have reasonable explanations, but no calculations, videos or images. It would result in purging half of the wiki.
 
I'm inclined to agree. While having a large wiki is nice, it's quickly getting unmanageable since many users make profiles and then leave.

I've asked quite a number of users to provide explanations for various profiles and they often fail to do so, leaving a poorly made profile in the process.

Prime examples are profiles like Apollo (Final Fantasy Legend), which offers a barebones explanation without any citations.
 
I agree, a lot of pages i saw are so badly made that i also a planned revision to delete them.
 
@Ant The explanations without evidence to back them up are as good as unexplained stats, not to mention that this way users can easily wank their characters by manipulating facts that way (has actually happened).

Quality over quantity, i don't have a problem with purging the wiki of bad profiles no one cares about in order to improve our quality.(The "important" profiles that concern most members/fights/discussions are at best 1000-2000)
 
I agree with Gwyn.

Most of the unknown profiles are really horrendous.
 
Well, I do not support purging several thousand profiles, but am perfectly fine with getting rid of the ones without good explanations.

We would lose a very considerable part of our visitors if we took away half the profiles in the wiki, and in addition everything is a work in progress of constant improvement and reevaluation via content revision threads. I.e. if something is wrong, it will usually be brought to light sooner or later. I do not believe in overzealous quick fixes.
 
How about a notice that says "the information on this page does not have proper explanations and is not considered objective." Or something along those lines? Purging half of the wiki is severely unnecessary, especially with revisions coming up.

What we should do is simply organize what's good and what isn't. I suggest:

  • Pages with no explanations whatsoever (excluding very low tiered ones) should be outright deleted.
  • Pages with no images are fine. In fact we have a problem with having no image/video policy in the first place but that's for another thread.
  • Pages with explanations but no evidence need to be given a notice like the one I mentioned above.
  • Pages with explanations that have evidence but no calcs should be left alone for now. There's a slim chance that it's wanked/downplayed if the evidence is visual.
I strongly discourage messing with too many pages at this time though. It's piling more and more work on top of what needs to be done. The only problem here that needs immediate attention is pages with no explanatory evidence at all.
 
I'm sure the profiles were aiming to delete are mostly profiles, which most of the visitors likely don't care or know.
 
I think that Sera makes sense. We need something similar to the stub page template to use for the pages that are considered unreliable however.
 
I don't think we would lose many visitors, most people are here for more mainstream stuff such as DC, Marvel Comics, the HST etc.Even popular series like Game of Thrones get 0 attention.

As Repp said many just come create a bunch of bad profiles and then leave.
 
It is important to have as wide appeal as possible, and not only focus on a few popular franchises. Although I appreciate your intentions, the overzealous nature of your suggestion, rather than taking the slow and steady improvements approach, is potentially disastrous for the future survival of our wiki. Our main advantage over the copycat wikis is that we feature more pages than they do. Take that away, and we will be reduced to just one wiki among many.
 
Sera's suggestion of deleting the worst offenders, and giving the potentially suspicious ones a standardised tag at the top, seems like a much more balanced approach.
 
Not a problem. There's many verses out there that are simply unexplored. Over time, we can simply review over them and see if they are good and kick the ones that aren't.
 
Exactly. I have spent far more time than anybody else in the staff attempting to keep our profiles as reliable as possible, but this would just flush the results of most of our hard work with content revision threads down the toilet.
 
Sera Loveheart said:
How about a notice that says "the information on this page does not have proper explanations and is not considered objective." Or something along those lines? Purging half of the wiki is severely unnecessary, especially with revisions coming up.
What we should do is simply organize what's good and what isn't. I suggest:

  • Pages with no explanations whatsoever (excluding very low tiered ones) should be outright deleted.
  • Pages with no images are fine. In fact we have a problem with having no image/video policy in the first place but that's for another thread.
  • Pages with explanations but no evidence need to be given a notice like the one I mentioned above.
  • Pages with explanations that have evidence but no calcs should be left alone for now. There's a slim chance that it's wanked/downplayed if the evidence is visual.
I strongly discourage messing with too many pages at this time though. It's piling more and more work on top of what needs to be done. The only problem here that needs immediate attention is pages with no explanatory evidence at all.
Click to expand...
I know I'm just a random user, but since I started making some character profiles, I just want to get one thing straight. When you say "pages with explanations but no evidence need to be given a notice like the one I mentioned above."

Do you mean that let's say I made a profile for a superhero with super strength and I said "Lifting Strength: Class 100 (He once managed to lift a tank)" It would get a notice because I don't have the episode of his feat or which ever canon place that he performed this feat?

Or by evidence do you mean something such as "(In his battle with (random villain)'s army, he managed to lift a tank.)
 
What Matt said. Visual evidence is preferred. In a novel's case, excerpts are preferred. It's very simple really.
 
Generally I am very opposed to deleting any profiles at all without making content revision threads first (or talking to their creator in case of recently created ones).

I think at least giving people the chance to improve upon their work, before something is deleted in case they don't, is just fair.


Creating a template for lacking explanations, if one doesn't want to make a content revision thread about it, is probably a good idea.
 
Related, but not the topic itself:

Novels are a bit more dificult than visual books (comics/anime)/animations (anime/cartoons)/ shows (movies/series) to provide proof for, in that, they can't just simply link screenshots of this or that. How do we deal with this?

