• 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.
Rakudai Kishi no Cavalry

A quick browsing shows that the pages lack scans for most powers, but everything else is in good state from a glance, I'd like other thoughts on this case as it's a dead verse from what I've heard, and it seems no one is interested lately on raising the quality of the pages.
 
Rakudai Kishi no Cavalry

A quick browsing shows that the pages lack scans for most powers, but everything else is in good state from a glance
Looking through the profiles, it seems like there was some kind of speed revision that wasn't applied to the needed profiles or something, and as a result the Speed ratings look to be all over the place

Ikki:
Speed: Massively Hypersonic (1/20th of his Ittou Shura speed)

Stella:
Speed: High Hypersonic (Comparable to Ikki)

Ayase
Speed: Likely Hypersonic+ (Shouldn't be that much slower than Ikki and Stella)

Utakata
Speed: Average Human movement speed, with Massively Hypersonic, likely Massively Hypersonic+ reactions (Could watch the fight between Ikki and Stella)
 
Last edited:
I agree. Aca 5 without an explanation is a big no no but maybe we can just remove the ones that dont have any justification and leave the rest?
I think I was too late but I've read the vast bulk of Xeelee works albeit it was quite a while ago.

IIRC, They have Acausality Type 5 because of the Sugar Lumps, a Xeelee technology that locks the Xeelee into a closed timelike curve in which there is no 'cause' nor starting point for the Xeelee's creation; No matter what, at any single point in history the Xeelee will exist regardless of if you erased them all at a certain point in time.

To put it simply: The Xeelee themselves are the cause of their own existence.
 
Wait, why removing this work? It is still plenty hard work from people. The issue can be solved to add references or scans, but not direct deletion?
Actual respect that the profiles are still outstanding, and specially MC with his formatting.

But it is nowhere a dead verse, it is pretty famous series. And even if its dead, you can't simply delete every dead verse that has been heavily worked on.
It is the same argument, that verses that has no longer continued should be deleted.
 
Wait, why removing this work? It is still plenty hard work from people. The issue can be solved to add references or scans, but not direct deletion?
Actual respect that the profiles are still outstanding, and specially MC with his formatting.

But it is nowhere a dead verse, it is pretty famous series. And even if its dead, you can't simply delete every dead verse that has been heavily worked on.
It is the same argument, that verses that has no longer continued should be deleted.
Well it lacks scans, lacks consistency, and lacks references. The main supporters have also since left.

Unless you or some other person or group is willing to go through the novels and update the pages ASAP, it should be deleted.
 
Because it was created prior to the new reference obligation rule.
Unless you think we need to delete every verse priorly to the new rule, you are destroying the fandom by that.

The verse is pretty much known and popular, the work is definitely not cheap, and it was invested significantly.
 
Because it was created prior to the new reference obligation rule.
Unless you think we need to delete every verse priorly to the new rule, you are destroying the fandom by that.

The verse is pretty much known and popular, the work is definitely not cheap, and it was invested significantly.
Okay, that doesn't change our guidelines which require scans, references, and consistency between profiles.

If you find other profiles that don't meet the guidelines, then report them here. That's the point of this thread.

"Popularity" doesn't matter. Nor does the age of the profile. And the novel of this series is not that popular. The verse has essentially zero supporters here right now.
 
No, there is absolutely no rule to remove every verse before the creation of new reference guideline because it lacks references.

By that you are removing half of profiles simply of this argument.

Also, which consistency are you talking about? The verse pretty much holds a good balance in consistency, I only see lacking references, but otherwise the profiles are actually outstanding and created very well.
 
No, there is absolutely no rule to remove every verse before the creation of new reference guideline because it lacks references.

By that you are removing half of profiles simply of this argument.

Also, which consistency are you talking about? The verse pretty much holds a good balance in consistency, I only see lacking references, but otherwise the profiles are actually outstanding and created very well.
If pages do not have references, they need to be updated to fit our current standards, otherwise they are candidates for deletion.

