• 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 AKM sama if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.

Fixing the Situation With Locations...

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
If it's 5 against 4, that's not nearly enough agreement to change anything. You'd need a considerable staff support in order to push for some change. I'd argue that some of the people in the neutral list are also more along the lines of disagreement.
It's also not nearly enough to accept this as rejected. I would like more staff input.
Three of four neutrals have implied or even stated they agree with a portion of the OP, but would like to be considered neutral, if they were leaning towards disagreement they would be in disagreement section.
This is a matter of wiki policy. Bureaucrats are the highest authority on the site to decide which policies to implement. If all of them share the same opinion on something like this and when there is no overwhelming support on the other side, I'm afraid there's nothing much to do about it. Not to take anything away from staff members or even regular users, but ranks and authority are there for a reason.
This does not mean their word is absolute in any way, with respect.
You're asking people to either agree with you, or keep debating with you until they give up and agree with you. You just have to accept that not all things get accepted.
I never once said this. This is what the opposition is doing if anything. I'm just asking for actual points to be made. I've removed portions of the OP which disagreed with me, and have accepted points going against what I would argue for. I do not like being considered unfair, and would never try to be such, please do not imply that I'm doing this for selfish reasons.
Once actual valid reasons for rejection are given, and they heavily outweigh the reasons of acceptance, I will gladly remove parts of the OP, like I have already.
 

Promestein

Fourth Kind
VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
7,878
3,704
I still don't get why people who just came in to say "yeah I agree" are being counted and treated on the same level, rhetorically speaking, as actual debate and argument.
Once actual valid reasons for rejection are given, and they heavily outweigh the reasons of acceptance, I will gladly remove parts of the OP, like I have already.
See, this is the issue. You're hinging this purely on your own judgment on what's a valid reason to disagree, and only accepting it if it heavily outweighs your own reasoning. That's never going to happen. You're not going to capitulate; why should we keep engaging with someone who tells us our reasons for disagreeing aren't valid, based entirely off his own subjective judgments?
 

AKM sama

An unKnowledgeable soMeone
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
9,613
9,506
It's also not nearly enough to accept this as rejected. I would like more staff input.
You can call for more staff input, that's not a problem. But you need considerable support to get something accepted. The reverse is not true. If considerable support is not there to accept something, nothing will change. Practically, it's as good as being rejected. That's how things work.

This does not mean their word is absolute in any way, with respect.
I don't mean to be rude, so I'm sorry if I'm causing offense. But from what I said, it means that it is absolute in cases related to wiki policies.

I'm just asking for actual points to be made.
I've said this many times, but just because you don't acknowledge other people's reasons because they are not good enough actual reasons in your perspective, doesn't mean they are not reasons. Similarly, I am not seeing any good enough productive reasons from your side and hence why I am disagreeing, it doesn't mean I am not acknowledging them.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,278
3,112
You're asking people to either agree with you, or keep debating with you until they give up and agree with you.
Might I add Kieran loops his arguments ad infinitum unless you concede on it, or call him out on it. This isn't how you argue subjectives since neither of us can "debunk" each other, you're meant to appeal to the third party then, which in this case are the other staff members.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
At the very least I'm glad this discussion has stayed reasonable and hasn't got heated. Thank you for this, as this subject in general has not been like this overall admittedly.

I do not believe that I am pushing my own opinion on relevance of the oppositions points, If I am I do not mean to.
I am simply stating that as of currently, people have agreed against the opposition. But the opposition has not given reason against the current points against themselves.
 

Elizhaa

Close enough to enzyme-linked immunoassay acronym!
VS Battles
Sysop
13,521
4,183
From what I read, I think I disagree with the OP, from the likes of Promestein and AKM's points.
 
