The necessity of Neutral/Opponents on a Verse page?

[Mr. Bambu]

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.

One might put forward the notion that causing mass confusion is a form of "harming", but point noted. I do not agree that this is a significant negative 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.

Bit wordy, has its merits. If your goal is to achieve what DT is going for (allowing those very critical of a verse a place to list their names to be, potentially, called in for threads in a verse they don't like), I do think the terminology "opponent" is going to get your more willing partakers, solely because that's what they would probably identify as. It probably wouldn't matter though either way, I think this is a pretty small issue overall.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for your input.

 

[Jinx666]

bump

 

[AKM sama]

Why do only opponents have to be biased and supporters don't? People can also suspect bias for a series if you list yourself as a supporter. I think the list is for anybody who feels a particular way about a series or its powerscaling on the site. It shouldn't necessarily invalidate their arguments if they are solid. I don't care for these sections either way, but we should either remove all of them and replace it with a knowledgeable members section that includes anybody who is knowledgeable irrespective of whether they are supporters or opponents (which would be redundant because we already have a separate page for that), or just let it stay as it is.

 

[KLOL506]

Why do only opponents have to be biased and supporters don't? People can also suspect bias for a series if you list yourself as a supporter. I think the list is for anybody who feels a particular way about a series or its powerscaling on the site. It shouldn't necessarily invalidate their arguments if they are solid. I don't care for these sections either way, but we should either remove all of them and replace it with a knowledgeable members section that includes anybody who is knowledgeable irrespective of whether they are supporters or opponents (which would be redundant because we already have a separate page for that), or just let it stay as it is.

Yes... we never said that supporters couldn't be biased. And yes, we have indeed proposed to replace it with a "Knowledgeable Members" section that includes anybody who is knowledgeable on the verse regardless of whether they support or oppose the verse. Most want that to happen, redundancy aside.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'd prefer if we let the lists stay as they are. Also, "Knowledgeable members" doesn't always cut it since there are a lot of people who not particularly experts on a series but are interested to learn more hence why the add themselves as supporters/opponents/neutral. If the idea was to replace them, I don't think it would just be knowledgeable members but also an "Interested users" list. Also, even a distaste for a series can technically double as in interest. Heck, AVGN and Nostalgia Critic make a living reviewing video games and movies they consider bad, which honestly begs the question why there is anything wrong with an opponents list.

 

[KLOL506]

I'd prefer if we let the lists stay as they are.

Don't think it'd work that way. The bias remains. Supporters and Opponents included. I've seen more of that bias on the Supporters side more often than not due to the sheer number and the regurgitation of old and useless arguments, while the Opposing side is less frequent but the arguments are even more disingenuous at times with some of the worst takes I've ever seen.

Also, "Knowledgeable members" doesn't always cut it since there are a lot of people who not particularly experts on a series but are interested to learn more hence why the add themselves as supporters/opponents/neutral.

Then it is high time we made strict rules about them. You can't be considered knowledgeable unless you've consumed a fair share of that verse's media and know as much as you can about it. This may sound elitist, but it is the best way to ensure quality control.

If the idea was to replace them, I don't think it would just be knowledgeable members but also an "Interested users" list.

This sounds like a much nicer proposition.

Also, even a distaste for a series can technically double as in interest. Heck, AVGN and Nostalgia Critic make a living reviewing video games and movies they consider bad, which honestly begs the question why there is anything wrong with an opponents list.

Yes. But that still doesn't tell us if they have knowledge about the inner workings of the verse.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Even "interested users" is more redundant.

 

[KLOL506]

Even "interested users" is more redundant.

Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

Could you please explain the significance of the the suggested section?

All members of the staff have agreed to retain the section, and if there is an issue with its definition, it could be clarified in the standards of the verse page.

Moreover, creating a section for knowledgeable members could be misleading since it is difficult to determine and measure someone's level of expertise.

In my opinion, the section in question has not caused any harm to the site.

 

[Jinx666]

The wiki is for powerscaling. It's not about reflecting someones personal opinions of a series, and should instead focus on the power-scaling aspect of a Verse. That can be done on an individuals user profile. According to Ant, this isnt what the sections are meant to be for, and given this section has been around for a long time, its created a very large twist on how its meant to be used.

