Board Thread:Administrative Requests/@comment-5427970-20170802173038/@comment-28288412-20170802182317

To my knowledge, I believe the directors have expressed that they are going to use Volume 5 to provide more general information about semblances. Working under the assumption that this is the case, I oppose this proposal and wish to wait until next Volume before making any significant changes to the format with which we handle semblances.

Currently, we simply don't have enough concrete information about around half or more of thr semblances starting with their actual name to make pages about them. Making a section based on literal description from observation isn't that bad, a page can very much be. Even worse if people start adding assumptions to the pages and even more worse if we find out its not actually a semblance (thank you Qrow's bird form, thank you magic in RWBY) and we have to delete the page due to misinterpretation rather than edit a section in a page.

Plus: Arguments. Aside from the whole Ren kerfuffle, another notable example is Ruby. Is it "Speed", "Burst into rose petals", both? We aren't entirely sure about the main protags semblance for gods sake and what exactly it is. I'm sure there are only more examples in less important characters (I immediately think of Neo and the whole can she teleport as well thing).

The difference between RWBY and MHA is as already mentioned: MHA actually tells you the name of quirks and basically a short paragraph describing what they can do and some limitations often as well. Which when looking into them and describing at length is a gigantic help because it offers a sizable starting point. Haven't seen FT in any capacity but I assume it is a similar case at least in the manga because manga typically likes providing details on character abilities.

The central page is sufficient for now due to their not being many semblances and the sections on the character pages themselves typically provide a sufficient overview. This combined with the aforementioned note about Volume 5, I oppose this suggestion.