Requests for Comment/Remove and prohibit pages about companies in Qualitipedia

Greetings Quadpedia! This is Zangler here, with a Request for Comments pursuing a change to all Qualitipedia-affiliated wikis.

What It's All About Abouthr.png
Recently I noticed that pages in the style of companies were always a more problematic thing than usual for Qualitipedia to handle and trying to fix those unattachable issues of theirs while keeping them in the wikis is a lost cause. The only choice we have is to remove and prohibit them as a whole because they don’t belong here anymore.

Before I get started, I have to make some quick clarifications:


 * This proposal will borrow many points from the request to ban pages of people. They both address similar issues of the subject that is being discussed.
 * This proposal is not the same as the request to ban pages of business practices. This will cover companies' entire commitment in Qualitipedia and not one small criteria.

With that out of the way, let's begin.

Background Backgroundsubhr.png
My most urgent concern with every company article and the biggest problem that we have to take care of is that they are essentially bigger versions of real life people articles, which as you all know are forbidden in Qualitipedia for obvious reasons.

Now, while the direction that both companies and people articles intend to follow is fairly responsible and not troublesome, this being to criticize the artist/producer for their participation or impact on their respective industries and any other criterias that directly affect the outcome of their content, it is an inherently broken approach as other criterias that ideally shouldn’t interfere with the quality of their content , such as the referent's actions outside of the workplace and what happens in the background , have to be taken into account regardless if we don't want to make it look like we support a company that produces good content but is morally wrong in the other areas and vice versa. This may not sound too bad at first glance, but articles that follow this contrary direction are making the same mistake of the now deleted pages about people, which is practically attacking the people behind the companies for their so-called "actions" instead of criticizing the content they make. The Qualitipedia wikis are about media, not the people behind it.

The problems above become infinitely more problematic when taking into account that these pages usually don’t include any sourcing for their statements. This not only directly violates one of Miraheze’s policies regarding the spread of unsubstantiated rumors of real life individuals, but also goes to show that the writers of these articles were acting too carelessly from the start by doing said things and don't want to worry about doing the right thing. The articles from the negative wikis in particular are simply biased from the start and feel like a hate page from how many unsourced claims they have and how out of place they can sound at times.

Changes Changesubhr.png
Deletion of the following pages and categories:


 * Crappy Games


 * Pages
 * Roblox and Roblox clones/revivals
 * Categories
 * Companies and every page inside of it
 * Subcategories will be moved to a new category titled Games by company with the exception of those in the headquartered in countries style
 * Similarly, subcategories from the aforementioned will be moved to the Games made in countries categories
 * Companies that used to be good, Defunct companies, Greedy companies, Neutral companies, Redeemed companies, Shovelware companies and every page inside of them
 * Websites and every page inside of it
 * Bad games from good companies and Bad consoles from good companies
 * The downfall-style categories


 * Awesome Games


 * Pages
 * Roblox
 * Categories
 * Companies, Fusion companies and every page inside of them
 * Good games from bad companies


 * Best Shows & Episodes


 * Categories
 * Studios, Defunct and every page inside of them
 * Good shows from bad companies


 * Terrible Shows & Episodes


 * Categories
 * Companies/Studios, Companies that went downhill, Greedy companies, Fired and every page inside of them
 * The downfall-style categories
 * Subcategories will be moved to a new category titled Shows by studio


 * Greatest Movies


 * Categories
 * Companies, Major companies and every page inside of them


 * Awful Movies


 * Categories
 * Companies, Film studios and every page inside of them
 * Companies owned by Disney will be moved to a new category titled Content owned by Disney
 * Bankrupt studios
 * Subcategories will be moved to a new category titled Movies by bankrupt studios


 * Any sandbox for a future company article shall be deleted with no warning.

That is all for now. Please cast your vote below.