'Interested Members' does not get this across as people who know the series, but instead ones that just are 'interested' in the series'. I'm interested in a lot of series but I wouldnt know a decent amount on a lot of the verse things like power/hax/cosmology etc. This is to create clearer terminology, and remove negative labelling that could creep its way into versus threads (Such as associating someone's opinion to them being a Supporter/opponent, or trusting someone just cause they're Neutral over it. Or for the few people trying to pass themselves off as an opponent to try and disregard their favoritism towards a verse). Its also just completely redundant to segregate people who are confident to talk about the verse into 3 sections.

As said before, we've moved past 'Supporters arent biased', which i only thought because Supporter can at least equate to someone being able to provide support and input on the series, but it is much better to label them as 'Knowledgable Members' of the like.

The section should be used for people who want to refer to people that are Knowledgable about the series' power, while eliminating the biased implications and initial view of a 'Supporter/Opponent' (And remove the absolute unnecessity of Neutral).

People are using the section to reflect whether they like or dislike a series, using the labels can lead to a sense of bias (whether thats wanking or spite), and theres already a Knowledgable Member List the casual viewer wouldnt know the existence of and its a fairly poorly looking page given its length and reliance on Ctrl F to navigate. Not to remove this list yet, but putting Knowledgable members within Verse pages is a much better way for people to find things.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I do not think it is necessarily a negative thing to reforge the Supporters/Opponents area into more of an opinion in general than a stand-in Knowledgeable Members section. We are indeed a wiki dedicated to the creation of profiles with, ideally, decently accurate statistics. In spite of this, however, we have a great deal of features that barely intersect with this at all- including VS Matches which, while not the focus of our wiki, are also given a place on each and every profile, because it is a good way to interface with our content. I see the Supporters/Opponents sections as being the same- they keep the verse pages from becoming far too clinical and sterile.

So, if the argument really does boil down to this point- whether it is worthy to keep a section dedicated to, effectively, a public list of opinions on the verse- then I think I would be in favor of that over just removing it entirely. I do not think it strongly affects bias one way or the other, nor do I suspect seeing the list would cause any change in one's opinion (barring, perhaps, sensationalism rearing its ugly head, but then that would be a fear regardless of whether we had the section or not).

 

[AKM sama]

Changing it to knowledgeable members section would be redundant. We already have that. Why have it at two places?

Removing the entire supporter/opponent section is an option. But it doesn't do any harm by just staying there. It's a broader section. While the knowledgeable members list only contains the list of people who are very knowledgeable about the verse, the supporter/opponent section contains a wider segment of people who might not be very knowledgeable but maybe casual fans or the likes.

 

[ShionAH]

True, even today ive seen this type of comment

Mom I am famous

 

[LordTracer]

Changing it to knowledgeable members section would be redundant. We already have that. Why have it at two places?

The idea is to move the knowledgeable members section to the verse pages, not to have it in two separate places.

 

[Jinx666]

Changing it to knowledgeable members section would be redundant. We already have that. Why have it at two places?

Removing the entire supporter/opponent section is an option. But it doesn't do any harm by just staying there. It's a broader section. While the knowledgeable members list only contains the list of people who are very knowledgeable about the verse, the supporter/opponent section contains a wider segment of people who might not be very knowledgeable but maybe casual fans or the likes.

Because it's a lot more convenient finding whose knowledgeable on the respective verse page, and not really a convenient page thats just a list relying on Ctrl F. We dont have to remove the big list immediately and maybe it can stay alongside it but overall its just not an efficient guide imo. The page is too long and will only get longer.

Its less about doing something extremely harmful, but again, the labelling of Supporters/Opponents specifically can creep its way into vs threads and act as something that can portray someone as bias in favour or against the verse.
As the wiki becomes more professional and convenient over the years too, its better to make sure everyone in the list can put themself in it because of their knowledge of the verse and not their liking. This section is meant to refer users to people they can contact for specific questions, but segregating them into Supporters and Opponents on face value doesnt seem efficient.