Last edited:

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
So can somebody write a summary of the differences between Impress' and Kieran's versions of the page please?
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
I will attempt to compile each point for and against each subject brought up then.
This may take a while though, this is a big subject with a lot of stuff that has been discussed.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
I just want a concise easily understood list of the differences between the two versions of the locations page. That is all.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
The OP details a summarized conclusion to the rest of the thread. This generally hasn't changed.
  • The following should be taken off of the current Format:
  1. "Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis."
  2. "Locations with extremely inconsistent structures with no canonical reasoning are not allowed."
  3. "Locations that are already covered by another profile are subject to heavy scrutiny in regards to their necessity."
  4. "If a location is better represented by another profile format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above format."
  • The following should be added to the current Format:
    1. Regarding Inconsistent Locations:
      • "If a Location is randomly generated or differs each time it is seem, but still retains the same notable features, then compositing the page is allowed, as while they may differ in shape, this is the only difference found, all notable features are still the same."
      • "If Locations differ between incarnations, to the point they cannot be considered the same location, then compositing the location is not allowed. Different profiles between incarnations must be made, as compositing pages like this creates a bad precedent and overall pointlessly messy pages.
    2. Regarding the Hazards Section:
      • The "Hazards" subsection should be added to the "Notable Features" section of the Format.
        • "Hazards: Any physical Hazards present in the Location (Such as Spikes, Saws, Chains, Traps, and more)"
    3. Regarding 'Mundane' Locations:
      • "Fictional incarnations of Real World Locations are not allowed. These often differ in little to no ways from their Real World counterparts, so are considered redundant."
      • "Locations for regular cities, buildings, etc are permitted if they act to benefit another profile in some way (Such as Avengers Tower benefiting certain characters as a form of Standard Equipment"
      • "In the same manor, Locations with absolutely no notable features are strictly disallowed. These include the likes of random buildings from fiction, much like we strictly disallow profiles for extras, or regular humans."
    4. Regarding Merging Formats:
      • "If a Location is also considered another form of Profile, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is most reliable to simply merge the page formats, allowing for information of each format to be present on the Profile. (Attack Potency, Notable Inhabitants, Wielders, etc)."
        • "Please see the following profiles for examples on such a profile: Hell (Doom), Ego (Marvel Cinematic Universe), The Death Star, etc." (These will have their formats merged once this goes through)
        • "Please attempt to keep relevant statistics in the correct area on a merged profile relevant to one another. This means ensuring that the Tier section stays at the top of a page, and that Attack Potency stays above Speed, etc."
        • IF the notes here don't seem like enough for some reason, then a very early draft of the order every statistic should be in is here, with an explanation of their placement.
    5. Regarding the Passive Effects section:
      • The "Passive Effects" section should be renamed to either "Notable Effects" or preferably back to "Powers & Abilities" on the format as not all effects would be passive. We changed it on the count of "Powers & Abilities sounds weird" which does not override the fact that it's impractical to change it. If we are changing it though, something similar to "Notable Effects" would be better than "Passive Effects"
    6. Regarding Examples:
      • I didn't give this a full section of it's own because it's genuinely a super small, not so important thing... But the examples could generally be better in my honest opinion. As while each of them is noticeable in it's own verse, a lot of users may not know all of them for one reason or another.
I have taken out what has been fully rejected (By points and majority)
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
Colonel_Krukov, Therefir, KingTempest, ElixirBlue, Starter_Pack, Elizhaa, AKM, Promestein, Zark, Mr._Bambu, Sir_Ovens, DarkDragonMedeus, and DontTalk have all given input here.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
They have already given their input here?
I meant we should bring more staff into this thread. Who haven't commented yet.
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
4,188
1,562
I agree with the post.

I don't know what "the Lookout" is, contrary to the "even those who don't follow the series would know what that is" rule, but I'm sure it's fine to keep.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
It's the only Dragon Ball location I myself knew of, so I assumed it would be popular enough to work.
If there are any other Locations from Anime that you may know of that would be a better example, feel free to mention them. I just wanted to have locations from various medias.
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
4,188
1,562
I'm really not knowledgeable when it comes to anime, but from what I know, either the Shadow Realm or Pallet Town is probably the best I could think of.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
They have already given their input here?
I meant we should bring more staff into this thread. Who haven't commented yet.
Well, I did that previously, and these are the ones that were interested enough to reply.

Also, I wanted some clarifications regarding what is or isn't acceptable.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
Yes, but we know their stances. Everyone has confirmed their stance in this thread upon being asked, and nobody seems to be ready to change. So we seemingly need more staff opinions.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
Not really. We have received enough staff members who reply and should not pester those who are not interested any further. The most constructive solution is if we get clarifications from everybody who are already here regarding what they find acceptable, especially given that none of this will pass otherwise, given that the bureaucrats are opposed, and you need a clear consensus to pass significant wiki policy changes. Otherwise we might as well simply close this thread immediately, since nothing is going to happen here.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
You yourself have said there isn't enough staff backing on this thread.
We already know the opinions of the staff here, as I have said. So we need more input here.
The other two Bureaucrats have said that their word is not absolute against our staff. Yes, because it is a wiki policy, so their word means a lot, but this thread is even as of now. There is a majority agreement but the disagreement are Bureaucrats so the thread has stayed open, which I have been fine with, but now you are attempting to close a thread because you disagree with it and do not want to get further staff involved. Which is not helpful.

