The necessity of Neutral/Opponents on a Verse page?

Antvasima said:

I also think that you are trying to fix a feature that is not broken, and that you are currently being an obstructionist when I am offering a much less drastic and more constructive alternative solution.

Click to expand...

This had already being settled for a while, and i am unsure what your solution you're putting forward is? If i can say Ant, you seem to constantly flipping your take on this on a whim, so its hard to draw a bead on what you're currently agreeing with.

Its not about it being broken, nor did i claim it was ever broken. I stated it could be improved upon, and it has thus became redundant. Its not an active harm to the wiki, and it shouldnt need to be in order for me to suggest an improvment. An improvement that has already been agreed upon, but has now suddenly resurfaced and is trying to be changed.

There are genuine issues with keeping S/O/N in the format that it is AND then also adding Knowledgable Members.

1. Makes the verse page longer with an unnecessary section kept
2. Unnecessary section in question would just be a rinse-and-repeat of the supporters section pretty much. Theres no need to keep Neutral or Opponents in any case.
3. It still gives off the negative implications of bias that S/O/N had in the first place.

I reevaluate information. It is a part of my job.

Anyway, I am saying that since your suggestion has been rejected by our staff, a much less drastic and more constructive solution seems greatly preferable, which is to move the sections of the following page to the corresponding individual verse pages, while also keeping the Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections.

Antvasima said:

I reevaluate information. It is a part of my job.

Anyway, I am saying that since your suggestion has been rejected by our staff, a much less drastic and more constructive solution seems greatly preferable, which is to move the sections of the following page to the corresponding individual verse pages, while also keeping the Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list in alphabetical order of every verse page in this wiki, and the members who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding them. Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Click to expand...

I mean I dont see where the official voting for that was, and most people who were on this thread that were FOR the change haven't been able to see or comment on this either. It feels to me like you've just been waiting this change out from before, and suddenly sprang it now to avoid the change entirely with the people that were initially against it for reasons like 'its fun'.

There still has been no 'constructive' reasoning given as to why we are keeping S/O/N if we're also adding Knowledgable Members. I genuinely believe this just makes it worse when we have to repeat the two sections, when it was initially a replacement to remove biased labelling. What is the point of keeping a Supporter/Opponent/Neutral?

Do yall genuinely need to tell everyone your personal stances on a verse? And then differentiate that from being 'knowledgable' about it? I feel we're ignoring entirely the initial problems presented about the Supporter/Opponent/Neutral section we had addressed and what got this 'replacing this section with better terminology' started in the first place

I hate to bring up Weekly too, but why do you think RWBY's strongest soldier was labelling themself as an 'Opponent' of the verse? It'll always fall victim to people using them to warp perception of their takes

From what I recall, our staff members here eventually rejected your suggestion, and I also personally disagree with it, as I find these sections useful, as our staff members can use them to easily find members that can help out in content revision threads, and that can then be sent notifications through @"username" commands.

However, I want to make those sections more useful than currently by moving our knowledgeable members sections to the verse pages right above them as well.

Antvasima said:

From what I recall, our staff members here eventually rejected your suggestion, and I also personally disagree with it, as I find these sections useful, as our staff members can use them to easily find members that can help out in content revision threads, and that can then be sent notifications through @"username" commands.

Click to expand...

What was agreed upon was ultimately replacing S/O/N with Knowledgable Members (or Somewhat Knowledgable Members as you wanted to put it), since it had outlived its usefulness and now only created issues as a relic of the past. the thread then went dead silent somewhere (i remember someone saying it would need a year or something to do the bot command that could change it), and has only been bumped up every once in a while. This is part of the reason CRTs take far too long, because now even we're forgetting what our original outcome was

There was a lot of discussion about it, but no, it wasn't rejected, until seemingly now out of nowhere, once we had already agreed to this change. It comes across that the only answer people will take is a 'No', and that this CRT will just stay around until eventual attrition makes it fall into not doing anything in the long run.