Why is knowing if someone is a fan of a series relevant to the actual powerscaling? If anything then its harmful to the fairness of their opinions, with the labels possibly creating a reason someone could think someone was bias. It's been widely agreed upon in this wiki that at some point people have thought Supporters/Opponents were just to label personal opinions. Thats not helpful

 

[Jinx666]

I do not think it is necessarily a negative thing to reforge the Supporters/Opponents area into more of an opinion in general than a stand-in Knowledgeable Members section. We are indeed a wiki dedicated to the creation of profiles with, ideally, decently accurate statistics. In spite of this, however, we have a great deal of features that barely intersect with this at all- including VS Matches which, while not the focus of our wiki, are also given a place on each and every profile, because it is a good way to interface with our content. I see the Supporters/Opponents sections as being the same- they keep the verse pages from becoming far too clinical and sterile.

The Vs matches are still widely guidelined and up for debate to be a feature just made to appease for entertainment. Joke battles (Where i'd assume is just meant to be fun) arent allowed to be placed in profile rather than actual fair vs matches that have been concluded.
I've seen the terminology of Supporter/Neutral/Opponet used for things like debating communities with things like tournaments (The idea is you have to find and debate matchups between specific verses that are all judged), but this wiki doesn't officially do that (I know they exist but they arent ever related to this section of the wiki specifically or officially organised by the staff of the wiki). Its misleading on this regard too

Vs matches are useful too and can even give a casual viewer an view of how a character is actually debated with, and other potential information not stated on their wiki as well. Meanwhile this section on the verse pages only really brings inefficiency of source, misleading terminology that puts up bias (or trying to hide their bias in some cases) and overall can easily just be put on an individuals profile. Its less about removing something thats MAJORLY getting in the way of the wiki, but as the wiki is growing (reinforcing references, updating profile standards etc), i think its time we spruce up the older features of the wiki into more useful sections.

So, if the argument really does boil down to this point- whether it is worthy to keep a section dedicated to, effectively, a public list of opinions on the verse- then I think I would be in favor of that over just removing it entirely. I do not think it strongly affects bias one way or the other, nor do I suspect seeing the list would cause any change in one's opinion (barring, perhaps, sensationalism rearing its ugly head, but then that would be a fear regardless of whether we had the section or not).

We aren't removing it entirely, and there is not roadblock saying someone cant put their name down as knowledgeable members, even if they just like the series tbh. Usually liking a series/Knowing at least the basics of its power go hand in hand, but i think changing the section to a better terminology and not segregating into labels that can negatively impact productive discussion (and has already confused many people) at least lets those willing to put their name down be prepared for getting contacted.
I was recently contacted about Lazytown when i originally put myself down as a Supporter (for the literal We Are Number One memes at the time), but I genuinely could not answer anything else about the show after these years because i simply don't know it. Ive since removed it, but it genuinely just does not seem efficient to make the section feel too opinion based within the professional section of the wiki. User profiles and forums are perfectly fine for such, with the forum itself separating the professional discussion and the fun stuff.

Changing the section's 3 segregation levels minimises that fear at a surface value. If thats done, the only thing that would make someone seem bias is their own words or anything put down on their profile, but that will at least be down to someone elses control than whatever the reason is they've put down their names under the section

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I've seen the terminology of Supporter/Neutral/Opponet used for things like debating communities with things like tournaments (The idea is you have to find and debate matchups between specific verses that are all judged), but this wiki doesn't officially do that (I know they exist but they arent ever related to this section of the wiki specifically or officially organised by the staff of the wiki). Its misleading on this regard too

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point here (admittedly I just woke up). You seem to generally imply that the section is somehow related to tournaments, which leads to confusion?

Vs matches are useful too and can even give a casual viewer an view of how a character is actually debated with, and other potential information not stated on their wiki as well. Meanwhile this section on the verse pages only really brings inefficiency of source, misleading terminology that puts up bias (or trying to hide their bias in some cases) and overall can easily just be put on an individuals profile. Its less about removing something thats MAJORLY getting in the way of the wiki, but as the wiki is growing (reinforcing references, updating profile standards etc), i think its time we spruce up the older features of the wiki into more useful sections.

The level of inefficiency is basically nothing, traded for an opportunity to interface with the content. I firmly believe it to be harmless. I would not believe that it is "MAJORLY getting in the way of the wiki" without substantial evidence.

We aren't removing it entirely, and there is not roadblock saying someone cant put their name down as knowledgeable members, even if they just like the series tbh. Usually liking a series/Knowing at least the basics of its power go hand in hand, but i think changing the section to a better terminology and not segregating into labels that can negatively impact productive discussion (and has already confused many people) at least lets those willing to put their name down be prepared for getting contacted.

