- 18,393
- 14,310
I have done over 600 edits in tier 1 category and will finish it tomorrow and will start with tier 2 and tier 3 together. I suppose that I could complete the project during weekends.
-
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.
We will now use bold text for Intelligence, Stamina, and Range statistics
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vs battles wiki
- 18,393
- 14,310
Yes since I checked every edit.Thanks a massive lot for your help.
Have you confirmed that you did not accidentally mess up any pages via coding mistakes?
I still did not do full automation (I am using currently semi-automation) because the pages varies in inconsistencies of formatting, so it's hard to create a code to match all types of pages, because there are many pages that don't even adhere to basic guidelines.
So till I do a good round of 3k different pages and be confident that it can match bigger scale, I will be using full automation.
- 164,997
- 71,750
- Thread starter
- #165
Given recent events we will have to rethink our approach to finishing this project.
vsbattles.com
My initial idea was that our staff might have to collectively handle the project manually, in lack of better options, and that all staff members who are willing to help out, and do not have content moderator rights or above, will receive temporary content moderator rights while they are helping out.
However, Catzlaflame has stated that he might be able to handle it with his own bot instead, so we will see how that issue develops.
He obviously needs to be absolutely certain that his script is set up properly, and, for example, does not turn every mention of the word superhuman in our wiki into Superhuman instead, and does not turn already bolded text ('''Example''') double-bolded (''''''Example'''''') either.
Perhaps he can test his script on smaller verse categories that only have 4-10 pages within them, and are rather easily corrected, before he does anything larger in practice?
I would also appreciate if other content moderators can help with inspecting potential errors in such edits from his bot account.
Rule Violation Reports (New forum)
Maybe we could just set a temporary topic ban, given that new arguments were used, but our staff cannot continuously focus on the same subject over and over without a significant break.
My initial idea was that our staff might have to collectively handle the project manually, in lack of better options, and that all staff members who are willing to help out, and do not have content moderator rights or above, will receive temporary content moderator rights while they are helping out.
However, Catzlaflame has stated that he might be able to handle it with his own bot instead, so we will see how that issue develops.
He obviously needs to be absolutely certain that his script is set up properly, and, for example, does not turn every mention of the word superhuman in our wiki into Superhuman instead, and does not turn already bolded text ('''Example''') double-bolded (''''''Example'''''') either.
Perhaps he can test his script on smaller verse categories that only have 4-10 pages within them, and are rather easily corrected, before he does anything larger in practice?
I would also appreciate if other content moderators can help with inspecting potential errors in such edits from his bot account.
- 164,997
- 71,750
- Thread starter
- #167
Thanks a lot for your offer, but it might be best to see what @Catzlaflame thinks that we should do first.
- 1,645
- 2,530
Fine by me, only thing is please do not bold statistics that other users incorrectly applied. For example, “High” and “Very High” in the stamina section.
To clarify somethings in Ant’s original post; he mentioned automated script edits, but I’ll be using the semi-automated applications of AWB to act as a buffer for mistakes. For test runs I’m gonna use empty categories and add like a few random, diversely formatted pages.
Additionally, as I also mentioned to Ant, my final exam for school is from Dec 13 -15; afterwards is when I’ll finish my regex training arc and craft the code for this.
Will try my best to help out the wiki.
Last edited:
- 1,645
- 2,530
I started today. The "High" rating in the stamina section is proving to be more annoying than I expected.
The problem is that users have resorted to using it to reference just about any feat under the sun. For example, you have this character who traveled across an entire continent.... their stamina rating? High. Meanwhile, the majority of other characters have it for vague descriptions of, relatively unimpressive, stamina feats such as "can do X feat for a long time" (example). In essence, there is no one thing I can replace "High" with while still insuring that its a genuinly accurate description of the character's stamina capabilities because "High" is so broad.
Do I just bold the "High" rating even though our stamina page explicitly says do not use "High" as a rating, or do I leave it be?
