Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
His whole argument of removal is based on it. It is relevant.Bro it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the major point of the OP, please move on.
Her*His whole argument of removal is based on it. It is relevant.
I agree with this.I feel like combining both of those ideas would be best. Change the entire “Opponents/Neutrals/Supporters” section to “Knowledgeable Members” and move the sections from the Knowledgeable Members List to their respective verse pages.
If you were reading the discussion, we came to the conclusion that S/N/O is unnecessary and outdated. TMK nobody uses it, and it was agreed that we would somehow merge it with KML. How we'd actually do that is what we should be discussing right now.
There is no conclusion if not everyone agreed with it.Who said everyone.
I feel like combining both of those ideas would be best. Change the entire “Opponents/Neutrals/Supporters” section to “Knowledgeable Members” and move the sections from the Knowledgeable Members List to their respective verse pages.
This is a solution that I think works best for VSBW in its current state.
The Opponents/Neutrals/Supporters section is outdated and unnecessary.
Since this revision proposes some major changes to the entire site overall, I have tagged all the relevant bureaucrats, admins, content mods and thread mods to evaluate.Anyway you're right about one thing though, we should probably call DDM, Ant etc etc before moving forward with this anyway.
My bad for “mispronouncing”. Also, hey :3Her*
It isn't removal, its reworking into less labelled, misleading terminology thats being misused and misinterpreted. It cuts the redundancy of Supporter/Neutral/Opponent, the last 2 specifically, and is changing it into something more useful and efficient for reaching people willing to answer abt the verse
??? Careful please.My bad for “mispronouncing”. Also, hey :3
If the only concern in this discussion is the specific issue being discussed, it is possible to create a rule based on @Bobsican's policy to clarify its definition. However, it is worth noting that while some may see the current rule as not being misleading, others may have a different perspective.
Personally, I like the sections as they are. Aside from just being some harmless fandom stuff (y'know, listing what you like or not), I also think it's good to know opponents. Heck, even opponents that are not knowledgable, although knowledgable opponents are, of course, even better.What do you think of this proposal?
Why is there confusion? We've dedicated a page for this and have numerous pages that explain everything clearly.??? Careful please.
It isn't efficient, or aeshtetically pleasing, for a page to need to clarify what each section is meant to mean on every Verse page. Im considering more the casual viewer here, as there are far more people who skim/refer to vs battles wiki rather than actually contribute to it. To a general audience, then its far more likely to misinterpret 'Opponent', on its factual definiton, and is overall far more confusing and redundant than a new section that doesnt put labels that give this impression, such as Knowledgable Members.
But it isIt just isnt relevant to a verse page on an individuals stance on whether they like the series or not. The more useful information to give someone is who they can refer to that knows, without giving any initial view of bias that Ant suggested in any 'Supporter' or 'Opponent' term. Neutral in itself is even more unnecessary as it tells you that someone just doesnt know/care about the verse, or has minimal knowledge that isn't going to be able to answer more detailed questions
Based on which evidence? There is no rule that a character page need a verse page as far as I am not mistaken.Also if a series doesn't have a verse page, theres likely only 1 or 2 characters that profiles 'can' (not should) be made for, or there just aren't any dedicated people in the first place that would act as a 'Knowledgable Member'. So it sadly isn't something the wiki could provide as of this moment
This wiki doesn't do any major debating tournaments, or anything as such that warrants your personal viewpoint on a series to be on an official opinion, and I don;t think i've ever seen an 'Opponent' in a thread feel the need to just oppose for the sake opposing, and they definitely shouldnt if thats their only reason. It gives a false impression on what this wiki is meant to be as a general resource for power-scaling, rather than being its own.Personally, I like the sections as they are. Aside from just being some harmless fandom stuff (y'know, listing what you like or not), I also think it's good to know opponents. Heck, even opponents that are not knowledgable, although knowing knowledgable opponents are, of course, even better.
Too many things go too unchallenged, so knowing who might wants to argue against something isn't so bad.
All in all, I think knowing who is knowledgable and knowing which standing people have regarding a verse is both useful, so I like the current system where we can have both information.