I said "if", as much of the discussion painted the section as essentially worthless, a stance I disagree with. I do not agree that the suggestions are "better terminology", nor do I believe they negatively impact productivity of any given verse- and would do so less if we did the thing I'm suggesting and you're implying, just making it a place for people to list a like or dislike of X or Y verse.

I was recently contacted about Lazytown when i originally put myself down as a Supporter (for the literal We Are Number One memes at the time), but I genuinely could not answer anything else about the show after these years because i simply don't know it. Ive since removed it, but it genuinely just does not seem efficient to make the section feel too opinion based within the professional section of the wiki. User profiles and forums are perfectly fine for such, with the forum itself separating the professional discussion and the fun stuff.

So you did the thing I think it should be. We do allow "opinion-based" sections, as already pointed out with the addition of VS Matches to pages.

Changing the section's 3 segregation levels minimises that fear at a surface value. If thats done, the only thing that would make someone seem bias is their own words or anything put down on their profile, but that will at least be down to someone elses control than whatever the reason is they've put down their names under the section

Yeah I just straight up disagree with the notion that people fear the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section. Bias is a natural part of our processes, most people will have it one way or another, it's just about acceptable levels and controlling it, which has no interaction, I feel, with whether you openly admit to liking a verse or not.

 

[Jinx666]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point here (admittedly I just woke up). You seem to generally imply that the section is somehow related to tournaments, which leads to confusion?

From my experience yeah, theres a lot of debating communities that side themselves as Supporters/Opponents (dk if the ones ive seen are still around) when they want to do debate tournaments. So like opponents have to try and find ways to debate against a certain character winning etc.

The level of inefficiency is basically nothing, traded for an opportunity to interface with the content. I firmly believe it to be harmless. I would not believe that it is "MAJORLY getting in the way of the wiki" without substantial evidence.

Its not Majorly getting in the way, and it isnt harmful in the sense its hurting anything significantly.

It is just dated. It can be improved upon. Less misleading and more organised for the wiki as it continues to get better.

I said "if", as much of the discussion painted the section as essentially worthless, a stance I disagree with. I do not agree that the suggestions are "better terminology", nor do I believe they negatively impact productivity of any given verse- and would do so less if we did the thing I'm suggesting and you're implying, just making it a place for people to list a like or dislike of X or Y verse.

Its less the productivity of the verse and more having a list of names of people who actually KNOW the verse, rather than just liking it/disliking it which this thread has unravelled a good amount of people admitting this is what they think its for.

Having a section like this is irrelevant to the wiki's powerscaling if its just people saying personal stuff about themselves, when it could actually be used for reference on asking questions or finding knowledgable people to input.

So you did the thing I think it should be. We do allow "opinion-based" sections, as already pointed out with the addition of VS Matches to pages.

I dont think thats opinion-based more on a personal individual's take (what they like and dislike), than an actual discussed debate with reasons and fights between characters with multiple people, and any response that isn't a FRA being informative.

It promotes discussion and the forum, a completely separate use than what the S/O/N section has become. I'm not sure how the two are comparable features

Yeah I just straight up disagree with the notion that people fear the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section. Bias is a natural part of our processes, most people will have it one way or another, it's just about acceptable levels and controlling it, which has no interaction, I feel, with whether you openly admit to liking a verse or not.

No one fears it. People just are mislead by it (As people have agreed in this thread. Supporter/Opponent give off a different vibe than what theyre meant to do, and theres no point segregating the people who supposedly know the verse into ones that 'support' it and ones that 'oppose it'.

Of course this wont rid of bias completely, thats impossible, but it makes the section not prone to creating it, by just being a section where people can put they are 'Knowledgable' of it. Not that they 'Support' or 'Oppose' it. Those are labels that are setting people up for what? If you are an opponent, you must oppose? If you are a supporter, you must support? There shouldn't be anything like that, and since there isnt (because for as many people as there are who just like to wank a verse, theres many people that can actually think critically).

