Requests for Comment/Urgent Enhancements to Improve Everyone's Experience in Quadpedia

Greetings Quadpedia! I'm Zangler, and this is my first ever Request for Comment.

I, like most people reading this, care for these wikis. You may not feel the same way as I do, but for me, Qualitipedia is more of a home than a workplace, and their users, a community, not co-workers. I want to do my best to help fix the problems that've been persisting since the very beginning, but for it to work we need all members' input in this RfC, only then QP will have a brighter future someday. This may sound redundant, but we still have opportunities to become more than what we already were in the "golden age", and these two inspirational blogs were the only things I needed to prove it.

Given the (mis?)fortune that was brought up with the retirement of an admin not long ago, I trust that this RfC is the most important thing that we need implemented now, both for the community by clarifying problematic things, and for the wikis, by executing Allistayrian's ideas in a more passive manner.

Right below I'll share the basic idea of this RfC, what changes I want to make and my reasons to do it, later explain each proposal briefly in its own section and how all of us can get benefits out of it.

What It's All About Abouthr.png
The idea is the following: A recreation of the Main Page and basic features in all Qualitipedia wikis, make both newcomers and veteran users feel welcome and included. This will provide a more clear information about everything; make users truly connect with what happens in the community every day, let them be aware of everything they must know about QP, including article quality control and writing, the determining phases of the wikis' history and the people who rule the place.

Background Backgroundsubhr.png
Here's a metaphor:

"The Qualmish kingdom is divided into factions, allowing citizens to choose one faction where they'll work for the most part of the day. Members of a faction can visit the others at any time, but their schedule is mostly occupied by their primary faction, barely getting notified of changes to the other factions.

The monarch and his royals care for one faction over all others: Gamma. This faction receives good attention, has the most capable members, keeps improving every day and is kept up-to-date with (likely) all important news. Even the community gatherings used to take place there before the town hall was built. The monarch never revealed this secret to the low factions (Short-sighted, Moveless, Litter, Webbers), making them believe they are all treated equally when only Gamma has been representing the kingdom from its roots.

News publishers were rather ineffective with journalism. If members of a low faction wanted to investigate the many determining events that happened in the kingdom, they had to visit the Gamma library, instead of being notified of the most important news directly inside their faction.

Universal announcements were a rare thing often reserved for what the royals said were "the most delicate situations". They were everywhere for coronation day and many light topics. But when suddenly, in the most usual of days, the monarch is executed, the royals don't tell anyone about what's arguably the most controversial event in the kingdom's history. Not a single citizen is notified of the news, leaving them to find out on their own. This has happened before, with an event of serious importance that the royals desperately wanted to keep a secret from ALL factions."

Here's the same story told from another perspective:

"I gained citizenship in Qualmish as a member of Short-sighted, the lowest of the low. I did my best and worked hard there, thinking it was all I had to do when in reality I achieved nothing, in contrast to what new citizens of the Gamma faction did in less time.

The news were everywhere for coronation day and other light topics, yet as a part of Short-sighted, I wasn't told of the monarch's execution, the critical issues that extended from it and a delicate situation of serious importance that was kept secret from everyone, not just the low factions. My reliable Discount news publisher wasn't safe from misinformation either. What I thought was a flawless world ended up being the most imperfect of all messes, and I wasn't told about it at all. I had to find out on my own."

And here's the context behind the metaphor:

I believe there is some sort of political corruption within Qualitipedia, having a set of unspoken rules and not letting its users know of the very important information about the wikis that they've been missing out on.

I observed how the average user base of the Games Wikis and Qualitipedia Meta (a.k.a. the most important subsidiaries of QP) is the only user base that can be seen interacting across all wikis, opposite to the other factions composed by the more immature side of QP, who seem to be locked in their wikis with no clue of what the real community is like, or what the real QP is about. Take me for instance, and how I (and sadly many members of the lowest faction) unironically thought the wikis were about documenting "facts" about products "objectively" (in other words openly treating opinions as facts), and how a user called me out for this behavior once after I had joined the greater faction.