So i need to genuinely ask, Why do people want to keep Supporter/Neutral/Opponent so intently? Do people just really like putting their names on the Verse page solely to say they're a fan of the series, or do not like it. That only puts discredit to your professional opinion (at surface value, people will definitely meet takes with more skepticism if they see you are an 'opponent' of the verse you're trying to talk about at the very least.)

Antvasima said:

However, I want to make those sections more useful than currently by moving our knowledgeable members sections to the verse pages right above them as well.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, thats productive as the current Knowledgable Members List page is poorly formatted and super long to scroll through, however though that now makes two sections mandatory on a Verse page that just list off names of people that can help. One of which are people actually confident in answering any questions related to the verse and its power system, and the other just people giving off their personal feelings for a verse (which i've explained through this whole thread why i think it isn't suitable for this wiki as it continues to improve).

This is the biggest go-to source for quick powerscaling in the entire community generally (barring Death Battle but thats far more limited characters), whether we're liked or not, but when it comes to now making more positive impacts (and i heavily reiterate that this isn't a 'broken system', merely an 'outdated one'), we need to make sure theres nothing at least on the main wiki pages that hint towards a bias or negatively associated labels in our discussion front. And there have been a lot of scenarios and personal takes given that support this confusion.

I know I would hate to ever be accused of 'bias', I like to think that i'm fair when it comes to my regards for fictional characters (Cause i too, when i was younger, have been biased and leaning to more than one side when it came to versus debates.)

The only real change here is that we'd be replacing S/O/N with 'Knowledgable Members', removing all negative 'allignments' to verses that people only put their name down due to personal beliefs OR they actually can say they know the verse. There is still a list of names of users on each verse page (only one section), only this time it removes all confusion that hints at personal biases (whether thats accurate or not) to the general traffic.

Well, I still support my solution in order to not lose any useful information about which members we can call for to participate in content revision threads.

Can somebody please list all of the staff members who have participated in this thread, so I can call for them afterwards?

Antvasima said:

Well, I still support my solution in order to not lose any useful information about which members we can call for to participate in content revision threads.

Click to expand...

You woudlnt be losing that information if we simply transferred at least the 'Supporters' to Knowledgable Members alongside that. If anything, you'd be weeding out the people that will speak on Content Revisions with bias. That definitely wont be eradicated but it would certainly help in the future when people want to put their names down on whether they are confident they know the verse, rather than wanting to be an 'opponent' towards it. Its literally just improving terminology amongst other things.

You wont have to worry about the bigger mainstream franchises when it comes to content revision threads, they're sorted with people that come to them than the other way around. Its the smaller franchises with 1-2 that mainly require staff input, and probably need more leniency when 'voting' on

Moving supporters to a knowledgeable members section would often be misleading, so I do not accept that suggestion, and would appreciate if we can move onwards with further input from our staff here regarding my own suggested solution here.

Antvasima said:

Moving supporters to a knowledgeable members section would often be misleading, so I do not accept that suggestion, and would appreciate if we can move onwards with further input from our staff here regarding my own suggested solution here.

Click to expand...

The section is nothing BUT misleading already. The Vs Battles wiki does NOTHING with verse allignment labels, and it only serves as a scapegoat or bias. What is the point of labelling yourself an 'opponent'???

Making two separate sections mandatory on every verses page, that'll likely just be carbon copies of eachother, but at least only one of them actually lets people put their names down based on KNOWLEDGE and not just personal bias towards a verse.

Your solution only makes the page more cluttered, since it is still keeping the outdated list of names for users (a ton of which aren't active on the wiki anymore) only on personal viewings on the show, and even further serparating that from the section that gives no partial opinion towards either like or dislike of a verse. If you did not 'accept that suggestion' at all then why have we been here for a year? And why are we suddenly switching up?

Look. It would be a too drastic change to just suddenly get rid of all our Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections. Our staff currently greatly NEED them in order to find and summon a sufficiently high amount of active members who are interested in a verse for the benefit of content revision discussion threads.

Given that what you suggest would be disastrously destructive for the wellbeing of our community, I am never going to accept it, no matter how much you pester me about it. My apologies.