Thus its just combatting this notion. This isnt some extreme change thats dooming the wiki, but it's dated as a lot of people agree, and can easily be reworked as a more useful section

 

[Chariot190]

Yeah I just straight up disagree with the notion that people fear the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section. Bias is a natural part of our processes, most people will have it one way or another, it's just about acceptable levels and controlling it, which has no interaction, I feel, with whether you openly admit to liking a verse or not.

I think the point was more it has nothing to do with the person putting themselves down, but rather other people's views around those who put themselves down as say, an opponent and not wanting to interact with or have them show up to a CRT or whatever due to a preconceived notion of bias. And this absolutely happens, a lot. I've seen multiple times where people make a CRT or a match and want absolutely ******* nothing to do with certain people because they're listed as opponents and inherently think they're full of shit and will argue and whatnot out of bad faith or spite.

If anything the whole thing becomes counterintuitive as it's actively going against user interactions.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We have a Knowledgeable Members list. We can freely change what this section on the verse pages are to something that people clearly want (a place to jot their opinions on a verse). All of the problems you two are describing are either irrelevant or going to happen regardless of whether what I'm saying becomes reality or not- it's not as though the existence of the Supporters/Opponents section alone supports the existence of the concept of wank or spite, guys.

You don't need to read this much into it, I feel- let people say "I like this verse " or "I'm not a fan of this one" with a simple signature, and move on.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

let people say "I like this verse " or "I'm not a fan of this one" with a simple signature, and move on.

Thing is that there's people that don't like a verse, but are knowledgeable on said verse, and there are people who do like a verse, yet they aren't knowledgeable on said verse.

We need to know who's knowledgeable on a verse, not who likes a verse.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Thing is that there's people that don't like a verse, but are knowledgeable on said verse, and there are people who do like a verse, yet they aren't knowledgeable on said verse.

We need to know who's knowledgeable on a verse, not who likes a verse.

We have a Knowledgeable Members List, is everyone just unaware of this

 

[Jinx666]

We have a Knowledgeable Members List, is everyone just unaware of this

Yes, but imo its a very long, basic looking page that the general viewer wouldnt know.

That's why its much better found on an individual verse page where people would be much more likely to look. Theres no reason not to keep both either.

We have a Knowledgeable Members list. We can freely change what this section on the verse pages are to something that people clearly want (a place to jot their opinions on a verse). All of the problems you two are describing are either irrelevant or going to happen regardless of whether what I'm saying becomes reality or not- it's not as though the existence of the Supporters/Opponents section alone supports the existence of the concept of wank or spite, guys.

'Want' but the wiki as a whole is meant to be based on the powerscaling aspect, and as such that should be the main focus. 'Jotting down opinions' on a main wiki page that is meant to be exclusively based on showings and what the wiki as a whole deems informative is just out of place and nonsensical.
People can put down things about themselves and their opinions on their own User profile, its irrelevant needing to broadcast your opinions openly on a main page, and could instead be used to better refer to people who are free to actually answer questions on the verse.

No one is saying S/O/N alone supports the concept, nor is bias suddenly going to be eradicated (Impossible to do), but its going to be able to rid of those segregating labels that people, as this thread has shown, are mislead by, and instead make it one big section that can actually be informative and refer you to people who know what they are talking about.

You don't need to read this much into it, I feel- let people say "I like this verse " or "I'm not a fan of this one" with a simple signature, and move on.

Can be done on a User Profile

Not to be 'I hate all fun' but the wiki in itself is meant to be professionally kept to information. We wouldn't allow what would be someone's user page essentially to be a whole page in itself, and labels such as Supporter or Opponent does create a negative sense on whether you would want to trust someones claim outside of bias. You may not feel this as a staff member, but the casual viewers of the wiki (the majority), and even members in themselves do.

Someones personal opinions on a verse being put on a main page rather than a customizable user profile is just not relevant to the wiki's concept. Its counterproductive if anything. Its not this major huge thing, but if it can be improved upon for actual usage, then why shouldnt it? Especially if its simply done through mass editing

People who are listed on the Verse page should all be willing to be contacted to give their input and statement. With no way of telling who is legitimate, and whose just putting their names down based on personal opinion of the series, just gets in the way of this.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Honestly, Jinx just makes more sense to me personally.

I'm not gonna write as much as they are to argue for this, but I will throw my own two pieces in again.

While I get the idea of wanting to express a opinion, I think that the functions this wiki has as it's primary focus should take priority- If X page that is a secondary function is causing problem's for the Primary function, then X page should be removed.