Of course, the royals are well-aware of these user bases' exclusion. With this noted, one'd think they want to reintegrate these users into the community so they are given the same treatment and chances to stand out, treatment that the members of the superior faction already get, instead, it feels like they want to neglect their existence. Don't forget one of QP's notorious problems are (most of) its users, and excluding that one immature sector of the community sounds like disinterest in fixing this issue. Ironic, isn't it?

Although you might've heard this before, I'll gladly repeat it: Our founder created the wikis for fun, not professionalism. We should serve our old monarch's proposal step by step and honor Qualitipedia's priority of being a fun and welcoming community for everyone, not a serious workplace restricted to the most capable people only.

Changes Changesubhr.png

 * 1) Remaster of Rules & Guidelines: The Rules should assess all determining data that has yet to be disclosed in the wikis. The following changes are planned:
 * 2) *Better Organization: Push the rules to their own subpage and leave a link at the top of the Main Page that stands out from the other content seen there. Let new users know where they can find the rules that they must read before doing anything else.
 * 3) *Rearrange Sections: Once in their own subpage, the Rules' sections should be rearranged to make the more "urgent" rules be recognized easily and know why they matter the most:
 * 4) **General & Conduct: The rules and tips that emphasize the biggest priorities; community interactions, admins' service (explained in RfC's Part 3), (possible) FAQ and the Code of Conduct. Given these entries talk about community-related content, this section should be first. This applies for all rules in CGW's 'Conduct' section.
 * 5) **Pages & Content: Rules related to the pages themselves and how they work. This applies for all rules in CGW's 'Content' section except for #13, which should be moved to 'Conduct' instead (explained in the next sub-change).
 * 6) *New General Tips under the Rules tab (organization of these is up to the admins' choice):
 * 1) Prioritize participation and interactions in both Crappy Games Wiki and Qualitipedia Meta.
 * 2) *As the big brother wiki, CGW has the most active community, capable admins and advanced quality control, and the general news/events of QP are always shared and discussed there (Note: Not forcing users to work on games-related content, only suggesting community-related interactions).
 * 3) *Qualitipedia Meta is the center of the wikis, where Requests for Comments, the wikis' system of suggesting changes to how they work, are discussed between users. Here users should get an idea of how the wikis work while, again, benefitting from direct interactions with the community.
 * 4) Encourage joining the Qualitipedia Discord server so you have better opportunities at partaking in even more direct interactions with users, in addition to getting notified of the news before normal wiki users.
 * 5) Rewrite of Content's #13: We offer user pages, blogs and comments to express yourself and your opinions. Be more open with the community here, check what announcements are made and share what doubts you may have about those, check any activities or projects that users come up with regularly and see how you can participate in them as well.
 * 6) Check new blogs and change logs at least once a day, that way you are updated with everything you may want to know about a specific wiki's newest events.
 * 7) See the Administrators page to clear any doubts you may have about the network, as well as getting to know the people behind Qualitipedia's management.
 * Pages:
 * New possible rule to clarify one of the most commonly-shared doubts in the user base:


 * 1) Content examined in Qualitipedia articles is, similar to a review, based off opinions (subjectivity), not facts. The opinions here are shared by the majority of the public and critics who reviewed said media/topic, and articles should explain what gave them the reputation they have now. Never impose articles' opinions on any user, nor forbid users from having their own opinions of any media.
 * Move Content Rule #5 to #1, reworded as:


 * 1) After you've read all the rules under this section, it is recommended that you read the tutorial to get a quick lift in your pages (explained in RfC's Part 2) before creating an article. Drafts should start in your sandbox and, when the page is ready, ask an admin with the 'Content Curator' role (explained in RfC's Part 3) to verify it.
 * 2. Better use of the MediaWiki:Sitenotice tool. Give it the proper use it deserves to make the phrase "Calling all users" live up to its name. If we really want to improve, things like the wikis' "dark" moments shall not go unnoticed by anyone, and while nobody likes those, users from all wikis deserve to be aware of the real problems behind Qualitipedia. The following changes are planned:
 * New categories for different Sitenotices:
 * Local Sitenotices are shared in one pair of wikis in particular. For example, a decision revolving around a specific game being in either of the Games wikis should be a local sitenotice for AGW and CGW.
 * Universal Sitenotices are super-important news directed to all Qualitipedia wikis. For example, big changes to the network, admin applications or an admin's departure.
 * Requests for Comment Sitenotices are directed to all Qualitipedia wikis, but are only used to advertise Requests for Comments from Qualitipedia Meta.
 * Miscellaneous Sitenotices are for lax games and activities ran by users or any news that aren't necessarily related to Qualitipedia itself.
 * The new categories will have their own color to allow better recognition between them:

 Local Sitenotices will keep the normal  and   background and border colors, respectively. Zangler (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)  Universal Sitenotices will have a shiny  golden background color and an emotional black border color. Zangler (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)  Requests for Comment Sitenotices will have a juicy  amaranth background color. Zangler (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)  Miscellaneous Sitenotices will have a majestic  turquoise background color. Zangler (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sitenotice categories with improved aesthetics have been made by Katsumi here.

Background Backgroundsubhr.png
"A page certainly does not have to be perfect, but it should be decent at the basics and feature complete, as the bar of quality has always been very low on QP and that is a large part of the problem that the wikis are criticized for. Pointless articles that are easily plucked apart. I see too many of them on the wikis as it is and new articles should raise the bar, not sustain or lower it."

- Raidarr, in response to a blog

One of the central themes of the Reception Wikis is writing articles criticizing all sorts of media. However, establishing a fair quality control for said articles has been one of our top priorities for a good amount of time and has yet to become a reality. With this New Tutorial, we shall pass that milestone at last, and what we portray as high quality will finally become an easy-to-achieve requirement, not a luxury.

<font style="font-size:0em">Changes Changesubhr.png

 * 1) New Page Creation Tutorial: The current Tutorial gives some advice on the technical aspects an article should present, but nothing related to writing quality itself. The following changes are planned:
 * 2) *Merge the 'Starting' and 'Adding reasons' sections, later recreate them completely into 'Guidance and Tips' (prototype name). As pointed out by Raidarr, an article shouldn't be perfect, but decent at featuring the basic content one should have by default. When thinking of this, the last thing new users'd go for is writing a nominee for Featured article, yet the tutorial explicitly states that . On the other hand, the tutorial also shares  . See the problem? Rather than showing users how the "best" and "worst" pages look like, we should search a middle ground where they are taught how to make simply "decent" pages that they are capable to make and can enjoy making, articles that represent the minimum of what we expect; not the most exigent expectations and not what we don't expect to see at all.
 * 3) **The new Tutorial has to be clear with its guide and teach how a page can reach that loose decent quality, in contrast to what CGW's Featured articles page does with its 'What qualifies an article as a feature?' section, which vaguely says how a featured article is, not how we can make it be. Barring #1, the tips only provide very minor observations (like infobox content, punctuation or byte length) unrelated to the real section that users commonly struggle with and another big problem of QP as a whole; the critique.
 * 4) *Note: The Tutorial doesn't intend to enforce its quality or writing style on all users' articles, it only provides an optional, but recommended, simple starting spot.
 * 5) *Note 2: The colored texts and sup texts are only used here to make the tutorial more understandable, and how its tips are expected to be implemented by users who want to follow the tutorial's steps.

A concise concept of the new tutorial can be found below, starting with the primary tips/essential resources:


 * 1) The biggest priority when writing an article is to explain with detail what your point is to get it across correctly. Each pointer has to provide a  defense  to its  statement  rather than  vaguely confirming without one .
 * 2) *Don't do this:
 * 1) Creative take on the game's genre.
 * Do this:


 * 1) Creative take on the game's genre : Half-Life innovated the FPS genre thanks to its merge with brain-teasing puzzles, which opens up new gameplay ideas and challenges.
 * 2. All pointers from both the positive and negative sections must sound like a respectful thought and not an  informal bias relying on nothing but adverbs and adjectives . Avoid the previously mentioned and endorse they  provide equal informative value  to the article.
 * Don't do this:


 * Why It Rocks


 * 1) ''Blazing Beaks</i>' irreplaceable gameplay is characterized by the innovative Artifacts mechanic. Artifacts are items that debuff your character, and with each Artifact that you pick up, your 'Risk Value' increases. You can empty your Risk Value in the shop levels by trading your Artifacts with the Crow in exchange of good items. Risk Value determines how good your rewards will be.
 * 2) Incredibly exceptional pixel art graphics.
 * Bad Qualities


 * 1) Heavy reliance on random number generation, especially with the tedious Artifact drops.
 * Do this:


 * Why It Rocks


 * 1. undefined ''Blazing Beaks</i>' irreplaceable gameplay is characterized by the innovative Artifacts mechanic. $def$ Artifacts are items that debuff your character, and with each Artifact that you pick up, your 'Risk Value' increases. You can empty your Risk Value in the shop levels by trading your Artifacts with the Crow in exchange of good items. Risk Value determines how good your rewards will be.
 * 2. undefined Incredible pixel art graphics $def$ that compose an important part of the game's world and feel, as their looks and sprite animations are polished, the character and enemy design choices stick to the art-style while looking unique from one another, and each environment has a proper use of colors that make them special in their own way.
 * Bad Qualities


 * 1. undefined Heavy reliance on random number generation, especially with the tedious Artifact drops, $def$ given you will not always receive that many Artifacts in the first levels and many drops won't give you that much Risk Value either. Some specific game modes shouldn't allow certain Artifacts to drop as they could break the run to your advantage or to your misfortune, yet they can appear as drops regardless.

Next up is the set of secondary tips for users with high standards:


 * 3.  Organize pointers attentively and remark the important ; don't put  unequal focus on random details  of the game, but the ones that strike of it the most. Your  first pointer  has to be the most powerful one, as it gets a game's spot in the wiki where it is. Anything that catches players' attention the most should be analyzed before the  secondary reasons , later come the  minor attributes .
 * Don't do this:


 * 1. On-point soundtrack by Valmont, submitting a collection of adrenergic songs that spice up the emotion of their respective segments significantly. A notable element are the guitar segments that predominate over all other instruments without vanquishing them out of the spotlight entirely, as seen with the track Prisoner's Awakening.
 * 2. Delicate choice of features in general. Every aspect of the game was designed to work reciprocally with the others, which only makes a tiny contribution to the panoramic success of ''Dead Cells</i>' exemplar game design.
 * 3. ''Dead Cells</i>' metroidvania-roguelike gameplay is one of the game's most impressive aspects, as the potential that this concept had was correctly exploited with its multiple freshly planned mechanics.
 * 4. Frenetic combat system that pushes the limits of action-platformers with an effective use of unique playstyle mechanics for each gear and predictable, but challenging attack patterns for each enemy.


 * Do this:


 * 1. undefined ''Dead Cells</i>' metroidvania-roguelike gameplay is, by far, the game's most impressive aspect and the primary cause of its success, $def$ as the potential that this concept had was correctly exploited with its multiple freshly planned mechanics examined in the following pointers.
 * 2. undefined Delicate choice of features in general. $def$ Every aspect of the game was designed to work reciprocally with the others, which only makes a tiny contribution to the panoramic success of ''Dead Cells</i>' exemplar game design.
 * 3. undefined Frenetic combat system that pushes the limits of action-platformers $def$ with an effective use of unique playstyle mechanics for each gear and predictable, but challenging attack patterns for each enemy.
 * 4. undefined On-point soundtrack by Valmont, submitting a collection of adrenergic songs $def$ that spice up the emotion of their respective segments significantly. A notable element are the guitar segments that predominate over all other instruments without vanquishing them out of the spotlight entirely, as seen with the track Prisoner's Awakening.$val$

This was just my idea of a cheesy tutorial to write articles of any product/media in general, using games as an example. If admins like the idea, a simpler or more complete tutorial shall be made based off their own ideas.