You completely ignored my entire point about how it's useful to know who opposes a verse for CRTs, huh?This wiki doesn't do any major debating tournaments, or anything as such that warrants your personal viewpoint on a series to be on an official opinion, and I don;t think i've ever seen an 'Opponent' in a thread feel the need to just oppose for the sake opposing, and they definitely shouldnt if thats their only reason. It gives a false impression on what this wiki is meant to be as a general resource for power-scaling, rather than being its own.
You can state whether you like or dislike a series on your personal profile, but its unnecessary and misleading to put on a public page
General audiences aren't going to be as 100% adept to the wiki as you are, nor is this stopping peopleWhy is there confusion? We've dedicated a page for this and have numerous pages that explain everything clearly.
If you're unfamiliar with the fandom, check out the following link: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Standard_Format_for_Verse_Pages
Literally have not at all stated this was the purpsoe of the site, only that the one section on every verse page is misleading and can be done better in what Ant is saying they do.Bob has even written a comprehensive explanation for the purpose of this page. I'm unsure how a visitor could misunderstand its meaning. When I first visited the site, I never interpreted it as "people with a bias towards the verse." In fact, I've previously provided a detailed explanation of its actual purpose.
Its...not. Your personal views of whether you like or dislike a series outside of its powerscaling is not necessary information to know. This lowkey just sounds like a trolling responseBut it is
Im literally not saying that. Nor is this something that needs 'evidence', the evidence is that someone hasnt made a Verse page for a series, and likely wont if they dont actually care enough about the series or thinking a series with a few profiled reps needs one. Theres many profiles with just 1 character rep and no verse page, cause they're just one-offs that dont require the navigationBased on which evidence? There is no rule that a character page need a verse page as far as I am not mistaken.
No, this has already been talked about majorly in this thread on how 'Opponents' provide 'Critical' elements, but sadly people arent using this section correctly, basing it off personal likes and dislikes to the series in general, nor does the label of opponents make it a valid reason to oppose a CRT.You completely ignored my entire point about how it's useful to know who opposes a verse for CRTs, huh?
We have numerous ongoing debating tournaments and various discussion threads that prompt you to express your personal opinion on a variety of topics. Just because you haven't encountered an opponent doesn't justify making a sweeping statement.This wiki doesn't do any major debating tournaments, or anything as such that warrants your personal viewpoint on a series to be on an official opinion, and I don;t think i've ever seen an 'Opponent' in a thread feel the need to just oppose for the sake opposing, and they definitely shouldnt if thats their only reason. It gives a false impression on what this wiki is meant to be as a general resource for power-scaling, rather than being its own.
You can state whether you like or dislike a series on your personal profile, but its unnecessary and misleading to put on a public page
Why would yours be going to be as 100% adept to the wiki? And based on what?General audiences aren't going to be as 100% adept to the wiki as you are, nor is this stopping people
Literally have not at all stated this was the purpsoe of the site, only that the one section on every verse page is misleading and can be done better in what Ant is saying they do.
But the section serves for this. (or more over, it is one of the reasons)Its...not. Your personal views of whether you like or dislike a series outside of its powerscaling is not necessary information to know. This lowkey just sounds like a trolling response
This needs indeed an evidence, since till now I saw a lot of character pages without verse pages, therefore your idea of replacement is bad idea.Im literally not saying that. Nor is this something that needs 'evidence', the evidence is that someone hasnt made a Verse page for a series, and likely wont if they dont actually care about the series or thinking a series with a few profiled reps needs one.
Or if you are a supporter of the verse, then it is excepted of you to just support it even if it is wrong, is also counterproductive? This is not even a counterargument at all.If you have a valid reason to oppose a CRT, then you are knowledgable of the series, but labelling yourself an opponent, as if its expected of you just to oppose it, is counterproductive. This change in the section would not get rid of opposition for CRTs.
People know which sides of CRTs they tend to pop up on. It's no secret that many people consider certain verses they dislike wanked. And such people might find themselves arguing against upgrades, even when not particularly knowledgeable.No, this has already been talked about majorly in this thread on how 'Opponents' provide 'Critical' elements, but sadly people arent using this section correctly, basing it off personal likes and dislikes to the series in general, nor does the label of opponents make it a valid reason to oppose a CRT.
If you have a valid reason to oppose a CRT, then you are knowledgable of the series, but labelling yourself an opponent, as if its expected of you just to oppose it, is counterproductive. This change in the section would not get rid of opposition for CRTs.