Support Supportsubhr.png

 * 1)  21:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm a bit mixed on this RfC, but I do agree to an extent.  21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)  I would actually suggest a different proposal. Ban companies from the negative wikis, because the Miraheze policy says nothing about forbidding positive claims.    00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC) I will actually switch to  as of 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC).
 * Also,, why would we delete the 'Website' category?   00:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The recently imported website articles are essentially just company articles with a new name, as the websites in question are criticised for similar things such as the people behind them and choices that don't relate to their impact on an industry. Zangler (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't know about this… I'm fine with it I guess. KumihoWolffey (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm honestly mixed about this, but at least you do have a point, although I don't really care about the fate of the company pages. DragoniteSignatureImage.png Dragonitetypeface.png]] DragoniteTalk.png]] DragoniteContribs.png]] 23:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While I personally like these pages, that's no reason as to why they should stay. I initially would've opposed, but after seeing your arguments, I'm now in support since I now realize that they are quite messy compared to other pages. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The scope of these pages are an absolute mess. A lot of them talk more about their actions rather than their creations, much like the celebrity pages used to do right now to Content Policy violations with lack of sourcing for many of their claims. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch  (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , for now. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 18:01:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * 1) Originally gonna oppose, but they violate the content policy, so yeah, I support this, barely. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They do not violate the content policy. Even if they are unsourced, they still do not necessarily violate it. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They could. A company is a group of people after all.   03:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's weird to think that, of all users here, you are defending these pages and the reason you offer involves ignoring the supposed problem that you always enforce on others, only that this time it does matter as you are practically dismissing both local rules of Qualitipedia and global rules of Miraheze for no apparent reason. Zangler (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Given the history behind companies on these wikis with pages like the Nintendo and Disney ones, and how so many of them stir up drama more often than not (and how I personally think QP should be media-only focused anyway), I'm backing this with full support. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer  19:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the reason why the Nintendo page on Crappy Games Wiki was causing so much drama was because users like Rymann and Lukaaa would complain about it so much as existing, and LeroyManTheFirst didn't want it to be around either so he used a sock puppet to lie about the company's problems coming from its American division rather than the entire company. That's all in the past, however, and we no longer have a vocal minority stopping us from putting Nintendo there. Besides, companies are media-related, aren't they? SuperStreetKombat (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) These pages spread rumours of real life individuals which aren’t confirmed, and that’s against the content policy.

