• 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.

VSBATTLE WIKI REVISION: "INCONSISTENT SIZES"

Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I see
We just raised several guidelines instead of setting any hard rules.

Just add some notes on relevant pages should suffice.

What do you think?
 
What should the notes say, and where should we place them?
A month bump here, but I would say "Large Size Calculations" or list it as a tab in the Calculations page. It being a guide line rather than a hard rule (I think that was the conclusion?) it would probably be better for the latter.

So it would just be a section about standard regarding calcing size of big stuff through an artistic medium.
 
A month bump here, but I would say "Large Size Calculations" or list it as a tab in the Calculations page. It being a guide line rather than a hard rule (I think that was the conclusion?) it would probably be better for the latter.

So it would just be a section about standard regarding calcing size of big stuff through an artistic medium.
I will not specifically label such as large size calculations as similar situations can be applied to small size calculations too.

Putting it as a paragraph / chapter in the "calculation guide" page can be good.

And yes list it as a guide rather than a hard rule.
 
Well, as usual I trust DontTalk's sense of judgement to an extreme degree, so I am not comfortable with clearing this revision if he disagrees.
 
Last edited:
There's more than ten staff members agreeing, do all of us together not count as much as DT? I find that pretty insulting.
DT isn't the only person disagreeing.

Personally I'm extremely wary about the whole proposal. The idea of making a rule so that certain panels can be outright ignored as "unacceptable for scaling" doesn't sit well with me. Yes, on a case by case basis some panels and some art styles are not going to be reliable for pixelscaling... But we don't need a rule for that if the issues are already self-evident.
 
I mean, there’s no point in tagging us all to voice our opinions when it’s irrelevant because one or two people disagreed.

Might as well let DT decide all our standards without our opinions if that’s what’s happening already.
 
If a proposal is detrimental to the wiki, then a democratic vote isn't going to make it beneficial.

A proposal that makes certain forms of legitimate evidence disallowed by the rules is a bad precedent to set.
 
I don't understand how it's not?

Taking this example given in the OP:

Let's say we intend to measure the size of this cloud split, It should be wrong to use shots that focus on smaller objects compared to the cloud split to undermine a shot that focuses on the cloud split itself.

Using "smaller objects" would be against the rules now and certain panels forbidden from being used, leaving the only option to be the one panel that boosts the feat up drastically. If those other panels were admissable then the cloud split panel would be an outlier. With them being forbidden, it is now no longer an outlier because there is nothing else to compare it to.

Evidence is being dismissed out of hand.
 
All I understand was that you wouldn’t be able to downplay this feat anymore.
That's a pretty bad faith interpretation. I could just as easily say that now users will be able to wank all the feats they want as they've banned counter-evidence.

If the evidence proposed is evaluated to be inconsistent, contradictory, unreliable, etc. then fair enough. I'm cool with that. Because it's been taken into account and evaluated. See the myriad arguments over sizes in Bleach. The panels brought up weren't dismissed out of hand, they were evaluated and deemed less reliable than the statements which we currently use.

If this rule is in place and users can just say "Sorry, according to the rules you can't include those panels", then that's messed up IMO.
 
Damage, we both have a very good relationship on how we help each other on this wiki and how we agree with some stuff. But this thread is the definition of bad faith. This thread's whole existence is due to you not liking how people pixelscaled this one specific cloud split feat.

What's so complicated about this? Like **** do people lack basic comprehension skills to go "hmm, this size isnt that consistent, but this other size is, so the second probably better to use" or "hmm, this ultra detailed shot focusing on the object's size is a bit different than a following less detailed panel, but the first one was more focused so it's probably more accurate". Making rules about this shit is dumb, just use your brain and figure it out depending on the context.

Literally 11 people DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUE with this proposal, but you, the person why this thread exist, do see an issue with this. Sorry, but this is one of the "VSBW Episode" where one change stuff because it upgrades a verse he doesn't like or simply doesn't see the verse with that rating.
 
The only reason human-sized characters are still visible compared to supergiants like Sage Centipede is because of visibility, it would look extremely weird if an unrecognizable dot was fighting a massive creature that can dwarf cities.

So the author has no choice other than shrinking the monster/making the human-sized character much bigger in the panel, even if the creature dwarves cities and islands like Sage Centipede and the Dragons from Black Clover.
I can see cases like that, but one has to compare to what the alternative measuring stick is.
I think the uncertainty involved in scaling from cloud height for example (clouds vary greaty and can ultimately have virtually every thickness and height. We only know average values) is a greater concern than whether or not maybe size was adjusted due to having to show some small object.
Meanwhile, Sage Centipede can be consistently scaled directly from large objects, giving it an equally good other measurement stick to consider besides scaling from the humans.

