Profile Deletion Requests Thread (New forum)

[ElajRuengies]

This new user made this page- needs to be moved to a sandbox, assuming these are characters in media and not original ideas like their profile.

[Edit: Seems like they have a history of doing this going by the message wall]

 

[Dragonite007]

This new user made this page- needs to be moved to a sandbox, assuming these are characters in media and not original ideas like their profile.

The character is from The Karate Kid (2010 film)

 

[ElajRuengies]

The character is from The Karate Kid (2010 film)

Cool, still not finished yet

 

[ElajRuengies]

Page is still there, blatantly unfinished

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

This new user made this page- needs to be moved to a sandbox, assuming these are characters in media and not original ideas like their profile.

[Edit: Seems like they have a history of doing this going by the message wall]

Page is still there, blatantly unfinished

I forgot to mention this earlier, but I deleted it.

 

[Bobsican]

Gao Chuan

• No commas between each P&A
• No space before each parenthesis
• Too much blue text

Could at least use a considerable clean-up.

 

[Agnaa]

Gao Chuan

• No commas between each P&A
• No space before each parenthesis
• Too much blue text
• Most sources are in Chinese with no provided translation, on a 1-A page no less

Just looked into it and it doesn't seem that bad.

It seems like all sources are in English, with the Chinese raws posted afterwards in brackets.

I'd prefer someone whips it up into shape; doing so shouldn't be too tough. The verse page needs some fixing too.

After that's done, I'll lock the pages. I don't think deletion is necessary.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Zagreus (Hades)

Zagreus is the prince of the Underworld and son of Hades. Unsatisfied with his life in the House of Hades, and failing at basic administrative work under the tutorship of his strict and demanding father, he attempts to leave initially to reach Mount Olympus. After discovering that he is not born...

vsbattles.fandom.com

The Zagreus profile has no references and virtually no scans.

In the P&A section there are no scans or references. In the High 6-A calculation, there are no scans or references to the feat, just a calculation. And not even the speed has any calculation linked.

The only thing with a scan is the Lifting Strength calculation.

Zagreus is the only profile in the Hades game, and it doesn't have a back page or anything, and the profile hasn't been updated since its creation in 2021.

However, I think that with some dedication from someone (not me) I think the profile can become viable (The P&A section is very well organized in terms of blessings, weapons, souvenirs and companions. You only need to have scans and references, but it is a lot thing)

EDIT: There are also some justifications that use the original myth, something I'm pretty sure you can't use.

Bump

 

[ImmortalDread]

Can we delete Anos LN? Since a staff thread has been created (two; one for the policy addition which affects the verse, and two for allowance of using other version of novel), they are both accepted. Don't see any point for having now a single version of character, if we can create a whole version.

Yes, all supporters do agree with me, @Dereck03 will also work with me.

I will rework on the entire verse in my own, which will take some weeks, but at least it will be under my eyes.

 

[Agnaa]

Can we delete Anos LN? Since a staff thread has been created (two; one for the policy addition which affects the verse, and two for allowance of using other version of novel), they are both accepted. Don't see any point for having now a single version of character, if we can create a whole version.

Yes, all supporters do agree with me, @Dereck03 will also work on me.

I will rework on the entire verse in my own, which will take some weeks, but at least it will be under my eyes.

We do not delete pages to make CRTs easier.

Just revise it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

To make CRTs easier?

I don't understand the reasoning.

 

[Agnaa]

There is only one Anos page that is generically named.

Since there's no duplicate copy of the page to delete, I can only assume that you want me to delete the one version of the character.

The reasoning given in your post is that you want to make a version of the character that combines LN and WN. Since there's only one page, that page would just need to be revised in line with this.

We don't delete pages to make CRTs easier like that.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't get the involvement of CRTs in this topic in general.

 

[Agnaa]

You are looking to revise a character profile to incorporate the WN. That is typically done with a CRT.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You are looking to revise a character profile to incorporate the WN. That is typically done with a CRT.

The CRT has been created and approved.

 

[Agnaa]

So then apply the changes to the profile? Why would you need a deletion if the changes have been accepted?

 

[ImmortalDread]

The allowance has been accepted, yes. This is the reason I want the profile to be deleted, and I can re-create it entirely with other version.

Once again, we have no reason to have half-made profile in this site.

Also, you were arguing for "to make CRT easier" and now once I sent the evidence that the CRT is already made and approved, you changed your premise and reasoning?

 

[Agnaa]

Again, we do not delete profiles so you can skip CRTs.

Re-create it in your own time, create a CRT to replace the current page with the new version, and then update it.

The profile is nowhere near bad enough to justify deleting.

Your same argument could be applied every single time someone wants to revise a verse, and unless the pages are beyond horrendous, we don't allow it. This will not be an exception.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Why am I obligated to create a CRT? I don't get this. Is there any rule for this?

Your same argument could be applied every single time someone wants to revise a verse, and unless the pages are beyond horrendous, we don't allow it. This will not be an exception.

