Hate to bring up an old issue - but from looking at these sets recently, I think leaving the problem longer is just creating more issues. I think I understand the issues which caused the initial creating of the sets, but we are going to have more members confused as, bottom line is, there is only one of these sets. I don't know how easy the following would work, but if there is no further movement in trying to fix the issues, I would suggest:
1) As the (Fake) lists have been around longer, move the card lists for people with cards on the "without the (Fake)" moniker, to the "(Fake)" moniker list
2) Delete the "without the (Fake)" moniker list
3) Rename the "(Fake)" list to remove this from the title
This gets us back to square one. The issue of "fake cards", I believe was just around poor cropping on some of the sets, so presume that is no longer a concern. So then I think the only issue is - how should the cards be listed. I don't think we will get consensus, which is fine, we just need something that will be consistent for the early NNO sets. My understanding:
1) General site guidelines for NNO sets is alphabetical in a single base set list (works for searching with the "find" function, or scrolling down one list
2) The set up at each colour being an insert set was floated (I would think more problematic in resolving where multi-colour cards go, and having different lists, also that these were not "inserts" and are not how later numbered base sets are handled, so seems inconsistent)
3) The "MTG community" as it were, and I believe Wizards "intent" is that the base list is done in colour order - White, Blue, Black, Red, Green, Artifacts, Lands - with some tweaks/adjustments over the year. In each colour, alphabetical.
At least on re-ordering the checklist, that's an easier fix than having multiple lists outstanding to have to merge.
Or those in the know - let me know if I am way off base, or if there is work still going on to move this forward that "we" just don't see.
Best Regards.