I also already gave my thoughts on the matter and otherwise still neutral.
What were your thoughts? Are you referring to your statement that the OP making good points? I will keep you as neutral, but would just like to know.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
I also already gave my thoughts on the matter and otherwise still neutral.
Okay. I was thinking that maybe several staff members could go through the suggestions that I linked to point by point, to get some progress with this, as otherwise we will unfortunately likely have to close this thread instead.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
You yourself have said there isn't enough staff backing on this thread.
We already know the opinions of the staff here, as I have said. So we need more input here.
The other two Bureaucrats have said that their word is not absolute against our staff. Yes, because it is a wiki policy, so their word means a lot, but this thread is even as of now. There is a majority agreement but the disagreement are Bureaucrats so the thread has stayed open, which I have been fine with, but now you are attempting to close a thread because you disagree with it and do not want to get further staff involved. Which is not helpful.
No, I am trying to get some structure regarding which specific points that people disagree with or find acceptable, as otherwise nothing will happen here, given that bureaucrats have the final say regarding wiki policy changes, and you also need a clear staff consensus in order to pass such revisions, as I said earlier.

I personally do not have strong opinions regarding all of these points. I mainly trust the judgements of the other bureaucrats, and am trying to find some sort of constructive conclusions.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
I have given this already. We know the stances of our staff that have commented.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
Well, I think that I already sent notifications to most of our staff, so unless people collaborate with me to get much more point by point specific, I doubt that much will happen here.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
You sent it at the start of the thread before anything had happened. We have since had 3 pages of discussion and are waiting on a conclusion.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
Okay.

@The_Impress

Would you be willing to help me out here, by writing a point by point evaluation of the points in the post linked below, so I can ask our remaining staff members what they think, with both sides evenly presented, please? I would appreciate the help.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,278
3,112
I'll actually be busy for a few days, exam results n stuff going on for me, so I can't exactly debate in-depth, which IS the trend of this CRT :v

If anyone wants to substitute for me in debating my points, users did agree afterall, they're free to, otherwise I'll respond weeks later, most likely.

Kieran you're accommodating for this delay, right?
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
I am doing what I can to get this thread complete as fair as possible. Yes.

Good luck with your exams, I know how they feel, you have nothing to worry about!
 

ElixirBlue

VS Battles
Content Moderator
8,755
1,650
I agree with it being acceptable from my end.

Not liking the wording here. Avengers Tower was used as an example twice. Just cutting it short is fine

"Locations for regular cities, buildings, etc, are permitted if they act to benefit another profile as a form of Standard Equipment"
 

ElixirBlue

VS Battles
Content Moderator
8,755
1,650
  • "If Locations differ between incarnations, to the point they cannot be considered the same location, then compositing the location is not allowed. Different profiles between incarnations must be made, as compositing pages like this creates a bad precedent and overall pointlessly messy pages.
Huff 😠
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,728
You are avoiding tagging Staff.
No, I just want things properly organised in the usual manner of each side presenting their summarised arguments before I start sending notifications to them again.

Also, I have tried to be helpful, patient and respectful above, given that you are a highly valued staff member.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
I understand this. But it is a very large task to summarize every argument given in a thread like this, it would be more reliable to give the information we know (The OP Summary, and the Current Consensus which briefly details users arguments) and let staff decide.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
Ok, I have gone back through the thread multiple times over, spending multiple hours on this comment alone, and using the original comment of the general stances users have given, summarized each point everyone has given that refers to the OPs points directly.
For the record, I still don't believe this is that helpful, and with that said, now that we have a summary balanced to the oppositions liking and I have complied with what they want, I would like more staff to be called here (Who haven't already commented).

While this is a summary, this is a long thread and the request was every given point for and against, so this is a long comment...

The current consensus seems to be:
Agree: (14, 6 Staff)
I have formatted the below sections as such: Regular text is points for the users point, bold text detail points against them.