Which in fact, tons of profiles are deleted since people want to revise it to make it better which it is the same case as here.
Also, yes it is bad since it lacks a lot of scans and references.

 

[Agnaa]

Why am I obligated to create a CRT? I don't get this. Is there any rule for this?

We don't have our deletion rules written down anywhere ig, but past precedent is pretty clear. Here's the first three examples I found searching, need I find more?

Which in fact, tons of profiles are deleted since people want to revise it to make it better which it is the same case as here.

We reject those cases whenever we spot them.

Also, yes it is bad since it lacks a lot of scans and references.

Buddy, it has over 134 references, and a comparable amount of scans. If we deleted every profile that was that "badly sourced", then we'd be deleting 98% of the wiki.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So I am obligated to be bounded by unspoken nonexistent rule, and you want me to be reasonable? The profile is half-made, lacks many scans and hell, even it is not completed.

There are many cases, where people do indeed delete profiles to re-create them better, and indeed there is a solid rule for not creating CRTs for profile creation unless it is tier 1 or tier 0, which in this case it is irrelevant.

The CRT has been made and approved, and the page is in fact uncompleted.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Buddy, it has over 134 references, and a comparable amount of scans. If we deleted every profile that was that "badly sourced", then we'd be deleting 98% of the wiki.

This is half of the whole version. It is uncompleted. The verse is over 14 volumes, and this is 3?!? (not even half, ah let me calculate 21%?)

 

[Agnaa]

So I am obligated to be bounded by unspoken nonexistent rule, and you want me to be reasonable? The profile is half-made, lacks many scans and hell, even it is not completed.

All deletion rules are unspoken. But I know, and have shown you, precedent for them.

It seems strange for you to say I'm "enforcing an unspoken rule", when you want me to enforce another unspoken rule.

I've answered all of your other points in my previous posts, so I'll leave things there.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Which unspoken rule I was enforcing on you? I can pretty sure cite each of my claim about rules. You indeed did not answer to the point that I don't see any reason for having 21% uncompleted page in the site.

 

[DaReaperMan]

And? Dread, it's Maou Gakuin, I think there's precedent to not trust the supporters to try and slip in multiple-times rejected shit like Plot Manipulation into Anos' profile

 

[ImmortalDread]

Dareaperman, before you involve yourself, give one damn instance where we indeed added plot manipulation to the profile without a revision.

This is an accusation. Your opinion on the community has 0 relevance, and indeed derailing. And you were trying to create a toxic environment here.

 

[Agnaa]

Which unspoken rule I was enforcing on you?

Anything about deletion. We have almost zero rules on deletion. Only explicitly mentioning media that hasn't been released yet, copying bad profiles from other wikis, new pages with zero references, pages with almost no justifications, pages with bad formatting, and pages which have almost no content. None of those apply here.

You indeed did not answer to the point that I don't see any reason for having 21% uncompleted page in the site.

Your same argument could be applied every single time someone wants to revise a verse, and unless the pages are beyond horrendous, we don't allow it. This will not be an exception.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Your same argument could be applied every single time someone wants to revise a verse, and unless the pages are beyond horrendous, we don't allow it. This will not be an exception.

Anything about deletion. We have almost zero rules on deletion. Only explicitly mentioning media that hasn't been released yet, copying bad profiles from other wikis, new pages with zero references, pages with almost no justifications, pages with bad formatting, and pages which have almost no content. None of those apply here.

Actually, I am talking about CRTs. There is no rule for me to create a CRT for creating a profile unless it is tier 1/0.
Wait, so we can now add uncompleted profiles? Is this your implication? Since as I stated above, the profile is uncompleted.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Dareaperman, before you involve yourself, give one damn instance where we indeed added plot manipulation to the profile without a revision.

This is an accusation. Your opinion on the community has 0 relevance, and indeed derailing. And you were trying to create a toxic environment here.

I NEVER said ya'll did ms. Strawman, I Basically said i wouldn't put it past them. I believe that trust is out the window after the usage repeatedly for damn near everything of MTL. Which got the OG Anos profile nuked.

 

[Agnaa]

Actually, I am talking about CRTs. There is no rule for me to create a CRT for creating a profile unless it is tier 1/0.

Editing Rules

Before making sweeping or significant changes to characters or verse pages, please start a thread in our Content Revision forum first, so that the suggestions may be evaluated by our Staff and our community at large, to ensure that they are acceptable. The concluding evaluations must be handled by Thread Moderators, Administrators, or Bureaucrats, who should make an effort to base their evaluations on valid arguments, not personal opinions.

It's not about creating profiles, it's about revising them. You need to create CRTs for revisions, and we don't allow deleting mostly fine profiles to remake them 2 weeks later to get around that.

Wait, so we can now add uncompleted profiles? Is this your implication? Since as I stated above, the profile is uncompleted.

We can add "uncompleted profiles" in terms of "doesn't cover all of the source material". And we have even more tolerance for profiles that were originally complete when posted, but became less complete over time.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Actually, I am talking about CRTs. There is no rule for me to create a CRT for creating a profile unless it is tier 1/0.
Wait, so we can now add uncompleted profiles? Is this your implication? Since as I stated above, the profile is uncompleted.