However, what we can much more realistically do is to move our currently too empty knowledgeable members sections from the following linked page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections in the respective associated verse pages, and then gradually wait until they fill up with many more listed members over the span of several years, and then consider if we should remove at that point hopefully redundant Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections at that much later point in time.


That is a much more realistic solution than what you suggest here.

Antvasima said:

Look. It would be a too drastic change to just suddenly get rid of all our Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections. Our staff currently greatly NEED them in order to find and summon a sufficiently high amount of active members who are interested in a verse for the benefit of content revision discussion threads.

Given that what you suggest would be disastrously destructive for the wellbeing of our community, I am never going to accept it, no matter how much you pester me about it. My apologies.

However, what we can much more realistically do is to move our currently too empty knowledgeable members sections from the following linked page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections in the respective associated verse pages, and then gradually wait until they fill up with many more listed members over the span of several years, and then consider if we should remove at that point hopefully redundant Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections at that much later point in time.

That is a much more realistic solution than what you suggest here.

Click to expand...

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

Are any of you willing to help me out here please?

I agree with Ant here.

I am pretty positive I said my piece multiple times. Basically the "No need to fix what isn't broken."

Another thought, I'd rather not remove the Supporters/Neutral/Opponents section at all. Idk why ppl are saying it's unnecessary or useless; I align with the sentiment that it denotes what verses the user is supportive of and against. For instance, the opponents section could be denoted that a user does not want to participate in any of the verse discussions. As mentioned before, the supports/neutral/opponents haven't been an issue at all.

Tl;dr, if it's not broken then there's simply nothing to fix, otherwise you might break it instead.

Jinx666 said:

Hello,
Its possible I've just missed something, and I know this has been around on the Wiki for a long time, but this in in regards to having a section on every Verse page for Neutral/Opponents?

Not that i've had any personal issues with it in the past, but it seems rather counter-productive and doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than letting people know widely that you do not care for the series (Power-scaling wise or story wise?), or you flat out oppose it for some reason?

Were there debating competitions or something that require alligning or opposing a certain verse? I definitely understand the Supporters section since that is how you are able to list members who are willing to help and know their stuff for clarity of information, but what does knowing someone is against the verse exactly do thats positive?

Click to expand...

It's a fun bit of community-building, a conversation-starter, something people can chuckle at, it gives flavour to the site.

Jinx666 said:

If anything, it can possibly be a reason for people to list your opinions off as spite (as in people may suspect a bias since you list yourself as against a verse in general)

Click to expand...

Fools can find any reason to dismiss people's opinions, adding this one doesn't change anything meaningful.

Jinx666 said:

or promote more general negativity within the debating community by creating some sort of competitive target against specific verses.

Click to expand...

I've never seen it do that.

Jinx666 said:

The debating community can get very negative over something as silly as powerscaling/matchups, as we've all seen and probably experienced at least once in our life, and this sorta seems to make it view more as a competition?

Click to expand...

I've never seen it do that.

Jinx666 said:

The vast majority of Verse pages dont even seem to have any Opponents/Neutral included, since i can assume its not really a necessary label to most, that if anything, is going to get in the way of people thinking a viewpoint is fair.

Click to expand...

Still nice to have a standard even if it isn't utilised 100% of the time. Many pages lack matches entirely, or in certain sub-sections of the match portion.

So, I don't think those sections should be removed.

Thank you for helping out.

So what about adding an extra "Knowledgeable Members" section to our verse pages by moving these sections from the following page?


I think that it would cause many more members to notice them and list themselves, which would likely be very useful for us.

eh idk, the dedicated page lets verses without verse pages get listed, so it'd be a shame for that page to get deleted entirely.

Plus, I'd say it does a little bit of filtering. If someone knows enough about our standards to be knowledgeable, they'd hopefully know that such a page exists.

And it does feel like a bit of redundancy.

At most, maybe have each page link to its entry on that list. Something like "A list of knowledgeable members on this series can be found here." in a suitable place.