  • Put quotes of what they did directly on the bottom of the profile under a "Feats" section
  • Put relevant quotes in a blog and link the blog to the profile
  • Put these relevant quotes on something like pastebin and link it to the profile
  • Put the relevant quotes in a jpg file and upload it to something like imgur and link it to the profile
These take a bit more work, going from the first to the last.
 
I agree with DontTalk. The rule of thumb is to always make a content revision thread first unless the profile is full of vandalism or is very badly formatted.
 
Gemmysaur said:
Related, but not the topic itself:

Novels are a bit more dificult than visual books (comics/anime)/animations (anime/cartoons)/ shows (movies/series) to provide proof for, in that, they can't just simply link screenshots of this or that. How do we deal with this?
Click to expand...

Just an excerpt from the novel should be fine. But in some cases (such as high tier stuff) we may have to do that. For visual novels we could easily post screenshots. Novels however ...
 
@Gemmysaur: Quotes in the feats section, I would say. I think something like for Othinus is sufficient for example.

If the quotes need additional explanation put them in a blog.


That is at least how I do those things, up to this point.
 
DontTalk is correct. That's the best way to handle novels and light novels. Visual novels on PC or PSP can easily be screenshotted so those aren't an issue.
 
Sera Loveheart said:
Just an excerpt from the novel should be fine.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, though, I suggest not quoting long posts like that unnecessarily, as it only lengthens the thread more than it already is.

Anyways, where do we put the excerpts? On the related stat itself?

Speed: Lightspeed (As long as he can see the place, he can move there instantly no matter how far the distance is... He flew over, exactly as the words described, at the speed of light. - - Rudeus Greyrat upon Arumanfi attempting an attack on them)

This is the profile I'm intending to create, Arumanfi of the Bright, who is part of the Mushoku Tensei novels. Would this be enough? What of the longer ones though?

Speed: Lightspeed (In front of me, Ghyslaine's hand that is on her sword swings out in an instant. After that I only see Ghyslaine keeping her pose after swinging.

The Sword god style ultimate technique "Light of the Long Sword", and named "Art of the Sword of Light"...

After swinging your sword to the limits, the tip of the sword reaches the speed of light, the the ultimate technique in the Sword God style. - - Rudeus Greyrat upon seeing Ghyslaine deflect an attack from Arumanfi)

This is another Mushoku Tensei profile in the works, Ghyslaine Dedorudia, who, as you can see, to effectively prove her speed rating, has to have a long-ass description about it.

This brings me back to my previous post, on what to do with such.

- -

With regards to the actual topic of this thread, didn't we have a "STUB" thing a while back being stamped on top of unfinished or half-assed pages? Why not implement that again or something?
 
We did. Btw, for longer excerpts, just post them in the feats section like DontTalk said.
 
[B]DontTalk said:
[/B]
@Gemmysaur: Quotes in the feats section, I would say. I think something like for Othinus is sufficient for example.
Click to expand...
I didn't see your post. Thanks. I'll use your work as template for mine, and for whatever profiles I find that are lacking, that I know and able to work on. On that note, is there any way to see the source coding of a locked page? Just asking as I sometimes see coding (like Othinus' show/hide feats button) that I think I can use on the profiles I am making.

[B]Sera Loveheart said:
[/B]
We did. Btw, for longer excerpts, just post them in the feats section like DontTalk said.
Click to expand...
I see. Didn't see DT's post though, so thanks for pointing that out.
 
DontTalk said:
000source code
Click to expand...
Oh hey, didn't know this was a thing. I always just went for the drop-down menu and click what's there, which leads me to its history. Thanks for that.
 
What about an animation? What if we don't know how to make it a gif or edit it and we can't find it anywhere on the internet? Do we just put the episode that the feat was in?
 
@Dontae

If it's on YouTube, then you can set the link so that it starts up at a certain time by right clicking the video.

Otherwise you can just post a link to the episode and cite the time around which the feat takes place.
 
If you want to take an effort to make a gif out of it, I suggest ScreentoGIF, a free pc app that records what's playing on-screen (with controllable recording boundaries) and converts it into a frame-by-frame of the recorded, which can then be saved as gif.

Else, use the manga panel instead of inserting the episode number/ screenshot (if there is any).
 
I downloaded the Gif app for future purposes. But do you have an example of citing an episode with the time the feat takes place? I don't want to do it incorrectly.
 
We have to make an entire revison on the Ape Escape universe a few days ago for the same reason, so I agree on this.
 
Again, we are definitely not going to wipe out most of our wiki, and thereby essentially commit suicide as a community. My apologies, but that is final.

However, profiles with completely unmotivated statistics can obviously be removed, or placed at Unknown ratings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vzearr
  • Locked
The Burden Of Proof
Replies
25
Views
2K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
14
Views
2K
RaikiKurohane99
RaikiKurohane99
Agnaa
Kirby Explanation Blogs - Should Be Explanation Pages
Replies
18
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Jinx666
'Weapon Users' Removal
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Jinx666
Jinx666
Rogue_Forge
Wiki Cleanup Project, removal of the "via powerscaling" reasoning
Replies
3
Views
733
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top