• 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.

Wiki Page Deletion Requests Thread (New forum)

KingNanaya said:
to be honest, I didn't know that even existed. It could probably be something like "Verses Like 'Redo of Healer' and 'JK Haru is a Sex Worker have had extensive debates on where they land on our Acceptable Content Rating Scale, and further discussion of this topic is not allowed" or something like that. I'm not exactly the best rule writer. it could probably list other verses, but I feel like it could get the point across
Click to expand...
Honestly, if it's more about the verses themselves, it should be a note on the profile IMO.

Btw. to mention perhaps another thing: By all sources I could find, JK Haru isn't even 18+. It's actually recommended for 16+. Even found a page that said schoolyear 10-12 lol

Mr._Bambu said:
Don't be an asshole, don't get warnings, simple as. Behave if you want to engage in discussion.

@DontTalkDT Could you link me to where specifically this was discussed prior? I have no memory of this specific verse being brought up, and if it was a close call, it may bear repeating.
Click to expand...
Here it starts and the following page. And by pretty much the same people, now that I look at it.
 
I didn't give my thoughts that time, it seems, though some others did- I believe Confluctor was a mod at that point, and Armor still is one. The consensus is largely in favor of allowing it.

Regardless, it is my opinion that the given work does descend well past what is acceptable and ought to be deleted. I'd like that, at least, to be known so that I may someday say "I was right".
 
InfiniteDay said:
There is an image of her sucking a man for two whole pages along with her taking a shower and numerous references to her body and how she's a prostitute. ....what is your point
Click to expand...
Yeah, also ain't that technically against the rules to post a link leading to that?
 
@Antvasima I'm aware you're busy as hell, but I would like to ask your opinion on this- whether it bears further discussion, bringing in more people, and so on. As a summary: the verse alleged has a great deal of incredibly risque material, down to the very basis of the character's powers. The verse has been discussed before with agreement against deletion from multiple staff members with voting capability, specifically Armorchompy, Confluctor, and DontTalk. Personally I think it's a bit worse than they're giving it credit for. Your call.
 
TheMonkeMan said:
Yeah, also ain't that technically against the rules to post a link leading to that?
Click to expand...
I suppose. I removed the corresponding 2 scans from the gallery now and give myself a warning. (For the protocol I will say clearly that everyone was aware what they were clicking on)

Although, that goes for both sides then. I was not the first to post scans, soooo... better clean that up. (With that I mean you @Ikelaggan )
 
TheMonkeMan said:
Either way a series where a good portion of it is nonconsensual sex probably shouldn't be on the wiki.
Click to expand...
I won't have the big debate on whether prostitution is consensual. But to be clear, the "**** scan" is out of context. It is talking about her doing her job like usual, but with roleplay.

And, as said, it's not actually that much sex in general, the focus lies somewhere else.
 
DontTalkDT said:
I suppose. I removed the corresponding 2 scans from the gallery now and give myself a warning. (For the protocol I will say clearly that everyone was aware what they were clicking on)

Although, that goes for both sides then. I was not the first to post scans, soooo... better clean that up. (With that I mean you @Ikelaggan )
Click to expand...
Fair enough, even though I have to glide across eggshells to get rid of those links that weren't hard to find on Google. I'll comply.
 
I genuinely don't see the problem everyone else does with this still. It's a series that talks about serious and gross subject matters, but is explicitly not pornographic, being rated a +16 in Japan from what I could see.

To be honest, there are MUCH worse series with way more egregious examples of **** and mysogeny out there in the wiki. Bastard!! and UQ Holder are really skittish with nudity, with the former having a trillion **** jokes and the latter having a lot of lolicon bait, yet I would probably be called insane if I said they deserved to be Level 4. Honestly, if this series goes, then by our standards a lot of shit would have to go as well.
 