 * 2. Repurpose the Good articles: While the Featured articles represent the mightiest of them all, the Good articles are just there for the sake of it; they aren't shown in the main page, have no distinctive mechanic to make them as unique as Featured pages and overall add nothing new themselves. As Faces of the Wiki, Good articles will reach the spotlight with ease. The following changes are planned:
 * From now on, the Good article badge will be more accessible, and renamed to 'Approved article'. It won't be used for mildly "inferior" pages to the Featured articles, but drastically inferior pages that should only follow the Tutorial's primary tips correctly as a requirement. Granted, this makes room for a 'Approved+' template for the articles that follow both primary and secondary tips correctly.
 * Replace all media shown in the main page with the new Approved/+ articles as they pop up gradually. This doesn't mean all the prompts will be occupied by pages of obscure media though. We'll still respect the Reception-driven format, only that the Faces of the Wiki articles will have to be Approved/+.
 * With the main page showing Approved/+ articles over ordinary pages about media based on their very positive/negative reception (whichever goes according to its respective wiki), new users will have a better idea of what QP is about: writing pages of media, just not too perfect and not too bad, while welcoming anyone who wants to write pages too.
 * The template should be reduced in size to a less notable addition similar to Wikipedia's existing Good article template. Of course, the Approved+ template will follow this direction too.

<font style="font-size:0em">Background Backgroundsubhr.png
Let's just get to the point: Many users and even admins that I often hear from agree the communication, service and administration of most Qualitipedia admins is inefficient, having very few active admins with interest in fixing QP's issues. This change won't fix this completely, but partially, which is better than nothing.

<font style="font-size:0em">Changes Changesubhr.png

 * 1) Impose Strict Law: Bureaucrats, be more strict with the staff. Admins should be active and evoke dedication to their commitment; be there for QP. While I understand not all of them have enough free time to work on this hobby, some others clearly don't have an inch of interest and it shows with their unacceptable laziness and how they are never there for the urgent situations. Don't be the leaders that we want, be the leaders that we need.
 * 2) Administrators Page Recreation: Simply put, merge Qualitipedia staff and Administrators into only one page that's more straightforward with its information, thus easier to read (order of sections in this new page is up to the admins' choice). The following change is planned:
 * 3) *Improve Qualitipedia staff's 'Membership' section. Don't just put the bureaucrats, add a brief description of all admins and what service they can offer, which transitions to the next change.
 * 4) New Admin Roles: Enhance feedback by giving admins a role that clarifies, again, the specific service they offer:
 * 5) Content Curators are admins that specialize in page content. Attend to these to ask any doubts involving articles. For example, verifying your sandbox's content.
 * 6) Offense Observers are admins that help with conduct and behavior. Attend to these for help involving any questionable interactions you may have with other users. For example, users attempting edit wars or leaving disrespectful comments.
 * 7) MediaWiki Maestro are admins with wide knowledge of formatting and code. Attend to these to get help with formatting. For example, creating your signature or fixing a page's messy code.
 * 8) And finally, Omnipotent Operatives are admins that are willing to cover all the roles below. Attend to these for anything.
 * 9) *Here's a quick example of how these roles could look like in the Administrators page:
 * 1) relgnaZ: Active administrator in the Games Wikis and Qualitipedia Meta; Semi-active in the Shows Wikis.
 * 2) *relgnaZ is a Content Curator and Offense Observer, with some MediaWiki Maestro skills.

''' Vote below for this RfC! Quadpedia counts on you. :) '''