Would it work if we move those sections to the verses that do have verse pages, for the sake of convenience and noticeability, but keep this knowledgeable members page around as it is for verses that do not have any verse pages yet, and mention that requirement as an official instruction at the top of the knowledgeable members page?

That could work, I just think having a sentence pointing to the knowledgeable members page might be an easier way of getting a similar result.

Hell, I wonder if that could automatically be applied by bots on every page, we might be able to change the start of every supporters/opponents/neutral section to have a statement like that.

I think adding the knowledgeable members is a good idea, so it allows users to find the proper people for help

Agnaa said:

That could work, I just think having a sentence pointing to the knowledgeable members page might be an easier way of getting a similar result.

Hell, I wonder if that could automatically be applied by bots on every page, we might be able to change the start of every supporters/opponents/neutral section to have a statement like that.

Click to expand...

I think that my suggested solution seems considerably more convenient in this case. I would appreciate if we can apply it eventually.

@BreezeHM @Epsilon_R @Enryu_The_Red_Tower And all other members.

Do not apply formatting changes like this before they have been accepted. The removal of Supporters/Opponents/Neutral on random pages has not been accepted.

Thank you for helping out.

Antvasima said:

Look. It would be a too drastic change to just suddenly get rid of all our Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections. Our staff currently greatly NEED them in order to find and summon a sufficiently high amount of active members who are interested in a verse for the benefit of content revision discussion threads.

Given that what you suggest would be disastrously destructive for the wellbeing of our community, I am never going to accept it, no matter how much you pester me about it. My apologies.

However, what we can much more realistically do is to move our currently too empty knowledgeable members sections from the following linked page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections in the respective associated verse pages, and then gradually wait until they fill up with many more listed members over the span of several years, and then consider if we should remove at that point hopefully redundant Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections at that much later point in time.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list in alphabetical order of every verse page in this wiki, and the members who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding them. Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are...

vsbattles.fandom.com

That is a much more realistic solution than what you suggest here.

Click to expand...

Im hardly 'pestering' you about it when i made this thread, and then suddenly we've decided to backtrack on what was initially decided before suddenly not fixing the problem that was brought up in the first place. You had already accepted this before taking the sufficient amount of time to completely forget about it seemingly. It wouldnt be disastrous whatsoever, merely a change that makes the wiki far more professional. Trust me Ant, i am very aware on my position in this.

Its fair if you need a large amount of names on each verse page, but you're also accepting a ton of inactive members who have either left the wiki or ones who merely put their names down for liking the verse (which is different to being knowledgable and fair about its power rating). It will also just be used as a section to effectively cloak bias (e.g. people putting themselves down as 'opponent' or 'neutral' to a verse they pretty much are the spokesman for on this site).

Either way, im all for removing Knowledgable Members List. It was always a badly formatted scroll-fest page when that info is far more accessible and looked up on with the Verse page, and im glad to know we're open to removing that S/O/N section eventually because you're going to have 2 sections that are pretty much exactly the same as eachother till that ever happens. Glad to know at least that has been changed

Its not realistic, its just clearly too big of a change for people atm, and suprisingly, i get it! As long as the idea of 'Knowledgable Members' and 'S/O/N' is more and more shown to be a separate idea, the more these confusions and issues with keeping both will eventually become more apparent.

Agnaa said:

It's a fun bit of community-building, a conversation-starter, something people can chuckle at, it gives flavour to the site.

Click to expand...

I don't really know if this should take precedence over the credibility of our info. We don't want people using these lables as bias. This info can all be relayed under user profiles. I dont see why people 'chuckle' at this section? (Making fun of people putting themselves as opponents?) And no idea how this gives flavour when literally NOTHING is done besides cloaking bias

Agnaa said:

Fools can find any reason to dismiss people's opinions, adding this one doesn't change anything meaningful.

Click to expand...

Not when its actively been shown to also be used as an argument against it. We don't want to keep bolstering the heated debates, and instead promote civil conversation. The idea of opponents (at least) is literally just people feeling that need to tell everyone "I dont like this series". This is irrelevant info.

Agnaa said:

I've never seen it do that.

Click to expand...