Okay one: You did not just say that like we didn't just discuss the fact that there's a scan where she's giving slop top to a man for like 2 pages straight
And two: A better example would have been Berserk, but even then that doesn't portray **** and what not as a good thing or just make it so there's no consequence for it, so I'm not sure if that's comparable.
 
From a quick skim over the recent discussion, this work seems fine to keep on the wiki.

The arguments for keeping it have been that such sexual content isn't the main focus of the story.

The arguments against keeping it have seemed to neglect that part of our standards, and just mentioned that it has sex/****/misogyny and treats those as good. But that doesn't matter, we don't delete verses for having bad messages.

Others made unsourced claims that "the series is known for that", without actually interrogating the prevalence of those in the story. A few people have, but DT argued back that they were overplaying things, gave more context, and there weren't further engagements on that front.

I think the profile has done all that's necessary on the content warning side. I would strongly advise adding scans that are in English wherever possible, but unless we actually organise a project to go through every old verse which lacks those, it doesn't make much sense to delete the page for that. Since in reality, the minimum evidence standard for old pages is that a supporter can relatively promptly provide translated scans for any claims on the profile that get challenged.
 
I will say that other verses having worse content is not necessarily an argument for allowing this one, but I accept that people I trust are arguing it is acceptable to them, and that is sufficient for me, even if I still disagree.

I think it's best we move on.
 
TheMonkeMan said:
Yeah right, which is why it's the verse known for having a shit ton of sex and ****.
Click to expand...
The work is also well known for people that have not actually read the work having strong opinions on it. And I mean that seriously. So much debate on it online from people that haven't read it.

CrimsonStarFallen said:
I genuinely don't see the problem everyone else does with this still. It's a series that talks about serious and gross subject matters, but is explicitly not pornographic, being rated a +16 in Japan from what I could see.
Click to expand...
As far as I could find not just in Japan, but advertised as such on English and German websites, too.

Agnaa said:
just mentioned that it has sex/****/misogyny and treats those as good.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear (even if it's not important): It doesn't even do that. The story actually tries to have a feministic message (the author says he tried to write a story that appeals to women, as strange as that sounds). Debatable if it succeeds in that message, but it is definitely not in favour of that stuff.
 
DontTalkDT said:
The work is also well known for people that have not actually read the work having strong opinions on it. And I mean that seriously. So much debate on it online from people that haven't read it.
Click to expand...
Even though this is wrong, there is absolutely 0 reason for me to continue this argument not to mention it's going in circles and you clearly won't agree or be convinced, so I'll drop this.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I will say that other verses having worse content is not necessarily an argument for allowing this one
Click to expand...
It is, however, something to keep in mind. We don't want to exactly be hypocritical with what we allow in the wiki. If people don't want this series in the wiki, that's alright, but they would have to change our standards as a whole first.
 
CrimsonStarFallen said:
It is, however, something to keep in mind. We don't want to exactly be hypocritical with what we allow in the wiki. If people don't want this series in the wiki, that's alright, but they would have to change our standards as a whole first.
Click to expand...
It's still weird that haru just causally has a power that came from sex, but if I was the first guy to advocate for a interspecies reviewers profile and I say the sex wasn't massively prevalent to the story or scailing and got it approved through logic then yeah I'll eat my past words on haru.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Hey what

I left for less than an hour, and we're already considering banning discussion of this entirely? Yeah, it's literally 1-1 on the votes for this, trying to silence further discussion would be staff abuse on DT's part. Bambu still disagrees.
Click to expand...
Where in the hell is DT abusing his power IF he literally rejected the discussion rule idea?
 
I believe that this proposal has been rejected, we can move on, as DT said, it shouldn't even be discussed.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
Remind me again what is being put on the chopping block?
Click to expand...
DontTalkDT said:
The work is also well known for people that have not actually read the work having strong opinions on it. And I mean that seriously. So much debate on it online from people that haven't read it.