Please advice.
@Antvasima @Mr._Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus
The problem is that users have resorted to using it to reference just about any feat under the sun. For example, you have this character who traveled across an entire continent.... their stamina rating? High. Meanwhile, the majority of other characters have it for vague descriptions of, relatively unimpressive, stamina feats such as "can do X feat for a long time" (example). In essence, there is no one thing I can replace "High" with while still insuring that its a genuinly accurate description of the character's stamina capabilities because "High" is so broad.
Do I just bold the "High" rating even though our stamina page explicitly says do not use "High" as a rating, or do I leave it be?
Please advice.
@Antvasima @Mr._Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus
- 29,894
- 30,908
Crossing an entire continent does sound Superhuman, but we could either give above average or Peak Human depending on the context. Sometimes, I think one can try to come up with something appropriate via looking at other stats.
- 40,416
- 34,941
If the rating is just "high" downgrade them to average
If the rating is "high" but it actually has feats to back it up, I guess just replace it with either Peak Human or Superhuman depending on the feat
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,390
- 18,312
If the verse is actively supported, if it's not too much trouble, speak with a prominent supporter about setting up proper ratings in-line with our standards. If the feat has an adequate description, I'd say judge it yourself and adjust it as you deem fit- after all, while they are proper standards, we don't have particularly strict settings on what defines each level, particularly for stamina. I trust your judgement.
Otherwise, if the feats are too vague, I'd support just altering them to "Unknown" or "Average".
Otherwise, if the feats are too vague, I'd support just altering them to "Unknown" or "Average".
- 1,645
- 2,530
Okeey, thank you all for the input, will apply this moving forward.
- 164,997
- 71,750
- Thread starter
- #175
Nonononono. That is not a good solution at all. It will greatly mess up the reliability of our pages.
To keep things simple, if the listed feats blatantly qualify for "Superhuman", list them as such, and if there are no justifications or they are more uncertain, list them as "Unknown".
I really hope that many hundred pages have not been messed up in this manner already. In the future, please wait until I have replied before you do anything drastic.
To keep things simple, if the listed feats blatantly qualify for "Superhuman", list them as such, and if there are no justifications or they are more uncertain, list them as "Unknown".
I really hope that many hundred pages have not been messed up in this manner already. In the future, please wait until I have replied before you do anything drastic.
- 40,416
- 34,941
Average is the standard Stamina given in lack of feats or species scaling(ex, Hamsters)Nonononono. That is not a good solution at all. It will greatly mess up the reliability of our pages.
To keep things sinple, if the listed feats blatantly qualify for "Superhuman", list them as such, and if there are no justifications or they are more uncertain, list them as "Unknown".
I really hope that many hundred pages have not been messed up in this manner already. In the future, please wait until I have replied before you do any thing drastic.
- 164,997
- 71,750
- Thread starter
- #178
@CatzlaflameNonononono. That is not a good solution at all. It will greatly mess up the reliability of our pages.
To keep things simple, if the listed feats blatantly qualify for "Superhuman", list them as such, and if there are no justifications or they are more uncertain, list them as "Unknown".
I really hope that many hundred pages have not been messed up in this manner already. In the future, please wait until I have replied before you do anything drastic.
- 40,416
- 34,941
Ant, if a human is featless in Stamina, should I just give them unknown because it's "obviously" the right call?
- 40,416
- 34,941
Ant. Mate.
Average is basically "average human" when concerning Stamina. Least that's how I always took it unless it's "Average Mainecoon Cat" or something
- 164,997
- 71,750
- Thread starter
- #182
Yes, average means average human, but we mostly feature superhuman fictional characters and cannot remotely automatically assume that they confirm to real world human standards just because they happen to look human.