I know you might want to think that "Oh, but this page isn't going to cause any problem's at all!"

As a normal member, however, I know this simply isn't the case. When I first saw these terms, I thought the exact same thing that Jinx is implying people would- That this is a list of people who like and dislike X verse. As such, it's only a natural conclusion for one to assume, even if subconsciously, that X person who is a opponent may be less credible than Y person who is not when it comes to arguments against the verse.

It's not a matter of "X thing shouldn't affect Y thing"- Of course being a Supporter or Adversary shouldn't affect one's opinion on power scaling for this site. It's the matter of fact that, it can affect it, however. It's undeniable that there will be those who let it affect their view's- One way or another.

We can't just sit here and pretend it won't be a factor, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong- As anyone would know by looking at my profile, I like to say what verses I enjoy enough to be knowledgeable on. But that's a place where that makes sense. This page doesn't, if anything it causes more general problem's.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It's not harmful and neither that significant danger to the community.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

My final thoughts on this are still as follows, it's not worth making a big effort just to try to fix something that was never broken in the first place.

 

[Jinx666]

This isn't to fix anything. Its to simply improve upon it.

I've labelled whats wrong with it multiple times, ive mentioned that its not something extremely harmful, but its dated.
Out with the old, in with the new. Improving the wiki and overall making it more useful

Why do you all think im saying its dangerous or harmful? Why do changes need to be made only if somethings harmful and not inefficient?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Why is knowing if someone is a fan of a series relevant to the actual powerscaling? If anything then its harmful to the fairness of their opinions, with the labels possibly creating a reason someone could think someone was bias. It's been widely agreed upon in this wiki that at some point people have thought Supporters/Opponents were just to label personal opinions. Thats not helpful

Honestly, what Damage says here tends to make sense I find. It's super impractical and pointless to have that kind of information on a Page as opposed to a profile. I also find the argument of "Not fixing what isn't broken" to seem more so like, well, laziness, no offense to DarkDragonMedeus. A handful of people here have expressed that the work for this would supposedly be minuscule, too, so I don't think the argument even holds up too well. We should strive to make our information as clear as possible, as well as to remove any info that could inherently harm our wiki- And I think this page counts as that, when it's so easy for people to look at these Sections and go "Oh! You're biased For/Against (Insert Verse) because you're a Supporter/Opponent of it!", whether they express this openly or let this subconsciously influence their actions in regards to a member.

You guys have repeatedly referred to it as if it is a major factor in bias creation on this wiki (largely unfounded and I suspect downright untrue).

I don't think this really bears tons of discussion, I disagree that people's opinions about a verse are going to spread some sort of mind-virus across the wiki. I think our Knowledgeable Members board works and, if it comes down to it, checking the history of the page in question (which is what we do when we don't have a verse page).

I'm not strongly against the notion of treating every verse page as a place to list knowledgeable members, mind- I mentioned earlier that my sentiments are closer to neutral. But the arguments rabidly searching for the dissolution of the Supporters/Opponents section have been nonsensical up to this point.

 

[Damage3245]

Can we at least agree that "Neutral" serves no point?

 

[KingNanaya]

Can we at least agree that "Neutral" serves no point?

yeah, I agree, for what it's worth lol

 

[Jinx666]

You guys have repeatedly referred to it as if it is a major factor in bias creation on this wiki (largely unfounded and I suspect downright untrue).

I don't think this really bears tons of discussion, I disagree that people's opinions about a verse are going to spread some sort of mind-virus across the wiki. I think our Knowledgeable Members board works and, if it comes down to it, checking the history of the page in question (which is what we do when we don't have a verse page).

I'm not strongly against the notion of treating every verse page as a place to list knowledgeable members, mind- I mentioned earlier that my sentiments are closer to neutral. But the arguments rabidly searching for the dissolution of the Supporters/Opponents section have been nonsensical up to this point.

Theres been many peopel in the thread that have confirmed. Its also common sense honestly. You've even alluded to yourself that Supporter sounds just as bad as Opponent. The actual definition of a Supporter and an Opponent does not correlate with what the labels 'are meant to mean'.
It isnt any major factor, and no one is trying to eradicate all bias, but it can still create that image. Just because you individually doesnt feel this, does not mean its the case when other people have come forward and said they had thought this way, so i am unsure why you are denying its untrue.