Just to be clear (even if it's not important): It doesn't even do that. The story actually tries to have a feministic message (the author says he tried to write a story that appeals to women, as strange as that sounds). Debatable if it succeeds in that message, but it is definitely not in favour of that stuff.
Click to expand...
I prefer to hear from someone who has genuinely read the entire series, as others are engaging in debates without even having read it.

DT has shared three chapters of images, which effectively disproves the claims made by numerous members about the presence of "pornographic focused content."
 
Last edited:
This aspect becomes somewhat irrelevant when determining whether the content should be removed or not. It raises the question of why there is a debate based on personal opinions rather than considering whether the verse itself meets the eligibility criteria according to VSBW.

(also cute pfp)

Additionally, our decision to remove a series is not based on personal preference regarding its plot (as that is purely subjective). Instead, we remove a series if its content primarily revolves around explicit sexual material.

Similarly, the series is officially rated as suitable for people aged 16 and above, which invalidates any assertion that it should be classified at level 4 (unless such claim is based on personal opinion).
 
ImmortalDread said:
Scans have never been mandatory nor required. In fact, there is a valid reason for this, as the permanence of links cannot be guaranteed. However, by providing references, you have a reliable source that can be consistently checked.

At the very least, the profile must adhere to established standards.
Click to expand...
scans are very much required???

You cant just slam powers on a page with no proof same with stats and feats, it will be deleted
 
ImmortalDread said:
Which is kinda irrelevant when it comes to decide if the content should be removed or not. Why do y'all debate in grounds of your own opinion rather if the verse itself is eligible or not according to VSBW?
Click to expand...
I mean Oven asked what we were debating about and we are debating about a Isekai with a prostitute mc
Anyways yeah since this is already discussed I think we can end it now
ImmortalDread said:
(also cute pfp)
Click to expand...
https://cdn.**********.com/emojis/1104821705144291369.webp?size=128&quality=lossless
 
DemiiPowa said:
scans are very much guaranteed???

You cant just slam powers on a page with no proof same with stats and feats, it will be deleted
Click to expand...
Demii, please understand that there are no strict rules in place regarding the enforcement of scans. The inclusion of scans is simply a preferred method of referencing, but it is not a mandatory requirement or regulation.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Demii, please understand that there are no strict rules in place regarding the enforcement of scans. The inclusion of scans is simply a preferred method of referencing, but it is not a mandatory requirement or regulation.
Click to expand...
I don't think the rules should say that scans are optional, and that specific section of the rules should be reworked. There are instances of characters not having specific abilities or feats (and it has happened before), but goes under the radar because it not being mandatory.

It leads to messy and/or misinformative pages, which doesn't aid us in being a reliable source of indexing information.
 
DemiiPowa said:
I don't think the rules should say that scans are optional, and that specific section of the rules should be reworked. There are instances of characters not having specific abilities or feats (and it has happened before), but goes under the radar because it not being mandatory.

It leads to messy and/or misinformative pages, which doesn't aid us in being a reliable source of indexing information.
Click to expand...
Which is why References are a thing now AND mandatory
 
There is a distinction between scans and references, and I have already explained why enforcing the use of scans is not preferable. While scans are favored, they still fall under the category of "optional preference," whereas references are mandatory.

In my opinion, I don't believe that a page necessarily requires scans, especially if it means imposing strict limitations on users to exclusively use the wiki platform, rather than utilizing platforms like Imgur or other hosting services. This approach often entails unnecessary work, such as converting YouTube videos into GIFs and adjusting their size, only to upload them again to the wiki.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DarkDragonMedeus
Standardization of Tabber Image Formatting
Replies
12
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Jinx666
'Affiliations' addition (optional) to Character pages
Replies
20
Views
2K
Jinx666
Jinx666
Agnaa
Standard Format - Statistics Section Tabbers
Replies
19
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Just a Random Butler
  • Locked
Proposed Quality of Life Change to the Discussions Template
Replies
31
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Poiesis_Element
Mortal Shell Verse Creation
Replies
20
Views
2K
Poiesis_Element
Poiesis_Element
Back
Top