<font style="font-size:0em">Support Supportsubhr.png

 * 1) As proposer.  19:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) These new policies can fix several of the problems Qualitipedia as a whole faces. Dragonite (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I literally was talking with TigerBlazer and  about this, and I really like the idea of a revamp, since this mess has been recognized as problematic for months now. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To expand on this further, as what requested me to do in a private DM on Discord, a revamp is just the thing we need, as I am currently sick of seeing people fight over stupid stuff, and having to see nauseating rants about Qualitipedia that is absolutely nothing new, nor does it require any context for that matter. As much as I want this all to change, the pointless battleground behavior needs to mitigated, so we can minimize the risk of seeing users fight over page moves. This is also why I'm strongly supporting this, with no regrets at all. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I like the ideas you have presented, they can definitely be beneficial for improving the Qualitipedia Wikis. JigglypuffGuy04 (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) ZeusDeeGoose.....?  (chat) (contribs) (CentralAuth) [[File:ZizouDarkWitch2Spritebutactuallytransparent.png]] [[File:Sola sprite in Dark Witch 2.png]] [[File:Franzer sprite in Dark Witch 2.png]] 20:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Sounds like a fantastic way to make things for the better. More active staff, easier to understand rules and better tutorial are the things we need. 21:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Hell yeah I'm on board with this. It's about time we update our page standards and admin/user policies. The only caveat I have is the existence of two good templates because of how confusing and redundant it sounds to have two templates that have extremely similar purposes and names. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch  (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Maybe we could work it out similar to the Support/Oppose templates and their strong/strongest/weak variations. Good Approved+ could be a variation of the Approved template like this: . What do you think?  11:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That alleviates some of my concern, though aesthetics may need to be taken into account to better tell the two apart. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Lots of room for improvement, I don't see why not. --ᗩT</b>Oᗰ</b>Iᑕ</b>ᔕT</b>ᗩᖇ</b> 💬 ⌨ 00:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I think that this will solve the major problems we have here. So yes yes yes, I say can. Edit: I feel neutral now because there are some problems that are there, i hope history wont repeat itself again, also I got some advice if you are reading this,if you can, can you make so these are not going to be super proffesional. Gilimaster69 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I think these are good ideas. Octavio 1:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Hopefully, this doesn't become like the Allistayrian controversy thingy. The Dunkman (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Zangler, you're a goddamn genius. I one-thousand-percent approve it. 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! <span style="font-size:1.15em;display:inline;padding:.1em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;text-shadow:0 0 6pt white,0 0 6pt white;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,yellow,yellow,yellow,yellow,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5);">⚡ <span style="font-family:FOT-Rodin Pro,sans-serif;">Thunder Gale <span style="font-family:FOT-RodinNTLG Pro,sans-serif;">Katsumi  ⚡ <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) I instantly agree with others. NJPet (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) This is an amazing idea! Chocopuppy 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) This would help improve the Wiki by a lot. BlakeIsHere458 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  I like the tutorial idea, and I made proposals for the other two a while ago, specifically regarding blocks. I do agree that these wikis need a revamping and some changes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)  Actually, after reading more thoroughly, I am changing this to a weak support. I do agree with some things, though not exactly completely. For example, I do agree that there should be a tutorial for creating pages, but I do not feel that a revamping of the way pages are written out are necessary. Pages do not need to be excessively long and detailed. I do like the first suggestion, with organizing the rules into different sections, and also for different colored site-notices. The third one I do not really have an opinion on. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, as I already explained myself both in the replies and in the RfC, the tutorial's tips are just an optional way for users to get a lift at writing pages, not an obligatory writing style that attempts to enforce itself in all pages. 17:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Qualitipedia needs something new, and this seems to be the best proposal yet. MoistyPorky.jpeg Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 01:34:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC) MoistyPorky.jpeg
 * 2) I was having a bad day when I wrote that oppose. In truth I rather like this RFC, the author obviously cares about QP this much if they want to improve it this much and that's something we really should respect, plus some of these ideas aren't bad like the site notice one and as mentioned below, the tutorial stuff is optional. And, this idea can work with a project I myself have been thinking up lately also related to QP improvements... 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  04:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Things like changing what articles deserved to be the face of the wikis is great. I've always found it bothersome how articles that are shown on the main page aren't as good as they could be nor do they have the seal of approval. The reconstructing of the rules is a good idea since making good articles should be of upmost importance if you wanna contribute. I'm also tired of these low quality pages, and hopefully reconstructing the tutorial should help with this. HawkeyeSolo
 * 4) Yeah baby yeah - Austin Powers PlantyB0i (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2022 (CDT)
 * After some clarification, I'm now giving this a weak support. I'll go over each aspect of this RfC:
 * 1) Response to Part 1: Is there really any sort of need to revamp the rules any further? Raidarr and I already revamped the rules earlier this year and made them far more organized and less cluttered. Unless the current rules somehow end up like they were in late 2021 with 50+ rules (which is highly unlikely), I see no reason for another complete revamp. Organizing the current ruleset will do if it needs it. Having a separate page for them adds one extra and unnecessary step to view said rules, unless there's absolutely no good place for them in case of redesigned main pages, which has been brought up a lot in the past. The proposed new rules don't sound like actual rules, but rather tips and suggestions for newer users, so they sound better in a tutorial page if anything. The site notices sound nice on paper, but I don't think having four different types of notices is necessary. The red and blue notices can merge well with the gold and normal colored notices respectively fairly easily in my opinion.
 * 2) Response to Part 2: This part right here is the one I used to oppose the most, but now I have no problem with it. A better tutorial is a good idea, as this one is more detailed and better demonstrates how to make good pages. The repurposing of the Good Article template sounds like an interesting and potentially good idea, although I think it's a better idea to name the template "Great" instead of "Good+".
 * 3) Response to Part 3: For the first two points, those don't need an RfC to put into action since they aren't exactly as complex as previously mentioned stuff. We can just put these suggestions into action and see how they do. As for the third point, I can see these new roles quicky getting underutilized. The wikis had a bunch of similar user groups in the past but were all deleted due to them never being used. Only having the basic admin rights is more convenient since there's only one group to focus on, and admins already have access to all four of these proposed rights anyways.
 * 4) Overall, there are plenty of interesting ideas in this RfC, despite a few feeling unnecessary and unneeded. How this will coincide with TigerBlazer's plan to overhaul the wikis, I don't know, but I guess we'll find out as we try to progress further with these overhauls. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) The defense/statement thing looks a bit ugly but otherwise it looks solid. —-GrammarFixer (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Honestly, this entire RfC put me in awe. Even though this will not solve all our problems, but this would at least make the wiki more organized and high quality. The7Guy (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

