As some of you may know, a recently resolved debate between me and Lunt, well, happened. What else? Anyway this post is meant to inform those who don't know in a shortened summary. While this article may seem long at first, it has two benefits: 1) it's shorter than full conversation and 2) it includes thought process analyses, which may be more accurate than yours.


The debate takes two sides: conservative (technically fascist but that makes Lunt sound bad) and libertarian (technically socialist but not as bad as the other side). The conservative side, spearheaded by Lunt, believes in exactly what conservative people do: data on this wiki, if irrelevant (data's irrelevance is decided by Lunt and other staff members) should be deleted.

The libertarian side, led by me, is called libertarian because its beliefs align toward the real political belief. It believes that data, no matter how irrelevant, should be preserved, and, more importantly, be discoverable. Discoverable data allows people a high chance to discover a page or an item without digging for too long, to make people aware of it's existence.


Original idea for related weapons catalog sorting

  • Significant weapons (as considered by the libertarian side) will be given their own subsection.
  • Insignificant weapons or weapons with insufficient data would be put on a list, with their name being stated, a link to their page (if it exists), and a short summary of one or two sentences
  • A weapon with a deleted page (due to "insignificance") should receive its own subsection rather than being put on the list of insignificant weapons.

Streamlined summary of beginning

The argument was originally sparked over the organization of the advanced weapons page. The conservative side stated that the related weapons section, which is intended to be a catalog of weapons that appear in Aetheria, should not include weapons that are insignificant. The argument was not started over this, but rather what criteria a weapon needed to be counted as "significant". The conservatives argument can be interpreted in many ways: the final statement of Lunt, after locking the discussions post, was that "this wiki is not a trifling noob parade and will not repeat irrelevant and minor information and multiple pages. One is fine. Two is already a bit much. Having its own is beyond nessesity." (This statement was not intended to be offensive. It is only role-play, and should not be a deciding factor on who you choose to support.) This statement is considered acceptable (as long as its statement is carried out in a literal fashion) by the libertarian side, although not satisfactory.

Again, as stated before, the argument was not over the purpose of the catalog, but rather the criteria for an item to qualify as insignificant. Libertarian me stated that "fandom is here for convenience" which means that "all data should be included on high-traffic/central pages for ease of use and reference regardless of insignificance", backing up my statement of how weapons that are named and have a background description should be included on the related weapons section of the advanced weapons page. The conservative side stated that "Only weapons that have an interesting history should have their own page, regardless of power". Along with their previous assertion that data considered irrelevant and minor should not be repeated across multiple pages, this implies that many a weapon should only be on one page: the page of it's owner. The libertarian side was willing to agree to this, so as long as 1) a weapon with a deleted page (due to "insignificance") should receive its own subsection rather than being put on a list of insignificant weapons and 2) any weapon with an existing page should have it's name under the related weapons catalog with a link, whether it was on the list or had it's own. However, because of its subsequent failure to amend its previous statements dictating that insignificant data should only be mentioned once and that insignificant weapons, if not excluded from appearance by the previous statement, must be put on the list, regardless of whether its page has been deleted or not, the conservative side denied both of the libertarian side's bargains.

Shadowstring and 'closed' pages

Shadowstring (Nayte's bow) was deleted by Lunt due to "insignificance". While it was not entirely false that Shadowstring's page was insignificant, this is what the argument began on. Something the libertarian side disagrees with is that the deletion of the page does not contribute to its catalog criteria. More evidence is provided later.

While the debate over its deletion closed with a mutual agreement, a new argument was started about 'closed' pages. The definition of a closed page is a page that is not easily accessible/discoverable. Such a page is not provided on the wiki's navbar (those libraries of pages at the top of a page) and is not given a prominently featured link (a prominently featured link is not buried in text) in any central page (frequently visited character pages and most non-character pages in the navbar), which makes it difficult for the user to immediately be aware of the page's existence. The problem, after its upbringing by the libertarian side, was ignored by the conservative side, despite a demand to fix the issue, with their statement of "Fix what? If their character page can be classified as closed, clearly they are insignificant, and their weapon even more so. If you cannot comprehend what I'm talking about, then don't." This statement fails to address that 1) they are basing a page's significance on their activity, ignoring the fact the page's low activity was caused by its 'closed' status in the first place and that 2) pages exclusively linked on it are also 'closed'. While any sensible person would see the conservative side's error in this particular situation, the conservative side continued to address the situation as if it was resolved, and, against the purpose of their permission, locked the post, and subsequent posts, with a closing statement stating that the only way they would stand down is if the libertarian side pleaded the case to spy, the wiki's founder. To the libertarian side, this was not only power abuse (as even though the conservative side possesses the powers to follow through with their statement, they were not authorized to do so) but neglecting of fandom's ideals that information should be easily accessible in a comprehensive form and that no one person governs the wiki, not even the founder.

Aliens probed the real Lunt

Lately, Lunt has been acting more condescending than usual. Given his statements that make me seem like the bad guy like "I shouldn't have to deal with insignificant people who attempt to assert dominance over me." (this is actually what he is doing; I am attempting to use logic to convince him that we are on the same side) and that "I'm allowing you to this one chance [to do something] because you are so insistent on making a blog post to slander me." while what I'm really trying to do is get the rest of the wiki to back me up before confronting Lunt, as he continues to refuse my argument and considers my argument "weak".

Anyway, I've always respected Lunt, and still do, but I consider this situation to be more important than respect, as I will not just let anyone, even those I respect, do something I believe is wrong without a fight. I suppose you could say that "while his knowledge is considerable(-y more than mine), his wisdom is not."


It may be a good idea to read the full argument on Lunt's wall and the sequel on discussions before choosing a side, especially if you are a staff member, as one should have a full and unbiased understanding of the conversation before choosing a side. If you have any questions, ask in the comments and I will respond within a day.

Also check out Lunt's response here.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.