Mind-virus???
By all means keep the List page but its so much more efficient and easier to get to when its put on the actual Verse page. Thats where the casual viewer will look, which is the majority of viewers. The List page can give supporters of things without a Verse page.

It seems everyones arguments for wanting to keep this section is that 'its not harmful' (Ofc not, nothings actually harmful on this wiki) or 'Its just a bit of fun'. Its actively proving that people only want to keep their names down to flaunt their personal opinion of the series. This isn't what power-scaling should be based on, and all official pages on the wiki should be useful. Is there one single page on this wiki thats just for funsies?
This is for user profiles, and forums. Otherwise its more nonsensical to keep a section thats only around for people to bring to attention that they 'like' or 'dislike' a verse. Unnecessary and theres no other wiki's of Vs Battles calibur that do it. It should instead be reworked as a list of names (That people can still like/dislike, put their names down and just be willing to be contacted if anyone wants questions), without needing to segregate what should be their unbiased opinions, with labels that appearingly go against as such

Improving terminology isnt useless. Improving a Sections validity isnt useless. Improving a general removal of bias claims isnt useless. Keeping information on the wiki strictly professional isnt useless.

'A section where members who are familiar with a series, or franchise, can add their names under different sections, depending on their opinions about it. Only the members who help out with content revision threads in our external forum should write themselves down under these sections.'
Taken straight from Standard Format for Verse Profiles, which confirms that theyre only sections for people to put down personal opinions, but how exactly does this work in tandem with the quote above? Why are people allowed to put whether they like and dislike a series, but also require to be familiar enough that they can contribute to Content Revision? They dont always go hand-in-hand?

Why create this negative separation either? To suggest Opponents are the only ones that can be critical, or Supporters are only going to try and boost the verse?

 

[RandomGuy2345]

By all means keep the List page but its so much more efficient and easier to get to when its put on the actual Verse page. Thats where the casual viewer will look, which is the majority of viewers. The List page can give supporters of things without a Verse page.

I specifically with this argument here.

 

[Jinx666]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

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 still think that this is the best solution. Most members do not know about or list themselves in our Knowledgeable Members List pages, but the verse pages are much harder to overlook.

As Medeus said, we should not try o fix a feature that isn't broken, just better clarify its purpose.

 

[Jinx666]

I still think that this is the best solution. Most members do not know about or list themselves in our Knowledgeable Members List pages, but the verse pages are much harder to overlook.

As Medeus said, we should not try o fix a feature that isn't broken, just better clarify its purpose.

I mean yeah but in that case why would people still need to list themselves and segregate into 3 different categories of knowledgeable (supporters/Opponent/neutral), If it would truly be removing the concept of people just putting their names down for what they like/dislike?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am not completely opposed to merging the three sections into just one, but it doesn't hurt to know how people feel about a verse beforehand.

 

[Jinx666]

Well, I am not completely opposed to merging the three sections into just one, but it doesn't hurt to know how people feel about a verse beforehand.

Its more or less about when we cant differentiate whose put themself down because they're knowledgable and whose put themself down because they like and dislike a series .

Knowing how someone feels about a verse beforehand would only give rise to people who might claim bias/wank in someone's arguments. Of course after a while of seeing them talk on a forum or a profile page view, you should be able to see someones personal preferences anyway (Where they should be kept), but it at least doesnt put forward the preconceeded notion within S/O/N, and instead lets you judge this factor on what they say alone. It also doesn't bind people to having to be critical/supportive on certain stances, since we have never pushed it regardless.

This can all be done on a User's profile, which is meant to be about the user if they so wish to give the information, but its genuinely going to be better and more professional to have a list of people that are confident they know what they are talking about in general, for the sake of the casual viewer and the wiki member

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that I am neutral regarding merging all of the sections into just one titled "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" then.

 

[Jinx666]

Okay. I suppose that I am neutral regarding merging all of the sections into just one titled "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" then.

The name could probably be shorter tbh. 'Knowledgable Members List' or of the like, since i doubt the questions are limited to just the forward than also the on-wiki user profile.
Ppl can get inactive too but we wouldnt be allowed to remove their names without some new policy to such, so contributing might get outdated