<font style="font-size:0em">Oppose Opposesubhr.png

 * 1) Sorry, but I think company pages are fine and removing them isn't really necessary. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Defend your statement of why they are "fine" please. I don't get the point you are trying to raise with the current state of your vote. Zangler (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I (somewhat) get the idea of banning pages of an individual person or a fan/hatebase, but companies are an entirely different story, because they're more like, say, objects that are run by people, if that makes any sense. Kinda like schools; you judge 'em not based on the people with them, but the schools themselves, just like you would with companies or the like. Sorry if that sounds a little vague. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, Street. However, the difference between schools and companies being a part of Qualitipedia is that people go to schools to teach and learn, and Qualitipedia is not here to criticize companies, Qualitipedia is here to criticize the content they make. If you really need to mention something that happened off-camera that ultimately affected the outcome of a company's content, that should be mentioned in the respective article. As I said in the proposal's background, writing articles of the companies themselves deviates from our wikis' initial concept and is an inherently broken approach due to the many criterias that we have to base ourselves upon, criterias that, again, almost never interfere with the quality of these companies' creations. Zangler (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) You mentioned in BG pointer 3 that one of the problems is unsourced claims. Why not just provide sources for more claims? And let's be real, have we ever actually gotten in trouble with the Miraheze staff for having these company pages? I think you're interpreting something wrong with that content policy. I think it's just saying you can't spread false information about a person or group of people or bash them for the wrong reasons, and if Miraheze is gonna punish us for having a page that exposes a person or company for terrible actions that they have actually done (discrimination, abuse, etc.), then that's just disgusting. DeadPixel (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We can get in trouble, and given that we are one of the larger wikis on Miraheze, that would be more likely.   00:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The only people under the responsibility of adding the respective sources are the same editors/authors of these pages who should've recognized their mistakes in the making of their articles. With all due respect, I don't think providing sources for the claims of articles that already break the rules and guidelines of our network should be in my or the staff's hands as we'd be breaking our own rules by not only allowing but encouraging the creation of forbidden articles. Zangler (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) There is nowhere else to put them since both company reception wikis are dead, and there are no problems with these pages. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "No problems"? Didn't Zangler just point out 3 flaws with the company pages? Also, does it really matter that the pages will have no place to go?   04:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I do agree they shouldn't go, I personally think both the company wikis still have potential, and HCW still has some activity. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I really don't see the issue. As long as people add sources to their pointers, then there should be no problem. Same can be said for pages based on real people, but I know that they will never be added again for whatever reason. Sofaking we todd it (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how many company pages there are, imagine how many pages have no sources. How long would it take to add all these sources? 22:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that has to do with anything. I've seen pages with a ton of information from passionate people that add their sources. The time it would take is irrelevant. You make it sound like the company pages should be removed because you assume too little from editors. The same thing can be said about pages based on real people. I understand slander on pages can bring serious harm to people, but reputable sources should be mandatory for these types of pages. I hate censorship so people deserve to have access to little-known information. Sofaking we todd it (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that it would take a large amount of time to add sources for something that already potentially violates Miraheze guidelines. Also, "access to little-known information"? Qualitipedia has never been all too reliable for information in general, ex. Rotten Websites Wiki.   03:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to what Zeus says about your little-known information dilemma, it isn't and it never was Qualitipedia's job to call out companies or individuals for the actions that the articles say they have done, and if these articles already suffer from a disproportionate majority of unsourced claims that have yet to be taken care of, then your counter-argument is in my favour now: "As long as people add sources to their pointers, then there should be no problem". If the authors/active editors of these articles aren't doing something about it to begin with, then it is indeed a problem. Zangler (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh please. As a wiki, Qualitipedia has pages that are reliable for information (not all, but the ones that have sources). I made pages on Tom Rothman and Amy Pascal on AMW with sources. There was no controversy then when the pages were first made along with other pages based on people and companies until you guys made it a controversy. As I posted on the comments, the Miraheze content policy says that unless there's independent referencing, there should be no wikis that spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumors against a person or group of people, which these pages didn't do. As for editors that don't do this, I think a solution would be to make it a more well-known rule and let other users get a chance at fixing the pages before deleting them outright. I also think that it would also be a good idea to have a template to remind users not attack these people if there's a possibility for it to be a problem. Sofaking we todd it (talk) 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) While I do think pages about companies that make two pieces of media should be banned (since we can't decide which wiki they should go on) they're otherwise fine as most of the problems can be improved on, and they, in my belief, are not as bad as pages about people. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear your explanation to why they are "otherwise fine", how "most" of the problems I explained can be improved on and why they are "not as bad" as pages about people, because for now it looks like you dismissed all my points. Zangler (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Sofaking we todd it's vote. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Full Response Here: Company pages has no harm to Qualitipedia, and is helpful to give users an oversight of issues that are running inside of the company. People should be able to collaborate with these issues. What seems to be the main rationale is because it is wholly unsourced, which is both untrue, and if it were, page deletion/cleanup should suffice. Prohibition for such pages is unorthodox. The argument that "Miraheze forbids company pages" is unconditionally misleading. Nowhere in the Content Policy does it state "Negative company pages must not be hosted on Miraheze."; so why mislead people into believing such a claim. In lieu of this proposal, I propose that these pages are instead monitored frequently and have semi-protection added. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 16:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a horrible idea. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why?   22:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, what's the point of removing pages on companies, especially since they're up there to record their horrendous business practices? It's true they're being ran by people, but it's not like we're trying to entirely taint their reputation. That sounds stupid. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is a stupid idea to remove pages about companies from a wiki that isn't even about criticizing companies in the first place. Especially taking into account the problematic direction that they are taking and the equally hopeless traditional direction they had and how unrelated it is to this network. Zangler (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "I don't see how it is a stupid idea to remove pages about companies from a wiki that isn't even about criticizing companies in the first place" This is wrong, because for a long time there have been these types of pages and these companies are related to what is in each corresponding wiki, so if you can make a page of companies. Rem69 18:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) What's the point of removing it anyway? Szczypak2005 (Szczypak2005|talk) 20:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as I am opposing this too, that's a very weak argument. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 00:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling you are pretending to not know what is going on and prefer to oppose any change that sounds counterproductive to you because you didn't bother taking your time to do the necessary reading to know what is the best choice, because the question you brought up was answered already in the 'Background' section of this request. Zangler (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I think these pages are fine and there is no need to delete them, I haven't noticed anyone having a problem lately, and a lot of people are against it. Szczypak2005 (Szczypak2005|talk) 08:79, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We are back where we started: Why do you think they are "fine" and there is no need to delete them when I gave my reasons in the request? The second comment about nobody having problems with them only strengthens my point that you skipped reading the background of my proposal, as I listed issues which means that someone does have a problem with these articles. Zangler (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) *Well yes, the company is not people + it is better for the company to know its mistakes and you can change the header to "Why Their Practice Sucks". Szczypak2005
 * 2) We shouldn't let the bad actions of big companies go uncriticized or under the radar. We won't know about what they did unless it's shown, and the content policy doesn't forbid negative company pages on miraheze. I get the citation/sourcing issue as well, but that's on the authors and editors of the pages, not the wiki itself. --SubzeroNoSc0pe (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 12 August 2022 (PDT)