Splitting users into 3 factions of 'Supporters', 'Opponents', (and Neutral ig) is suggesting there is some ongoing battle between the two? Whether thats trying to claim wins or losses during versus threads etc, its terminology that has heavily confused others in the past, as had been discussed and admitted to in this thread ages ago.

Agnaa said:

I've never seen it do that.

Click to expand...

You've NEVER seen the debating community get heated or toxic over a versus debate? Genuinely you must not have been here for very long....

Agnaa said:

Still nice to have a standard even if it isn't utilised 100% of the time. Many pages lack matches entirely, or in certain sub-sections of the match portion.

Click to expand...

Idk what you mean here exactly, but i just dont think we should be inviting people to put their names down based on personal opinion of the series, as opposed to instead being able to have them put their name down for how well they think they know the series' power system/scaling. As a wiki that is trying to improve its professionalism, and removing its outdated formatting that had been accepted for decades in the sake of improvement, it should definitely be questioned on how much irrelevant information (that only serves to publically tell everyone how you personally feel abt a verse.) should be allowed on the main wiki pages

Jinx666 said:

I don't really know if this should take precedence over the credibility of our info. We don't want people using these lables as bias. This info can all be relayed under user profiles. I dont see why people 'chuckle' at this section? (Making fun of people putting themselves as opponents?) And no idea how this gives flavour when literally NOTHING is done besides cloaking bias

Not when its actively been shown to also be used as an argument against it. We don't want to keep bolstering the heated debates, and instead promote civil conversation. The idea of opponents (at least) is literally just people feeling that need to tell everyone "I dont like this series". This is irrelevant info.

Splitting users into 3 factions of 'Supporters', 'Opponents', (and Neutral ig) is suggesting there is some ongoing battle between the two? Whether thats trying to claim wins or losses during versus threads etc, its terminology that has heavily confused others in the past, as had been discussed and admitted to in this thread ages ago.

Click to expand...

This part is just going in circles. I don't believe more than 0.01% of users actually care to think this way, and we shouldn't put in a bunch of work to sterilize the website to their sensibilities.

Jinx666 said:

You've NEVER seen the debating community get heated or toxic over a versus debate? Genuinely you must not have been here for very long....

Click to expand...

I've never seen people view debating more as a competition simply because of S/O/N.

Jinx666 said:

Idk what you mean here exactly,

Click to expand...

I mean that fields like these don't need to be filled out on every page for them to be nice to have.

Jinx666 said:

but i just dont think we should be inviting people to put their names down based on personal opinion of the series, as opposed to instead being able to have them put their name down for how well they think they know the series' power system/scaling.

Click to expand...

It's not opposed to that, we have a dedicated page for that.

Jinx666 said:

As a wiki that is trying to improve its professionalism, and removing its outdated formatting that had been accepted for decades in the sake of improvement, it should definitely be questioned on how much irrelevant information (that only serves to publically tell everyone how you personally feel abt a verse.) should be allowed on the main wiki pages

Click to expand...

In terms of keeping up an appearance of professionalism, I have never before seen someone point out S/O/N. Certainly not anyone on any other website (which is largely who we'd be catering attempts to be more professional for). I would not want us to waste our energy there.

I agree with Agnaa, out of all the complaints I've heard about VSBattles on other websites, the S/O/N section is never one of them.

Therefir said:

I agree with Agnaa, out of all the complaints I've heard about VSBattles on other websites, the S/O/N section is never one of them.

Click to expand...

Never claimed it was widely complained about, its more in the fact of what it now represents as the wiki continues to improve and become more professional. It is a section based purely (or by face-value due to its terminology) on bias and personal feelings towards a verse, seemingly only there for people to drop their names on verses that they merely like and dislike as opposed to not saying they know the verse in general. The other flaws of the VsBattles Wik greatly overshadow this one, but those are harder to fix because no one ever 100% agrees when it comes to powerscaling.

However, like i've said a ton of times now, just because its not some huge massive priority that will completely revolutionise the wiki, it doesnt mean it shouldnt be talked about or made to improve. The 'if it aint broke, dont fix it' mentality is not helping the wiki evolve in the slightest.

