My "The Average Human" profile discussion thread

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Before we settle the verdict, just want to quickly state a few points myself.

1: If I'm not wrong, the main rules about having real-life people is having SPECIFIC (mostly famous or otherwise notable, which also extends to stuff like targeting other people by either real or online name) real-life individuals as main subjects/topics of a wiki itself or a wiki/forum article/thread (so not as examples of feats or other less major parts of the discussion), so if we're talking about any general human or the human species as a whole (same as we do with other living beings in real life, thus addressing the point about moral standing of living beings with regard to comparing humans to other living beings), that should not pose an issue.

2: I find the "brutality and ethics" point as well as the "knowledge of how to kill people" point both a bit weird as well, because ironically enough, Wikipedia has detailed articles on how specific people have died as well as what stuff in the universe is deadly to us and how/why they are deadly (such as toxic chemicals and radiation and various types of injury, at times with graphic potential NSFW/NSFL imagery and/or details), and while I can understand that Fandom and forums do not have the same ruleset as Wikipedia and I agree about not discussing specific individuals and not using graphic imagery or details, there have been many brutal fictional and real events of the sort on various platforms of media.
Again, as a compromise, I would think discussing general means as to how any general real-life living being (so again, not specific named/famous/notable individuals) can be harmed and/or die (as well as how and why such means are life-threatening and otherwise harmful) in addition to how they can be helped and/or brought (back) to life or otherwise have their life sustained (as well as how and why such means are life-saving and otherwise helpful) would be overall acceptable to a degree in the name of information dissemination as long as we adhere to the above about not discussing specific individuals and not using graphic potential NSFW/NSFL imagery and/or details.

These look like good points. I was already aware that real individuals aren't allowed to be indexed, meanwhile the entire point of "The Real World" being on the VS Battles Wiki is just to be used as a general reference when real things appear in fiction, but I figured there was something inappropriate about using real information about criminals as evidence. I know real criminology itself isn't bad, but I went along with not including it just to be safe. Should we check in with an administrator to confirm whether or not adding real criminology to the profile would be against the rules?

3: To be honest, I'd rather just keep the Composite Human profile and not use an Average Human profile since "average" is hard to define/measure and often subject to context and expectations which would lead us to a LOT of debating due to the inherent near-limitless potential we have (only limited by our resources and characteristics/traits), whereas peak of abilities is easier to define/measure, and due to our format on profiles, is easier to structure and leaves less room for debate.

Fair opinion, but whether or not the profile will be prepared doesn't look like it's up for debate.

4: Additionally, regarding prehistoric and modern humans (using perhaps the period of the starting of civilisations (the general part of human history where civilisations began to arise, as we transitioned from more active hunting and gathering to more sedentary agriculture) as the boundary for prehistoric vs modern), we should always keep in mind that the daily lives of those different types of humans are vastly different due to our different lifestyles and demands for sustainment of such lifestyles, which also correlate with the different features/characteristics/traits that were developed during the evolution of these different types of humans (H3, sorry, but I suggest that you look back to the articles I sent you about the archaic humans since they had details about their anatomy).
For example, we should consider that prehistoric humans would have to hunt large prey animals such as bison and compete with other predators such as the big cats and bears with relatively crude and primitive tools such as wooden fire-hardened and/or stone-tipped spears, clubs and perhaps bows and arrows as well as strategies/tactics like endurance hunting, whereas by the time civilisation arose and modern humans started to flourish, said modern humans would have domesticated animals and plants to either aid them or sustain them, and also developed more efficient and effective tactics and tools for defence and offence which could be used for both hunting and combat (as noted by depictions of gymnasiums and fighting techniques and weapons in ancient civilisations).

That seems right to me. Like last time, what I think of this doesn't really matter because I'm not familiar enough with prehistoric humans.