My disagreement with vs battles wiki

I am not a mindless vs battles wiki hater like some are. I've made a defense of vs battles wiki before that said I've noticed a trend vs battles wiki has that I think is negatively impacting the vs community that I wanted to talk about.

I was recently into a back and forth debate with vs battles wiki users about Madoka being multiversal. I was checking daily but they stopped posting so I presume that argument is done? *shrug*

Regardless, while debating I came to notice the arguments they were using for Madoka to be multiversal were the same arguments being used to put Usagi, which is literally my favorite character in fiction at multiversal as well which is also something I disagree with.

If you are from vs battles wiki....uhh.....hi. Hope you don't take this in the wrong way. I an not trying to insult, merely to explain my perspective.

If you are someone who regularly reads my blogs and also looks at things from vs battles wiki I hope this helps explains why we may different in our assessment of certain characters.

Allow me to begin by sharing an anecdote. When I was back on the OBD debating Sailor Moon downplayers, the thing I got told a lot was that the feat of Usagi restoring the cosmos isn't universal because cosmos here means galaxy.

Ignoring for a second that there are more universal showings then that in SM, "cosmos" literally means universe. It cannot just mean "galaxy" because the definition of the word is "universe".

However people talking about SM on VS Battles wiki take the cosmos restoring from SM as a multiversal showing because the Sailor Moon universe has parallel dimensions and other areas like the space-time corridor.

To me this seems like the same as saying cosmos means "galaxy" here, just in reverse. "Cosmos" means Universe, not "all the dimensions that exist". It was very similar talking with people there about Madoka. When a character said the "world" or "universe" it seemed to be automatically assumed that they meant multiverse.

When a character said the "world of witches" it seemed to be automatically assumed to be a multiverse because.....I'm not sure.... when Homura says she can destroy the universe, it's just assumed this means multiverse contextually, because....I suppose because she knows of the existence of more universes?

Without meaning to strawman, as I'm sure there is a logic more then just this, at this level I think most people would agree this is insufficient in reasoning, as if someone says "climate change will destroy the world" they certainly are not trying to say climate change is universe busting.

When a character says "world" I read that as an area of space generally equal to a planet or greater. When a character says "universe" I read that as an of space generally equal to a universe or greater and usually take the conservative assumption.

Both are series I love and I have read/watched the entirety of and in the canon part I don't know of any showing where a character on-screen performs a multiversal feat or is directly stated to be able too perform a multiversal feat. Instead there are feats of them being able to do things to a world or universe that are being contextually interpreted to meaning multiverse.

This is what I would say is the primary difference between how I interpret and how I think VS battles wiki would interpret, and I am not trying to speak in an accusatory sense, but in as close I can to a neutral term. I believe that I try to stick as close as possible to what is literally written or shown as possible while VS Battles wiki has more of a tendency to interpret into what they are saying.

Perhaps this is a quick just of my own, but I am uncomfortable saying that my interpretation of a series is the "correct" one unless I can show evidence that is ambiguous, by which I mean evidence why I don't think can be in good faith interpreted elsewise.

Now obviously there is a limit to this. I obviously have to assume that unless otherwise noted things mean the same as they do in reality. Planets are planet sized, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, and so on. But I try to take as few interpretations as possible, and stick as closely to the literal word of the text as I can. This is my vs philosophy because it seems to me if something is un-falsifiable, that is to say, impossible to PROVE one way or another, that trying to use it in a debate is antithetical to the nature of debate, which is that each point is to be demonstrated by evidence and falsified by evidence in kind.

This does not seem to be VS Battles wiki's general philosophy....I would be interested to hear the sort of.... "underpinnings" of their vs philosophy though I don't imagine most people there would be very interested in talking about. Especially as I am just some random on the internet to them. Truth be told I was on there briefly, but I disagreed with some of the underlying assumptions the site has like dimensional tiering and so it felt....I don't know "disrespectful" I guess to hang around there. I didn't want to be telling people what was and wasn't the case if we disagreed fundamentally about how to interpret some feats.