Not only do these pages lack refs, they lack scans, and the statistics aren't even correct.

I don't know what pages you're looking at but the only Rakudai page with any effort put into it is Ikki, and even he has a severe lack of scans and no references.

So, not seeing what you're getting at here. If you're not going to update them, then stop suggesting that we keep blatantly lackluster pages.
 
If pages do not have references, they need to be updated to fit our current standards, otherwise they are candidates for deletion.

Not only do these pages lack refs, they lack scans, and the statistics aren't even correct.

I don't know what pages you're looking at but the only Rakudai page with any effort put into it is Ikki, and even he has a severe lack of scans and no references.

So, not seeing what you're getting at here. If you're not going to update them, then stop suggesting that we keep blatantly lackluster pages.
We actually said we apply reference / scan requirements only to new pages, as it can't be expected that thousands of profiles get updated with references within any reasonable timeframe and we don't want to destroy years of accepted wiki content based on new standards. (That's why the editing rules state "New pages without that section may be deleted" not just any pages)

The stat thing is still an issue, though.
 
There is absolutely no evidence that the rule is for all profiles, Agnaa made it specifically clear that future profiles are “must stick” to the obligation while older profiles are preferred to be re-worked on (and have exceptions)

The verse pretty much only lacks references, and some calculation needs to be updated after new policies exists.

But there is no reason to delete it fully. And your argument simply is “We delete every profile in fandom for lacking references” is a bit ignorant for even not acknowledging how much time investment people have done while creating profiles to prior rules.
 
There is absolutely no evidence that the rule is for all profiles, Agnaa made it specifically clear that future profiles are “must stick” to the obligation while older profiles are preferred to be re-worked on (and have exceptions)

The verse pretty much only lacks references, and some calculation needs to be updated after new policies exists.

But there is no reason to delete it fully. And your argument simply is “We delete every profile in fandom for lacking references” is a bit ignorant for even not acknowledging how much time investment people have done while creating profiles to prior rules.
I don't know why you're pretending as if they are just missing references.

They have a severe lack of scans, poor justifications for abilities and statistics, wrong statistics,

And some pages are missing explanations for abilities entirely.
 
Dread is correct, but as already pointed out the main problem is that the pages themselves are of poor make and lack consistency. If the pinged people don't respond within a reasonable timeframe, deletion may be a viable option- give them time to come, as rehabilitation is always preferable.
 
I mean, if I'm allowed to copy-paste the pages' code before, I personally don't mind them get deleted. It'll take way too long to get 12 books worth of scans and references for something like this when most people who like the verse aren't even in the site anymore (even I have become mostly lurker by now).
So you want to save the Page's code in sandbox before deletion? Should be fine tho.
 
... Found this profile again.


To explain... bad profile formating, and tier 0 stuff. And is related to to fanwork backrooms stuff... I think. I also reported this page (and got it deleted) a few days ago.
 
I mean, if I'm allowed to copy-paste the pages' code before, I personally don't mind them get deleted. It'll take way too long to get 12 books worth of scans and references for something like this when most people who like the verse aren't even in the site anymore (even I have become mostly lurker by now).
Any updates on this?
 
I mean, if I'm allowed to copy-paste the pages' code before, I personally don't mind them get deleted. It'll take way too long to get 12 books worth of scans and references for something like this when most people who like the verse aren't even in the site anymore (even I have become mostly lurker by now).
I mean, if you fix the speed thing that was mentioned they would be allowed to stay even without references. But do as you prefer.
 
speaking of a verse that lacks supporters....

Is it possible for this verse to be un-deleted?.

I'm planning on revising it in the near future and having the foundation of those profiles would be very helpful for that process.
 
Is it possible for this verse to be un-deleted?.

I'm planning on revising it in the near future and having the foundation of those profiles would be very helpful for that process.
The verse is pretty bare bones, but I don't mind giving you the codes of the deleted pages later.
 
I can. Include references next time, they are absolutely required for new pages. Also remember that you will need a CRT to re-post it.
 
Back
Top