Agnaa said:

This part is just going in circles. I don't believe more than 0.01% of users actually care to think this way, and we shouldn't put in a bunch of work to sterilize the website to their sensibilities.

Click to expand...

Just because you don't believe it doesnt mean it hasn't confused users in the past, nor have people used it against others in threads/used it to try and cover own biases.

Its not about sterilising to others' sensibilities, its improving terminology and sections of the wiki that are merely there for personal opinion to a verse (and has confused many people such as myself over the years) into something thats Actually useful when it comes to powerscaling. This is what the Vs Battles wiki is about, and should be maintained as professionally and unbiased in its public pages as possible.

Ant isn't gonna remember clearly but he himself admitted in this thread to putting his name down based on personal opinion of verses as opposed to actually knowing anything about the verse. That dude is 'Neutral' or an 'Opponent' of a ton of verses on this wiki, and like...what does that really say thats useful?

Agnaa said:

I've never seen people view debating more as a competition simply because of S/O/N.

Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly, it doesnt happen. However this labelling and idea of factions where verses get 'opponents' and 'supporters' puts this idea across. It wont for users like you who have roles on this wiki, but for the general traffic, and definitely in my first impression of the wiki, it came across this way.

Its not 'false advertising' or whatever, but its a little misleading, and can be improved in merely just having the knowledgable members list (we dont need both sections at a time, but i get if it needs to transition).

Agnaa said:

I mean that fields like these don't need to be filled out on every page for them to be nice to have.

Click to expand...

I dont exactly see why its 'nice to have', they're literally just the standard format placeholders. Every page needs to have the Notable Matchups section, even if they have no chance at an improved versus thread, let alone ones that can actually get the standard 7 votes that arent just 'FRA' spammed over.

Just feels counterproductive to give people a section they can put their user profiles on a public page to say 'I dont like this verse' (this will come across as you are 'opposing' the verse to general traffic.) or 'I am neutral to this verse' (Why is this relevant to say?). If we want to stick to efficiency, then it would definitely be best to merge all these sections into a list of users who can speak on behalf of the verses powerscaling than their personal opinions. And thankfully, that usually goes hand-in-hand most of the time, so everyone who uses these sections properly is still a winner.

Agnaa said:

It's not opposed to that, we have a dedicated page for that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and that page is a relatively-new scroll-fest page thats way too longwinded and poorly formatted. No regular user will know to look there first, let alone know it exists, before attempting to look at a Verse page where they can already find a list of names of people willing to talk about the series.

It may have a place for Verses that dont have a Verse page sure, but we can easily make them just for that and the page will be 1000x less of a bore to scroll through. Some Verses dont even need a Verse Page, lets be real

Agnaa said:

In terms of keeping up an appearance of professionalism, I have never before seen someone point out S/O/N. Certainly not anyone on any other website (which is largely who we'd be catering attempts to be more professional for). I would not want us to waste our energy there.

Click to expand...

I just have, in this thread about a year ago, and we were seemingly in majority agreement that it should be changed to accomodate Knowledgable Members instead. The only arguments so far for keeping it is that it'd be too long to change (Someone literally already said it'd be a simple mass-edit command to just change the section and keep the list of names), and that its just a bit of 'fun' or 'flavour' (Which...no? It's just people putting their users down in a section primarily made for others to refer to them. The S/O/N is a product of its time and has just been on the wiki since around the beginning.)

It takes this wiki a LONG time to recognise proper adjustments, let alone make them, so i dont see why just because it hasnt been pointed about before, it doesn't mean it isnt an improvement. To me, it seems rather a simple notion than what this thread has made it out to be - Changing the terminology that suggests bias-motivated factioning for or against a verse into something that generically just tells people that this user is willing to talk and answer questions about the verse and its powerscaling for specific questions or content thread referral. This IS the more professional approach fundamentally, even if its not such a massive priority, because it at least doesnt highlight a sense of bias for or against a verse. Please consider that just because staff roles and other users who are regulars on this wiki understand that, the inexperienced users and general 'civillians' don't. We should make it more user-friendly on the masse, as opposed to just keeping this section so people can get some...strange kind of satisfaction in putting their name on a verse page for simply liking or disliking.