 * If people want to know what x did, they could look up x controversies. I almost guarantee what they look up is what they were searching for. 15:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Companies mostly make bad decisions and basically company pages are a complaint of how they make their decisions, somee business measures can become very infamous, deleting these types of pages is like pretending that they have done nothing wrong, also this does not violate people's sensitivity, as several companies are only looking for money and everyone can be wrong in what they do, also if you are so worried that about six toxic and bad pointers of a few pages of a wiki that has more than 900 articles, delete them, if it bothers you that they don't see their mistakes, no one has really cared, I didn't even see those pages more than twice and you already treat it as a worrying problem, if you do not want them to put rumors, delete them, if they do not put references for the pointers, put them or delete those pointers and emphasize that they have to put references (although some pointers may be of something that everyone already knows and those who don't, can search for it, like the NFT's of Sega), this feels more like evading garbage than anything else. Rem 69 21:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "deleting these types of pages is like pretending that they have done nothing wrong" How? That clearly wasn't Zangler's intent with this proposal.   03:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Zangler worries so much because they criticize the artist/producer for their participation or impact on their respective industries, when there are people who have objectively done bad things and that the poor quality of the product was their fault for decisions, everyone can be wrong and yes, several people can do other bad things in the background and can also be criticized for it for giving a bad image to a company. Rem69 18:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my intentions. Their direction of criticizing the artist for their impact on the respective industries is in fact what I would've encouraged when it came to these articles, yet none of them can distinguish the artist from the person and in the end form this mess of articles that are more about people (already forbidden approach in our wikis) instead of artists. Even if we got that out of the way, it's still weird to go and make a page of a group of people when we could stick to the traditional concept of Qualitipedia and simply write about their content. Zangler (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it would be better to put limitations on business pages (as a rule of not directly attack people on company pages), instead of banning these types of pages as it feels like a harsh decision. Rem69
 * 1) Movies, games, books are all created by people, so should we delete all these articles? Yet, company is formed by a group of people, but if as long as they do not violate the Content Policy, it is okay. I think cleaning up is a better way to go. -Matttest (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Movies, games, books are all created by people, so should we delete all these articles?" No? Media is inanimate. Whatever you say to it can't hurt it. Also, several pages do violate the content policy, as several of them are unsourced, and as you said, they are a group of people. 14:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Media is made by people so what you say can hurt the creators. If they are unsourced, sandbox them or delete them, don't need to take the easy route, and often controversial, way out. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 15:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Miraheze policy still wouldn't affect media, as almost all pages about media don't go out of their way to insult or rumor about the people behind the project. 01:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Any comment made towards a product should be seen as criticism. Saying that this could hurt the creators of it can be said for every article in the Qualitipedia wikis. How is it harmful to write about a product but it isn't when we write about people or a group of people with word choices like 'Why They Suck'? Zangler (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1:The "Why They Suck" could be changed to "Why Their Business Practices Suck"," so it's not harmful. 2:Anything can be criticized, including a person's decisions and work, really this is not harming the creator, rather it is pointing out his flaws, also several companies make bad business decisions to look for money and they can be criticized for it. Rem69
 * 1) I'm sorry but there's no point at removing these arcticles, Companies are not like people, all we should do is just source the pages and that's it, considering the fact they hold horrible buisness practices and made horrible things in the past. Dready (talk) 1:56 PM, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Pages about websites can avoid directly mentioning people, and why should crappy companies just have their flaws unknown while so many people want to know them? I was going to ignore this request, but thenI felt like giving my opinion on it. Sorry pal, I find this unnecessary. CarlFilip19 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the website part, but if someone wanted to know x's flaws, they could simply look up x controversy, and I guarantee it would pop up. 01:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What if they are unknown failures and no one is looking for them? Rem69
 * I would severely doubt they would have a page in the first place. 19:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per all the other votes. Skeletacean (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) There are companies that are only dedicated to one single medium like companies that only make films and companies that only make games, also we don't need to delete articles that criticize companies for good reasons such as bad practices, discrimination or harassment. Just like other user said, we can source the articles, and the companies wiki were never part of Qualitipedia.
 * 3) If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The company pages never had any controversy (with some exceptions such as Nintendo and Disney). Also some companies do a lot of unethical things and should be called out. PituckosTheCockatiel (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2022 (GMT +3)
 * "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Zangler pointed out 3 flaws with the pages. 16:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling you skipped through my arguments only to write another basic oppose with little explanation to your points, because I listed more reasons than just "they have controversies" behind this request. Zangler (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that my answer is stupidly basic. I dont have a lot of time these days due to my job. And yes i read your arguments and you dont have proof to most of them.PituckosTheCockatiel (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2022 (GMT +3)
 * In the case of the strongest arguments I presented I thought it'd be clear that proof wasn't needed as they stand still on their own. You can apply that complaint to any RfC here. People are of course going to propose changes or cast votes when they have an idea of what they are doing. Also, didn't you present arguments without evidence too? Zangler (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also by your logic pages about any media should be banned due to being made by humans. PituckosTheCockatiel (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2022 (GMT +3)
 * No, not at all. I'm trying to say that these articles should focus solely on 'the artist' (Qualitipedia's initial intention on the subject of people/company pages) from 'the person' (what ideally shouldn't be a thing in Qualitipedia) but it is an inherently broken style of articles because of how these two areas will always clash with each other. Even with that out of the way, it's not a very strong argument to think that criticizing media is a bad thing to do only because it might offend the people who worked on it. Zangler (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry but I had to disagree with the idea of removing it. If a company is doing unethical things (e.g Funimation hiring of a predator, Disney supporting the CCP and Blizzard treating the female workers badly) then it should be called out.
 * And since when is Qualitipedia a network dedicated to calling out companies or individuals for their unethical things? This is pretty much excusing the already prohibited pages about people and their approach of criticizing people for their actions, not artists for their content. Zangler (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Look, before I begin, I want to preface this. I get why you would want these articles gone, so please don’t take the fact that I disagree with you as a personal attack, like you have with other responses. Ultimately, where I primarily feel your argument fails is that you basically state that the criticism of companies for their actions is the same as critiquing people themselves. Let me point something out quickly. If the article about a company does NOT mention any of the actual people behind it, would it still count as writing about them? No, it wouldn’t! Would it? Never mind, moving on. My second point of criticism concerns the fact that you generalise all articles about companies as being sourceless (I know that’s not a word but whatever). Would the issue be improved if all the articles added sources? Because if so they can easily be found on the internet. But anyway, those are my major reasons for going against this RfC. I reiterate, please please please don’t think I’m trying to attack you, in fact feel free to respond. Thanks for reading (if you did) and I hope you’re well. Boomerang289 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to add something else at the end of your oppose? 16:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) That's dumb to remove pages about companies. Because, critics may want to criticize them, even on Miraheze. Am0ngU$ (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a pretty weak argument. 14:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have a better argument to describe this poorly thought-out RfC? That's like censoring articles online. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering I've responded to several opposes, yes. 00:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) At least slightly opposed right now. Granted, I'm not a regular editor on this site, but I do regularly browse, so maybe my thoughts shouldn't carry as much weight as regular editors. I'm still unconvinced by the argument that criticizing a business is the same as criticizing an individual and there could still potentially be arguments for why a company that most might think is great could be potentially considered "crappy", and I'm also not really convinced that these pages are messy or difficult to maintain. I'm open to changing my mind on this, but for right now, I don't see a good reason to implement this change in policy. Drcynic22 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) - per everyone above CRAB-2 (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) We can work towards sourcing claims in the company articles. I get that there's a lot of pages and quite some work that we will need to work towards, but this is a way better solution than deleting a bunch of pages due to an indirect issue that other kinds of pages may have (lack of reliably sourced claims), although I see that is a larger issue with company pages. Companies do have reception, good and bad decisions are notable. I get that Qualitipedia is more about reception of media that companies create, however, good and bad decisions by companies also can affect the media they create.  -  05:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) - Same reasons as from the above votes. (Companies being different than celebrities, Company decisions are responsible for how the material turns out and how they influence the industry, can be sourced enough to be valid) Equal One (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