Disagree
: (8, 5 Staff)
  • AKM sama
    • Seems to generally disagree with the OP, stands by his opinions in the original thread, and generally prefers Zarks version
      • Believes that too many Location Profiles is not necessary and that the number should be kept low because we already have too many profiles
        • I believe that not creating Location Profiles will barely help this issue
      • Believes that Battles are the sole reason Locations should be created for
        • The OP of the original thread disproves this, there are at least 3 or 4 other relevant reasons to create Location Profiles.
      • Believes that Location Profiles will not benefit characters
        • Every thread made gives many examples against this:
          • Locations can be used as Attacks, Equipment, Abilities, or Justifications, among much more
      • Believes that Characters should have more profiles, and that most weapon and civilization profiles are redundant (Locations would be included here)
        • I do not see why we have the formats if they are not needed
      • Believes Locations different enough to not be composited are not different enough to be considered separate
        • I personally do not understand the logic here, if a location is different enough to be decomposited, by definition they should be different enough to be considered separate
  • Promestein
    • Seems to disagree with what should qualify for a profile, generally agrees with Zark
      • Believes that the number of Location Profiles should be kept low as few location profiles can diversify battles
        • This is not the only reason for Locations to be created.
      • Believes "Notable Effects" sounds fine
      • Believes "Page merging isn't necessarily wrong in some cases but is dumb in others"
      • Believes that splitting different incarnations of Locations shouldn't be done
        • "We don't need pages for the same locations"
        • Believes it is a generally bad idea unless Locations are sufficiently different (Having more than just a different structure, etc)
          • I have mentioned that this is pretty much what the OP states in most cases.
            • Promestein has not since replied
      • Is fine with the rule below:
        • "If a Location is randomly generated or differs each time it is seem, but still retains the same notable features, then compositing the page is allowed, as while they may differ in shape, this is the only difference found, all notable features are still the same."
      • Disagrees with what is a relevant difference in a Location Profile
        • "The location has to have something to offer with interesting effects or hazards or an unconventional environment."
      • Believes Locations that come under some form of equipment (Or attacks) should simply be listed in the characters profile.
        • I believe it's much more efficient to make a location profile for many reasons
          • We can summarize information much easier and more reliably than explaining an entire location's ability set in the bottom of a character profile with many paragraphs
          • Most of the time if there's a location (Such as The Mirror Dimension) there's multiple characters who can use it (Many sorcerors in this example), so instead of copy pasting paragraphs of text between profiles, simply add a link to one singular profile between them, this stops multiple profiles between verses from being clogged up in a single action.
          • Promestein later mentioned this subject should be case-by-case
      • Believes if a Location has equipment inside, it is better to simply list the equipment on a characters profile?
        • Given examples are the Iron Legion, Jarvis, etc from Avengers Tower being given to Iron Man.
          • I believe this is still incorrect as Iron Man only generally has full access to these inside Avengers Tower (The Iron Legion being the main subject here), so a profile for such is still very relevant and more reliable than a paragraph.
  • Antvasima
    • Agrees with AKM and Promestein
  • NomsNoms
  • The_Impress
    • Believes irregular structures should be completely disallowed
      • A user cannot know where a door or chest is in relation to a character during a battle.
        • I have mentioned that even the current format does not allow for this level of detail.
        • I have also detailed that no user is going in to that much detail in a battle, an opinion Promestein showed earlier in the thread
    • Believes profiles for sub-location of existing areas should be disallowed
      • Location Profiles should detail all relevant areas
        • I have mentioned that this would create massive walls of incomprehensible, unformated text that could not be easily avoided
          • Zark believes it leads to repetitive filemaking
            • This makes little sense, as the reason a location would be split into multiple sub-locations would be because they are different in nature to the other areas inside
    • Believes the Hazards section isn't needed
      • Believes it is covered by the current format in stats like "Notable areas" or "Notable objects"
        • I have mentioned that our users are already confused by our current format and what goes where, and were confused when we initially removed the hazards format.
  • DaReaperMan
  • Tllmbrg
  • Elizhaa (Has stated they agree with Promestein and AKMs points)
  • Somebodydata (Believes location profiles as a whole are unnecessary)