Theres no sense of 'energy loss' in this. This wiki isn't an official business, and theres no big work schedule. This is just a hobby for all of us, but theres still a responsibility this wiki has as the 2nd biggest power-scaling outlet on the internet (after Death Battle) to be as reliable as possible. All it takes is a mass edit we can do from a bot, like the recent Notable Matchups project, and its not being done by the entire workforce. It's better than leaving this relic of the past around any further. Its more of an energy loss in the fact we haven't already done this when the initial result was completely approved (and seemingly left to dust), and now we're going back and forgetting completely.

I can't really add much that wouldn't just be repeating things I said already. And accordingly, I still disagree with you. But a few minor things.

Jinx666 said:

Yeah, and that page is a relatively-new scroll-fest page

Click to expand...

That's not new, it was made in 2015.

Jinx666 said:

thats way too longwinded to scroll through and poorly formatted.

Click to expand...

You're not meant to scroll through it, you're meant to ctrl+f for verses or users.

Jinx666 said:

No regular user will know to look there first, before attempting to look at a Verse page where they can already find a list of names of people willing to talk about the series.

Click to expand...

It's not really meant for people looking for casual conversations, it's for relevant parties finding people to evaluate CRTs. Usually this would be staff members, who should be experienced enough to know about it.

Agnaa said:

That's not new, it was made in 2015.

Click to expand...

Fairs, i wouldn't know despite being on this wiki for quite a while. From looking at it, it was made by a random user out of nowhere before being adopted as an official staff-approved page.

Agnaa said:

You're not meant to scroll through it, you're meant to ctrl+f for verses or users.

Click to expand...

Just cause Ctrl f exists doesnt mean huge scroll-fest pages should be okay. Not everyone is aware of the keyboard arts either, simpler is better. User-friendliness is better.

Agnaa said:

It's not really meant for people looking for casual conversations, it's for relevant parties finding people to evaluate CRTs. Usually this would be staff members, who should be experienced enough to know about it.

Click to expand...

Which is so much easier if this info was relayed on respective Verse pages. Which we seem to agree on, but then this makes S/O/N redundant as they'd be essentially the same section, but with the
"Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are required do their best to remain as unbiased as they possibly can"
This'll further just show that S/O/N is based around bias, while Knowledgable Members isn't, further proving my point

So we gotta ask why we need both?

Jinx666 said:

Just cause Ctrl f exists doesnt mean huge scroll-fest pages should be okay. Not everyone is aware of the keyboard arts either, simpler is better. User-friendliness is better.

Click to expand...

Scroll-fests are better for some things (mass-adding entries to multiple lists, casual browsing with no goal in mind), but worse for others (searching for one specific thing when you don't know the "find on page" feature exists on every device).

Jinx666 said:

Which is so much easier if this info was relayed on respective Verse pages. Which we seem to agree on

Click to expand...

We don't actually.

Jinx666 said:

but then this makes S/O/N redundant as they'd be essentially the same section, but with the
"Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are required do their best to remain as unbiased as they possibly can"
This'll further just show that S/O/N is based around bias, while Knowledgable Members isn't, further proving my point

Click to expand...

You could also look at the name, "Knowledgeable Members List", and the other part of the explanation I've pointed out, to show that the KML is distinguished by knowledge.

Anyway, I don't think they'd actually be redundant, for reasons I explained earlier.

Jinx666 said:

It will also just be used as a section to effectively cloak bias (e.g. people putting themselves down as 'opponent' or 'neutral' to a verse they pretty much are the spokesman for on this site).

Click to expand...

This is a strange argument to make. I consider it a huge reach to even bring up such a thing. I've certainly never seen it happen and even in the hypothetical scenario that it does, it'd be hilariously easy to sniff out.

It's one article of text vs a user's accumulative behavior in such a scenario.