I.e. such considerations should only be valid if the measurement method suggesting the larger size in the first place is at least equally good.
 
That's exactly what I'm saying M3X, though not quite in those words.

I already agreed for this not to be a hard rule but to be a guideline or tip to improve the quality of calcs and so that threads can go a lot smoother.
 
I already agreed for this not to be a hard rule but to be a guideline or tip to improve the quality of calcs and so that threads can go a lot smoother.
So things will essentially be the same as what they are now?

Because what I'm against is a hard rule. If it's not a hard rule, then this thread is fine with me because that's how we currently treat things.
 
Reading the more recent posts… All I’m saying is that if such a massive amount of agreement could be nope’d out of existence by a few people with fancier titles, then there’s no reason for a thread to have been made to begin with
I just think evidence shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.


It's got nothing to do with upgrades or downgrades as M3X insinuates.
Except the way we currently do things is to just ignore the feat altogether, or to go with an arbitrarily lowballed assumption… which also dismisses evidence out of hand
 
Last edited:
Reading the more recent posts… All I’m saying is that if such a massive amount of agreement could be nope’d out of existence by a few people with fancier titles, then there’s no reason for a thread to have been made to begin with

Except the way we currently do things is to just ignore the feat altogether, or to go with an arbitrarily lowballed assumption… which also dismisses evidence out of hand
Clover, a decision being made that results in a lowballed outcome (or even a highballed outcome), after evaluating all the evidence is not dismissing evidence out of hand. That's the opposite of dismissing evidence out of hand. I don't think I need to explain this to you.
 
Close up/detailed shots are usually the author's intentions. If more detailed/closer shots are available and show a certain size of comparaison, those are usually the go-to. The further ones are only for visibility for the reader for us to know someone/something's location near something much bigger, because comic artists don't do pixescaling.
While I agree with the OP, I dunno if it needs a whole rule tbh
 
Perhaps @Arnoldstone18 can resummarize exactly what they want out of this thread if it was to be accepted. How different would things be compared to how they are now?
Yap, I believe this is a fair request, because his last comments seem to be confusing what he is actually requesting, from looking in the OP.
 
Close up/detailed shots are usually the author's intentions. If more detailed/closer shots are available and show a certain size of comparaison, those are usually the go-to. The further ones are only for visibility for the reader for us to know someone/something's location near something much bigger, because comic artists don't do pixescaling.
Yeah, this is what I agree makes the most sense to follow in cases like these, is it necessary to make rules or guidelines? Maybe because we have members like Damage who refuse to follow accuracy in exchange for unnecessary low-balls.

And with all due respect Damage, you are the only reason this thread was created in the first place, so we either go with the majority which is only trying to make the most sense, or let you and DT choose all the decisions concerning the wiki, and I'm not even counting Ant because these days he doesn't seem to have an opinion of his own anymore and relies entirely on DT, which I find worrying.
 
@Therefir; if I am alone in my opinions then a rule is entirely unnecessary as I'll just be outvoted in CRTs.

I understand you think you're just doing what makes sense, but from my perspective it looks like what is being proposed is to get rid of any contradictory evidence in order to lock down a narrow-viewed perspective on feats. That's not accuracy, that's cherrypicking.


While you're at it, why not just pass a rule that says "Damage3245 can't contribute to threads"? That'll solve the issues too and you can ban any counter-evidence when it comes to CRTs.
 
Well, I usually try to read all staff viewpoints, but I promoted DontTalk to a bureaucrat position for very good reasons. Except for myself he has likely been the most longterm important member when building the structure of this wiki, and I consider him to usually have the most sensible analytical views in general. I have disagreed with him sometimes, but not often. Also, I have much less available time for helping out in our forum nowadays, so I have to try to speed things up/be efficient.
 
Yeah, this is what I agree makes the most sense to follow in cases like these, is it necessary to make rules or guidelines? Maybe because we have members like Damage who refuse to follow accuracy in exchange for unnecessary low-balls.

And with all due respect Damage, you are the only reason this thread was created in the first place, so we either go with the majority which is only trying to make the most sense, or let you and DT choose all the decisions concerning the wiki, and I'm not even counting Ant because these days he doesn't seem to have an opinion of his own anymore and relies entirely on DT, which I find worrying.
Pretty much my opinions exactly. What does it say if after all this support, the proposed thread doesn’t go through? To me, it says that our opinions are pretty much irrelevant and only like… Damage’s and DT’s actually matter.

This wiki boutta become an oligarchy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top