- 15,615
- 13,093
Are you kidding? I could make a similar argument for the “Boundless” Title. It is one of the most frequently misinterpreted concepts on this forum, yet we haven't created an additional section to explain it.
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.
Are you kidding? I could make a similar argument for the “Boundless” Title. It is one of the most frequently misinterpreted concepts on this forum, yet we haven't created an additional section to explain it.
Your idea itself is good, but your phrasing would still be somewhat easy for our members to misunderstand. How about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" or "Knowledgeable & Contributing Experienced Members" instead, to more easily get the intended point across? Or would some other phrasing be better?TBH I'd suggest to rename the section to "Knowledgeable Contributive Members" (over just "Knowledgeable Members"), to also highlight that users listed should also be willing to contribute, rather than just knowning a given topic, especially as this can vary a lot from merely knowning what's on this very wiki or how the main character(s) is named/looks like to properly knowning sufficient to properly comment on CRTs and so on.
The former could work TBH, good idea.Your idea itself is good, but your phrasing would still be somewhat easy for our members to misunderstand. How about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" or "Knowledgeable & Contributing Experienced Members" instead, to more easily get the intended point across?
Staff members need to know who to ask/send notifications to if they need useful information.Also, @Antvasima adding knowledgeable members section sounds unreasonable if their opinions can't be counted at all.
Thank you.The former could work TBH, good idea.
I'm cool with it.Thank you.
What do the rest of you think about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" as a replacement title for the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" sections, while keeping the current sub-sections for practical reasons?
Do you have a bot account that you can use in our verse pages for this purpose?It's extremely possible. I use it all the time (not on VSBW, but on wikis in general).
Thank you for the reply.I'm cool with it.
Thank you for the reply.
I still think the subsections are pretty useless for the purposes of the site, but I don’t mind this suggestion.Thank you.
What do the rest of you think about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" as a replacement title for the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" sections, while keeping the current sub-sections for practical reasons?
The issue currently is mainly that it would be so extremely impractical for our work to suddenly remove all of them, but the points that DontTalk and Medeus brought up also apply.I still think the subsections are pretty useless for the purposes of the site, but I don’t mind this suggestion.
I still dont understand what the practical reasons are. It still keeps the bias-sounding terminology thats making people sign their name based on personal likingThank you.
What do the rest of you think about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" as a replacement title for the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" sections, while keeping the current sub-sections for practical reasons?
You kinda double posted thereYeah, I still feel as those sections are necessary. Some people just want to consider themselves familiar/interested to talk about or debate a series even if they do not consider themselves and expert on the series. Plus I like having a variety of people showing their input, not exclusively supporters, especially for verses full of fanbases that just want to upgrade their favorite verse for the sake of upgrade.
We dont have to remove them if we just combine everyone from supporters, neutral and opponents. They can remove themselves if necessary but given theyre all meant to be 'knowledgeable' for putting their names down there, it doesnt seem like its bad to mix them together.The practical reasons are that we cannot just suddenly remove all of our stored knowledge regarding members that we can call for during content revision threads, as well as that it can be useful to be able to balance out the subjectivity of the input when necessary.
They wouldnt be supporters, they'd just be knowledgeable members. Thats literally what the section is for. If theyre only interested in the series and dont expect people to come to them asking questions then it seems like they can just participate in threads, or put it on their profiles, but ultimately you should only put your name down if you think you are able to help.Yeah, I still feel as those sections are necessary. Some people just want to consider themselves familiar/interested to talk about or debate a series even if they do not consider themselves and expert on the series. Plus I like having a variety of people showing their input, not exclusively supporters, especially for verses full of fanbases that just want to upgrade their favorite verse for the sake of upgrade.
Well, that would be much less bad than removing all of the listed members, as was suggested earlier, but it would likely be considerably harder to automate such a revision with a Bot, and also remove some potentially useful information.We dont have to remove them if we just combine everyone from supporters, neutral and opponents. They can remove themselves if necessary but given theyre all meant to be 'knowledgeable' for putting their names down there, it doesnt seem like its bad to mix them together.
Its literally just removing the sub-titles, the list of names just come together all to make 'Knowledgable Members', and then your wiki-wide message can prompt them to adjust their standings
Removing the subheadings wouldn't be a problem with a bot, I think. It'd take three sweeps, one to remove each subheading and by the end of it the lists would be combined.Well, that would be much less bad than removing all of the listed members, as was suggested earlier, but it would likely be considerably harder to automate such a revision with a Bot, and also remove some potentially useful information.
What do other staff members here think?
I think this will work.Its literally just removing the sub-titles, the list of names just come together all to make 'Knowledgable Members', and then your wiki-wide message can prompt them to adjust their standings
Okay. Thank you for the information.Removing the subheadings wouldn't be a problem with a bot, I think. It'd take three sweeps, one to remove each subheading and by the end of it the lists would be combined.
Well, we won't remove the contents entirely. We are just considering to change the main section title, and possibly merge together the three sub-sections below it.It should probably be removed.
Persolly, 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.
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?
Yes. You are correct. It seems like he would likely prefer your solution, but it is best to let him speak for himself instead.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 either. But you couldn't tell who they are anymore, so we wouldn't do that.
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.
Less to do that its harming anything, but the terminology is confusing people on what they're meant to be used for, such as labelling yourself an 'opponent' does give off you dislike the verse rather than you're supposed to be 'critical' of it.I don't feel particularly strongly one way or another. The lists are just another small means of interaction with the verse- not worth much to the wiki, but also not really harming anything. I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it is good to call people who dislike verses to their CRTs, though.
Okay. What do you think about my suggestions to change the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" main section title to "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" instead? I think that it would avoid many misunderstandings regarding the intended purpose of these sections.I don't feel particularly strongly one way or another. The lists are just another small means of interaction with the verse- not worth much to the wiki, but also not really harming anything. I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it is good to call people who dislike verses to their CRTs, though.