- 3,164
- 7,807
I’d align the stamina ratings with the rest of the statistic ratings. Like, characters above tier 9 imo should have superhuman stamina due to being able to tower entire buildings, adding on with the ”high” and “very high” rating. Superhuman stamina is pretty much any capacity of stamina that is high but not infinite. You can have a character who destroyed entire timelines with superhuman stamina and a character who merely destroyed a building also having superhuman stamina. Idk how y’all would think of this.
- 29,894
- 30,908
Another difference is that stamina is the ability to do intense work for prolonged periods. Though you do have a point that almost any superhuman feat should realistically exhaust anyone who doesn't have superhuman stamina.
I should mention that a lot of characters have Superhuman, High, or Very High ratings; which more or less should be superhuman, due to being a boss with a lot of HP. Endurance is sub reason for stamina.
- 164,997
- 71,750
- Thread starter
- #185
That is the main definition, yes. There are likely many characters who are very superhumanly powerful in other areas, but are within real world human levels in terms of stamina, so automatically giving them superhuman stamina seems very unwise.
- 1,645
- 2,530
Relax, it would be very unwise to edit hundreds/thousands of pages on my first day. Yesterday was more of a trial run than anything, so I wasn’t really aiming to kill off a bunch of pages.I really hope that many hundred pages have not been messed up in this manner already. In the future, please wait until I have replied before you do anything drastic.
Mhm, understood, this is sorta what Bambu said above as well (he mentioned I could also contact knowledgeable members).
Given that DDM’s (and garri’s) perspectives are different, however, is this something that would require more input ?
Apologies if im being repetitive, just trying to be thorough since I’m hearing different things.
- 164,997
- 71,750
- Thread starter
- #187
No problem, and I apologise if I caused offence.
Well, in my view it doesn't make sense to automatically give characters with no stamina justifications a specific statistic rating.
Last edited:
- 1,645
- 2,530
Oh no offense taken, at all don’t worry!No problem, and I apologise if I caused offence.
Alrighty, gotcha, just a heads up though; whenever there is a justification on a page with a “High” rating, the bot obviously can’t assess what level it should be changed to (since this isn’t a repetitive task, but something that actually requires thinking) so I’ll be handling that manually; this will naturally cause the project to last longer.
- 40,416
- 34,941
Word to the wise, don't leave a job half-assed, I'm having to go through the majority of my World of Warcraft profiles and pick up the slack because the range section wasn't bolded, or the tabbered Intelligence section wasn't bolded or second key stamina wasn't bolded.
For instance, Kilrogg here had his Stamina and range sections completely unfolded, despite someone clearly having gone through and bolded his intelligence section, or Blackhand who's Stamina section was bolded but his range and intelligence sections weren't!
For instance, Kilrogg here had his Stamina and range sections completely unfolded, despite someone clearly having gone through and bolded his intelligence section, or Blackhand who's Stamina section was bolded but his range and intelligence sections weren't!
- 1,645
- 2,530
I believe it was intentional; I’ve see Dereck finish 1 statistic, and come back and do another later. He may have his own menthod of doing it and he’s not the type to do a “half-assed job.”
As long as it all gets done in the end, what’s it to you.
@Dereck03
- 40,416
- 34,941
If it is alright then, I'm not one to question, just feels weird ya know?
- 1,645
- 2,530
If manual editors miss somethings my bot will get to it eventually. I actually started doing 1 statistic (range) at a time as well, because of the insane levels of variety on each page, doing all 3 at the same time increases the risk for errors exponetnially; especially since a large chunk of stamina ratings need to be rewritten all together, and since a ton of pages just lack a rating. Additonally, besides the bolding, I'd like to also fix the capatilization/spelling errors to make everything look more crisp, so doing 1 statistic at a time helps with that as well. To add on to this, it'll mean that I'd be cycling through every page a minimum of 3 times, and could pick up on pages that I missed previously.
The manual edits performed (particularly by Dereck and Garri) are very helpful, so saying its "half-assed" is a bit rude; especially since they're spending a lot of time on this. Its a work in progress bruv, nobody said that we were done yet.
Similar threads
- Locked