As much as it might be 'fun' or 'harmless fandom stuff', it just clogs a page, provides a misleading image, and could be so much more improved upon.
Thats just debating, theres many different interpretations, and media is subjective. We can only vote and accept these democratically, we arent going to please everyone.People know which sides of CRTs they tend to pop up on. It's no secret that many people consider certain verses they dislike wanked. And such people might find themselves arguing against upgrades, even when not particularly knowledgeable.
Because testing arguments doesn't require you to be knowledgeable. We staff members all the time evaluate stuff that we know nothing about and we are expected to do it well. You can have a valid reason to oppose something without being knowledgeable.
Many people that are knowledgeable on verses have a bias for them, which tends to make them more likely to accept questionable reasoning. That's how things are. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be, but we need to face reality here. As a "counterforce" to such bias, the opposite can be useful. Someone that looks at some reasoning and tries to poke holes into it. An opponent. Yeah, maybe they do it due to bias against the verse, but it still helps nonetheless.
So yeah, a section of personal likes has its uses, because it can be useful to know who likes or dislikes a verse.
And don't come with "well, deleting it doesn't get rid of opposition". Deleting the knowledgeable members list doesn't get rid of knowledgeable members. But you couldn't tell who they are anymore.
And I'm fairly sure nobody ever felt actually misled by this section. Even if, the worst that can happen is that you message someone and they don't answer your question.
Alright this is for certain the last time.@Jinx666 I'm not trolling, but your counterarguments are weak. I wonder why the same arguments can't be applied to the supporter's side.
That's why the proposal is to replace it. If it already did the job we're talking about there would be no need to replace it.Also, the section is not served to list knowledgeable members.
Its not the most essential change ever currently sure, but even if Opponents/Neutral arent meant ot mean those terms, they stillConsider me against this proposal, this just seems pointless. As I never really seen what exactly was the problem with them sticking around, being an Opponent of the said verse doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to just downplay/spite the verse just for the sake of it. And just simply removing the O/N section and just slapping "Knowledgeable Members" won't really improve anything either way.
It serves only to list which standing people have regarding a verse.That's why the proposal is to replace it. If it already did the job we're talking about there would be no need to replace it.
It does serve nothing yes. Why keep redundant info? And yes, bias isnt something to advocate for, we should make decisions as logical as possible for the main wiki.So in simple terms, you want to get rid of the whole section because it serves nothing (or potential “bias”) and is misleading? Then, ya I am opposed to this idea. Nothing misleading in my opinion. Also, the section is not served to list knowledgeable members. This is wrong and DT already pointed out.
You realize with this kind of logic, even with just "Knowledgeable Members" can still have possiblities for bias right? This doesn't really change anything at all.Its not the most essential change ever currently sure, but even if Opponents/Neutral arent meant ot mean those terms, they still
1. Come across that way, and can serve as motives for bias. It avoids unnecessary arguments and reasons to believe your stance on a thread isnt coming from factual logic
This is mostly an indexing site, not just a whole battleboard considering it's considered secondary on this wiki. So I really don't see why people putting their names as supporters etc. are that even much of an issue since it doesn't really matter.2. Its used for unnecessary information such as whether people like/dislike the verse. This isn't relevant to powerscaling, and members who arent knowledgable on the series are posting their names within opponents/supporters just for liking the series, when that can be done on a user profile.
See aboveIts essentially making the wiki more professional than making pages needed to vocalise someones personal taste to a verse, and instead replace it with a clear-cut, non-biased section that lets people know who they can contact that merely 'knows' the series' rather than 'supports' or 'opposes' it.
Which is what a new, blanket term section would do WITHOUT needing to separate these standing people into 'Supporters' or 'Opponents'.It serves only to list which standing people have regarding a verse.
Theres literally no way to get rid of someone's bias, but at least theres no separating labels between people who apparently know the series, leading you to suggest they could be bias either way. If you truly want the most accurate response, then you can ask multiple people rather than just 1.You realize with this kind of logic, even with just "Knowledgeable Members" can still have possiblities for bias right? This doesn't really change anything at all.
This is what i'm saying. Like, this is exactly FOR my argument.This is mostly an indexing site, not just a whole battleboard considering it's considered secondary on this wiki. So I really don't see why people putting their names as supporters etc. are that even much of an issue since it doesn't really matter.