Apparently, FieryFury, whom I have several conflicts with, decided to post a blog about one of our recent arguments. Though I prefer to not say anything, that will hurt my influence and thus I must respond.
Unlike Fiery, I will not be comparing either of us to a specific political side, and rather be using our names directly, as there was no one else involved in our skirmish.
Since surprisingly, Fiery's blog is fairly unbiased, this will be short:
Topic[]
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.
My response[]
Since it doesn't not appear that Fiery addressed or even knows what is considered insignificant by me, I will state that now. Insignificant weapons are weapons without a unique history, no unique properties, and not wielded by a major character. This may be changed as I come to realize other important points. A significant weapon will be one that does not fall under those 3 points.
Some more stuff Fiery said[]
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.
More responses[]
I shall summarize this based on what I understand. Fiery originally claimed that all known information should be put on all pages that it is relevant to regardless of whether or not it is significant. His analysis of what I said is that data considered irrelevant and minor should not be repeated across multiple pages and should only be one page, the owner's page. His analysis is excellent based on the thoughts I have given, and is good summary of what I said.
Apparently Fiery offered a compromise, which I definitely am not aware of, even after skimming the argument again. He said something about me denying it, which I don't understand, seeing that I was never aware of it in the first place. So let me address both of his bargains:
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[]
The moment I saw "a weapon with a deleted page" I disagree. If one of the categories is "a weapon that some member thought should have its own page but really shouldn't," then no. Unless I misunderstood this.
[]
Certainly. If we have weapons that become significant enough to have their own page (and that is assuming it is significant enough in the first place), there should be a category on the weapon page linking to all of these weapons (that is collapsible, but I don't know how to do that). I don't know where you thought I disagreed with this, since I believe that my entire argument was about not having insignificant things have their own items.
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.
Last Response[]
Oh so Fiery updated this. Let me begin by saying that my response will no longer be so polite:
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[]
I personally don't understand where they are coming from, so let me give an example. The Lost Legion is a page that is in the Nav Bar. Okay cool. Now let's look at a random member, such as Lylla. Oh look! Comments number: 2.
Another thing that his assumption is extremely incorrect as I am not basing the page significance on the activity. I am basing it on their significance in the books. I was specifically talking about weapons, and I would agree that there are some closed pages that should not be closed. But to my knowledge, all characters and weapons that are closed are rightfully so.
SPY Response[]
Unlike some people I might mention, SPY has continually given nearly undisputed advice and actions, by both Fiery and I. He is much more close to CK then both of us as well. His reputation is high, and I don't believe anyone would disagree with that. Perhaps being the ultimate judge is too much, he is not the ultimate judge in this situation. Again, I will not agree to any of the terms Fiery has offered except the one I addressed in this post unless SPY interferes.
Power Abuse[]
I will abuse my power if you continue to abuse me. It is very simple. I do not have all the time in the world. Go abuse SPY, Pokemaster, or someone else. If you can get enough support, then I shall respond. This was an exception, as I have to respond to slander in order to protect my own reputation. Of course, if you continue to slander me, my response will not be so nice.