<font style="font-size:0em">Abstain Abstainsubhr.png

 * 1) Alright. Hear me out on this. I think we should keep pages about companies, but only criticise more of the style and mechanics of their products (this includes the apps by major publishers as well and certain tropes found in video games) rather than the business practices behind the scenes, as Zangy mentioned. Because honestly, he has a point. Companies are not people. They're not actors, authors or anything. But banning pages about them would be kind of a stretch since people pretty much have fanbases around them anyway. YouKonade (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, so the only reason Im persay, here in the first place is because Zangler pinged me on the discord server and quote on quote said: "you are good at persuading people into supporting you and noting their mistakes, so I need your vote and possible replies to votes in this request." I have to say, rn I have no main idea about the company issue, so for now until I come up with something a little more developed, here's my suggestion: Don't stop pages about companies at all, just take some precaustions and rules to making and using them. Reviweing97Shows (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not sure whether this is good, because on one hand, it will prevent some companies like Nintendo being in Crappy Games Wiki because other companies have the same decisions, and in the other hand, it will cause some confusion because companies are technically people, so I'm neutral over this. The Dunkman (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you allow me, I think both of the reasons you provided sort of have a positive view on the request. Preventing companies from being in a wiki and "causing confusion" because some people can't get into their minds the thought that a group of people are still people is very much one of the intentions of this request. Zangler (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)