Uh, lady? There IS actually a rule last I checked saying you can't remake a previously deleted profile without a CRT

 

[Deceived3596]

It seems like we need more concrete standards for what classifies as "deletion worthy" since the vast majority of this conversation has been about unspoken rules which aren't even codified into our rule set.

 

[DaReaperMan]

It seems like we need more concrete standards for what classifies as "deletion worthy" since the vast majority of this conversation has been about unspoken rules which aren't even codified into our rule set.

I can get behind this

 

[ImmortalDread]

I won't respond to @DaReaperMan since with all respect, he is being irrelevant here and simply trying to create a toxic chat. If he still quoted me and trying to bait me to the conv, I will be reporting him.

Editing Rules

This is referring to the existing pages. Irrelevant to this case.

It's not about creating profiles, it's about revising them. You need to create CRTs for revisions, and we don't allow deleting mostly fine profiles to remake them 2 weeks later to get around that.

There is no “revising” in this case. I am adding the entire verse which enforces the deletion of the profile, I am not doing a duplication here.

We can add "uncompleted profiles" in terms of "doesn't cover all of the source material". And we have even more tolerance for profiles that were originally complete when posted, but became less complete over time.

Now I am interested to know the rule on this because according to this, we can create multiple same profiles and each of them covers a bit.

 

[Agnaa]

Already responded to the rest in earlier posts.

Now I am interested to know the rule on this because according to this, we can create multiple same profiles and each of them covers a bit.

No. We only allow that when there is so much content that cramming it all into one profile would be unwieldy, like Goku, Luffy, and Naruto.

 

[ImmortalDread]

My brother in christ (or atheism, or idk), this is now the worst instance to use. They are not “uncompleted”. They are in fact, completed but divided. This is the biggest difference between their case and ours.

 

[Agnaa]

My brother in christ, this is now the worst instance to use. They are not “uncompleted”. They are in fact, completed but divided. This is the biggest difference between their case and ours.

I know, I was just bringing up the only example where we allow multiple pages for the same character, since you asked about that.

If you want a different way of approaching your earlier talking point, your idea makes no sense. Just because we don't delete profiles because they fail to cover 100% of a character's source material, does not mean we'd have to let people create multiple profiles for a character. That is nonsensical.

And I have already answered the part about your desire to find that rule:

Anything about deletion. We have almost zero rules on deletion. Only explicitly mentioning media that hasn't been released yet, copying bad profiles from other wikis, new pages with zero references, pages with almost no justifications, pages with bad formatting, and pages which have almost no content. None of those apply here.

 

[AThe1412]

Hey guys, not looking to interrupt or anything.

Someone needs to check what new Roblox profiles have been made, because some of them absolutely shouldn't be allowed on the wiki. Such as this profile, which is from a game that is obviously a One Piece fan-game.

• The game is titled Blox Fruits (Obviously references Devil Fruits)
• The profile mentions the Pirates and Marines, which are factions from One Piece
• It also lists the accessories and swords the player can have access to, which are, you've guessed it, actual items and weapons from One Piece

Anyways, I found this profile. Blox Fruits is gone because fan games aren't allowed and this one is basically a repeat of it. Not surprised that it went unnoticed though, it wasn't even in the Roblox category.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I know, I was just bringing up the only example where we allow multiple pages for the same character, since you asked about that.

Well, sure. But I requested a definitive rule for it, not instance. Instances to use or compare are atrocious. They have their own setting, context and backstory.

If you want a different way of approaching your earlier talking point, your idea makes no sense. Just because we don't delete profiles because they fail to cover 100% of a character's source material, does not mean we'd have to let people create multiple profiles for a character. That is nonsensical.

Agreed, hence your introduction of the idea was a bit unwanted here or to be precise irrelevant here, no offense.

And I have already answered the part about your desire to find that rule:

To simplify; there is no rule here suggests against the deletion, but you still think it is unreasonably based to your own reasoning. Fair approach.

Alright, I will list my own reasoning for the deletion, so other staff members can decide the fate:

• The profile is uncompleted (has 21% of source materials, needs a better formatting)
• The thread about its approval and allowance is accepted, therefore no CRT is needed.
• There is no rule to create a CRT for creating a profile or verse unless it is high-tiered (tier 1/tier 0)
• It lacks a lot of calculations and keys. (significant keys to the story)
• The thread about adding other versions such as visual novel or web novel is allowed and got also approved.
• I will be creating a whole verse in sandboxes, and a CRT for it, like I do as usual.

 

[Agnaa]

Hey guys, not looking to interrupt or anything.

Anyways, I found this profile. Blox Fruits is gone because fan games aren't allowed and this one is basically a repeat of it. Not surprised that it went unnoticed though, it wasn't even in the Roblox category.

Deleted, and told the creator about it.

Dread's latest post.

Already responded to those points, and gave my reasons for why it should stay, earlier.