Board Thread:Wiki Management/@comment-5035900-20170120025856

''Disclaimer: This is not neither being written out of any ill-will towards any of the admins or moderators who have deleted battles recently, nor is insinuating that they have abused their power or that action should be taken towards them. This is simply a topic that had never been brought up which I feel needs to finally be talked about so that we can move forward.'' In all my time as admin, never in any of that time did I even ponder deleting a battle due to how it was written. I only deleted battles which were against the rules or that happened to be a duplicate of an already existing battle (ie the same match-up with the names switched around).

Since my leave as admin, I've seen a few battles deleted which were removed for quality control, often poor research. Now the rules (at least the ones I wrote) never specified that poor research or writing would insinuate them being deleted:


 * 9. Research is REQUIRED if an outcome is to be posted. Don't even try to play favorites or have the outcome set around votes.

But nowhere did it say that poor research would lead to deletion from the Wiki. But you know what, a point could be argued for such and the rules could be changed in accordance with that. It's not an immoral idea to have poorly-done battles to be removed and if enough of you here agree that it should be done, then I wouldn't stand against it...

...but not only has NO such rule been added or discussed, but now it's being enforced without any warning. I frankly feel it is getting out of hand.

Now when I did delete battles, I at least gave the original author a heads-up and gave them the opportunity and time to move all their work to a blog or to another page (duplicate page), and heck, in the latter case, sometimes I moved it myself. But here, they're just getting wiped off the Wiki and the author'll be confused when they check on their old works only to find it suddenly missing.

As for the reasoning of deleting being for quality control, again, never been established nor hinted at being enforced, and it's being done at a rapid pace. In fact, I disagreed with a recent case:

The deletion of Link vs Pit.

Was it the most written battle on the Wiki? No. Could the explanation had been handled better? Yes. Is the author known for the best research and writing? No. But I actually found the outcome agreeable and Para defended it and added it to the original Hall of Records.

You may be thinking "Oh, so you're accusing Ari of deleting that battle out of spite towards Maxevil" and the answer is NO! I know for a fact that it wasn't because I know Ari would never remove a battle for any malicious reason. It was not ill-intended...

...but at the same time, if that and Meta Knight vs Lucario, both of which have been a part of the Wiki for nearly two years, were removed for poor research and reasoning, where is the line drawn? What qualifies as "semi-poor, but still passable research" and what qualifies as poor research punishable by deletion? Does it depend on how much people disagree with it or the overall reasoning given?

Or are we forgetting that so much of what we write here is subjective?

As an example, I disagree with Asuka vs Yang. I disagreed because even with my Tekken knowledge, the only notable feat Asuka had ever accomplished in her two canon appearances was winning a match against Lili, and so I could not find myself agreeing with her defeating a character like Yang who outclassed her in every conceivable category...

...but the author saw things differently from me... and don't think any ill of the author for that. No matter how hard we try to prove that an outcome to [insert match-up] has such an obvious outcome and can't bear to see just how the other outcome could even be considered, it's all subjective.

Same goes with how we view characters and their feats: one feat may seem average or decent to one, but for another, that same feat makes them beyond simply powerful. We disagree on the strengths, speeds, and durabilities of characters all the time: some have argued that Raiden (Metal Gear) can move at Mach 2000 speeds, and I disagreed with that. I don't believe that Yamato can cut through absolutely anything without effort and some disagreed with that. Heck, we constantly swing back between characters being faster than the eye, sound, and light, and character's destructive potential and durability being town, mountain, country, and planet.

Now can the outcome of a match-up or a character's strengths and abilities portrayed in one be done so incorrectly? Absolutely. It happens. But that's why I never deleted battles in the past for their research and outcomes: because this Death Battle Fanon. Fanon.

Most, if not 99% of us, aren't going to the research lengths that the Death Battle team does and often times some of us can come to flawed conclusions, whether somewhat or highly disagreeable.

But that's the point: we're not official Death Battle and our fights aren't to their standards of quality. Maybe not all of you joined this Wiki and wrote out of love and celebration for the show... but I can bet a lot of you did it because you wanted to give your take on it. What Wizard and Boomstick would say. How the battle between Character A and Character B (and Character C, etc.) would go. What Wizard and Boomstick would say about the outcome. It's tough, but it's also fun. We aren't Wizard and Boomstick or the Death Battle Research Team, but by golly we just go for it and through the hardships of the writing process, we go through the effort to write out everything. The effort.

Every single completed What-If? Death Battle on this Wiki took effort to write. Even the short ones. Even the bad ones.

That's why I always opposed deleting battles that were mostly or completely finished: they took effort. And that's why I always gave the original author a heads-up and the sufficient time to copy their work and move it: because if I had just hit delete, that would've been all their work gone and completely inaccessible for a non-admin or moderator. I couldn't do that to any author, regardless of how poorly their battle was written.

This is 2017 and it's been over 2 years since I began being an admin, and, come July, it'll have been 3 WHOLE YEARS since this community was founded and turned a barren graveyard of a dead Wiki into the thriving 16,000+ page Wiki that it is today.

Those thoughts on the matter were  in the past as an admin and mine personally... and battle deletion for quality control and a line being drawn on research quality should be discussed.

Do you want it because you feel it would be better for the Wiki? Do you disagree with such an idea because you feel all of the battles here are subjective and were never intended to be official Death Battle quality?

Which is why instead of just leaving a poll, instead, I implore you all to simply give your thoughts on the matter. Give your reasons on why this should or shouldn't be done. Stand by your reasons, but also take the other side's point of view into consideration and don't think their position lower than yours.

My final thought on the matter is if a new rule or additaion to Rule 9 are to be included that states a level of quality required for each battle and specifies that they could face deletion, I will hold no objection to it...

...but only if it is clearly stated that an admin will inform them days in advance and that they give the author the opportunity to copy and move their work before going through with the deletion.

As well, I believe those whose battles were recently deleted without warning SHOULD be given the opportunity to copy and move their work as well.

That is all I would ask.  