Neutral: (4 Staff)
  • Mr._Bambu
    • Agrees with the points he hasn't commented on.
    • Disagrees with Merging Formats.
      • Believes if a Profile is better covered by another format, it should be that.
      • Believes no sentient locations should be allowed, such as Hell (Doom), as it is the same case as Jabu-Jabu from Ocarina of Time, a fish which the player can enter.
        • I believe that the stomach of a creature and an entire sentient location are very different cases, as Hell is the location, the stomach is inside a creature, the stomach is not sentient.
          • Bambu does not believe this is sufficient.
      • Believes it would confuse new members as to why some profiles are merged.
        • I believe this is not a major issue for many reasons
          • We already allow statistics from Character profiles on other profiles, this would not be much different
          • Our formats are very easy to read and understand, simply having different statistics on some pages is not so confusing
          • The OP has detailed that we'll give clear and concise guidelines to stop any confusion of our members
            • Bambu does not believe this is sufficient.
    • Neutral on changing "Passive Effects"
      • Agrees it is a minor point, subject was dropped.
  • Sir_Ovens
    • Hasn't given a major stance
  • DarkDragonMedeus
    • Has stated the OP has made good points, but wishes to be considered neutral
  • DontTalkDT
    • Stance uncertain, opinions seemingly generally similar to what is being proposed, minor differences, but they have stated they believe they are different. No discussion has come after this discussion.

I cannot continue to be forced to make comments like this, forcing me to go through entire threads multiple times over to explain information that has already been discussed, instead of just asking more staff to give their opinion on the already summarized Original Post, is a quick way to deteriorate my motivation here entirely, being truthful.
So I repeat, I would like Staff to be asked here to comment on both this, and to read through the OP. I understand they may not wish to, if not they don't have to, but a notification is not that much of a pester, and could bring a lot more members here to conclude this subject.
 
Last edited:

Mr._Bambu

Old Stoneface, Terrier of the Wiki
VS Battles
Sysop
Calculation Group
15,372
6,059
Bambu has since replied stating he feels the defense of those aspects was insufficient, but wished to avoid droning on about points other people were not interested in. Thanks.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
I thought I would get in trouble as Ant declined my request and was enforcing it did not happen, thank you for telling me.

@Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Dino_Ranger_Black @JustSomeWeirdo @LordGriffin1000 @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @The_Impress @QuasiYuri @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Jasonsith @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @Amelia_Lonelyheart

I am sorry, I understand that you have all been asked here once already, this thread is becoming quite long, and is not getting very far any time soon.
The comment above are the current stances of every user so far, and where each argument is on each subject. Any input would be appreciated regarding these.

There is a TLDR at the bottom of the OP summarizing each subject too for those that do not have much time to read the entire OP.
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
4,188
1,562
I didn't receive a ping notification so you might not be able ping people. I thought you need to be a thread mod, admin or bureaucrat to do so?

Regardless, you know I still agree.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
That is strange. I have tagged people in the past and they have received notifications. Perhaps it is because you were already here? I'm unsure.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,958
2,332
It honestly sounds like there are too many problems to discuss with location pages to adequately have them on this site. And that's ignoring how entirely unnecessary they seem?

EDIT:

To add to my thoughts: just looking at the effort Kieran had to put into summarizing everyones' opinions shows how entirely impossible it'll be to achieve a singular consensus.

The only side in agreement (Coincidently, the side that agrees with the revisions) seems to mostly consist of people who haven't really contributed to the debate which honestly tells me, especially on a thread with points reaching the two digits, that a significant portion hasn't actually read the thread or have already made up their mind before the thread's discussions began.

And for what? Location profiles are entirely irrelevant to the character indexing and only barely relevant in vs threads, which we've managed without any need of location profiles for years.

Location indexing sounds more like something for a new site than vsbattles.
 
Last edited:

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,587
1,786
I don't believe the lack of discussion for agreement means they haven't read the thread. There isn't much to discuss if they agree with what they see after all.

If you believe locations as a format are unnecessary then I will note this in the summary.

I personally believe that a few of the points you bring up aren't 100% accurate, as locations will help a lot of profiles in many ways, not just for versus battles. They can be used to give further formatted information about a dimension or realm a character may be capable of BFRing to (such as the MCUs Mirror Dimension, or Kung Fu Pandas Spirit Realm), or they can detail equipment more accurately then simply adding paragraphs to a character profile, they can also help with cosmologies, and more.

Thank you for commenting though, all input is appreciated.
 
Top