• 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.

Wiki Page Deletion Requests Thread (New forum)

I think their contention for deletion/blog transferal based on being incomplete should definitely be questioned depending on how long its left incomplete, or not having at least a standard amount of profiles belonging to it when it can. Idk the series but the amount of red links were suggesting this and nothing was done for 4 years. Having a verse page for just one profile, with no listing of stuff such as calcs isn't necessarily ideal either.

While the profile obv isn't the worst formatted one ever, there are (or were since I can perhaps change them) plenty of other outdated things such as nonstandard ratings for three different stats and poor grammar that dont really meet standards. Nothing an edit cant fix but i'm never proposing to delete things solely based on there being no references.
EDIT: And i did

Either way im not gonna prod others to finish verses that i dont know as a regular member, its not like this site is a job or even homework, but the wiki should be more open now to removing badly formatted profiles and low-standard ones (not specifically this one, but in general), regardless of them just being old. The quality control needs to be ramped up a notch by now.
 
I think the wiki should be open to preserving the work done by its users where possible. We have historically always allowed stuff like this, even when we were looking to delete genuinely bad content. If you don't want to seek improvement for the profile then I think we're done here.
 
Blog conversion is fine for that in any case, but extremely poor quality profiles that are heavily dated aren't exactly keepers or a shining example of preserved work. Especially when any page could easily be reworked to modern standards with a CRT without any regard for preserving the older version.
 
If it can easily be reworked to modern standards, I invite you to do so or to ask them to do so. We're not deleting it, so move on, please.
Well not only have I already said I don't know the verse and im not reworking it
Ive also removed the idea to delete it and instead suggested to convert it to a blog for incompletion (which is different).
Nor am i still continuing to try and push it. Instead im challenging this idea that profiles cant possibly be considered in contention for deletion/blog removal when they've been abandoned and unfinished for years on end, inactively. And my point is that the 'preserving of someones work' wouldn't stop any profile from being updated in the first place, so it shouldnt necessarily be the reason to not delete things in the first place just cause low quality has been kept.
 
Well not only have I already said I don't know the verse and im not reworking it
Ive also removed the idea to delete it and instead suggested to convert it to a blog for incompletion (which is different).
Nor am i still continuing to try and push it. Instead im challenging this idea that profiles cant possibly be considered in contention for deletion/blog removal when they've been abandoned and unfinished for years on end, inactively. And my point is that the 'preserving of someones work' wouldn't stop any profile from being updated in the first place, so it shouldnt necessarily be the reason to not delete things in the first place just cause low quality has been kept.
It isn't different. That is deleting the page.

The profile isn't abandoned. It does not meet criteria for deletion. It just needs the links removed lol. Profiles don't need constant updates in order to avoid deletion. We're not holding you hostage if you don't adjust it every time we change things. The "issues" for this profile are so terribly minor that your insistence to wipe it out just seems out of place. It's not even low quality. It just linked to unfinished things, and it doesn't even do that anymore.

This thread is to be kept for actual pages deserving of deletion. This is clogging the thread. Move on, man.
 
I think it can actually remain and be totally fine, though the red links should be removed. The keys are technically valid, I believe, even if the only thing modified by them is the age section. References aren't required for old profiles.

Creator also has activity this year, so like. They could be asked to work on it before we jump to deletion, even if it was deserving.
Well, to be fair, the key section of this page needs to be removed and the age section reworked, and we preferably need a few accepted calculation blogs for the feats. 🙏

 
Well, to be fair, the key section of this page needs to be removed and the age section reworked, and we preferably need a few accepted calculation blogs for the feats. 🙏

I've adjusted the key and age sections (though I don't believe they were technically out of policy). Historically, we've allowed for 9-B to serve as baseline superhuman, and ditto of course for LS. I'm reasonably sure Subsonic there is just pulling from the speed of arrows, though a calc would be good, true. It's a more legitimate issue than the others.
 
Thank you for helping out. I was referring to the "At least" before "Wall level" as well as to the "At least Subsonic" speed statistic. 🙏
 
Thank you for helping out. I was referring to the "At least" before "Wall level" as well as to the "At least Subsonic" speed statistic. 🙏
"At least" isn't really a rating, it's just an indicator of the likelihood that the rating is higher than what is listed. Though, for what it's worth, I do suspect all feats here are 9-B.
 
It means that Small Building level or higher may be a possibility, so some evidence of being close to the upper limit of Wall level is preferable. 🙏
 
It means that Small Building level or higher may be a possibility, so some evidence of being close to the upper limit of Wall level is preferable. 🙏
I do not consider myself a slave to semantics, but technically the next rating up from "Wall level" would be "Wall level+". Though, again, I doubt they would get this from the feats.
 
On a similar basis I also propose to delete the following profiles:
They scaling from the Sentinels could be questionable as they were easily killed by them and it would only be through their powers and not their physical stats, plus I don't think anyone would be willing to update their profiles properly.
The issue is that I'm virtually the only active supporter of the verse since a few years, so I don't think the profiles will ever be updated (nothing has happened to them in over a year since I requested their deletion), and I'm not interested in them at all. Besides, them scaling from the Sentinels is iffy since they were easily killed by them and could only do a little with their powers, so their physical stats shouldn't even scale from them. The profiles aren't just outdated and barebones/incomplete, they're also inaccurate
Bump
 

Can I ask why we need this page specifically? I know what it is but never seen it used or referred to before on the wiki.
Bump

Are we able to move this info onto the Big Bang page and compact it now then?
 
Back
Top