<font style="font-size:0em">Oppose Opposesubhr.png
I never intended to make the Tutorial an intimidating unbreakable law, it's just that, a tutorial. It only gives a set of optional tips to help those users that need assistance, which again, were done in the light manner that you are requesting. When you put it that way, I say we can get rid of Featured and Good articles, even if their intention isn't forcing users to write pages that way, only congratulating them for their effort, but I believe this new Good template (which may be renamed to fit its purpose better) could have a better outcome. As you said, users should only have fun with the pages they write. The tutorial and template don't want to stand in their way, but aid them. Trust me, making QP that super-serious professional place from the Allistayrian era is the last thing I want, and gotta agree the words "execute his ideas" were not the best to express my thoughts, but I added the "in a more passive manner" part for a reason, to go for an alternative that seeks the same thing you want: A slacker-naive Grust era where everyone has fun and we treat each other politely, just not too slacker-naive. Let me know what parts of your comment I left unanswered, or what parts of my reply aren't expressed that well. 16:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  I'm sorry, I'm so sorry, but I have to oppose this whole thing. I was fine with the concept but my view has completely changed. In short, Qualitipedia does not need a lot of this. New sitenotices I am fine with, maybe a new tutorial and having one page for staff, but everything else I am opposing strongly. In short, this seems like once again another attempt at giving the wikis professionalism. If you look back at previous attempts, most notably Allistayrian's attempts, have all ended badly. By trying to give the wikis this kind of structure, we essentially lose what makes creating pages fun and makes creating pages on QP with a caliber of quality such as this a chore. That was how I felt during Allistayrian's reign, like I was forced to make pages in a certain way and I hated it. While I wasn't there, the Grust era worked because it didn't have any of this. Were there more problems, like political pages, sure. But we were allowed to make pages how we wanted without having someone breathing down on our necks about it. Had we had a structure more like that era, it would be a lot more of a chill place and we wouldn't have had the shit drama we had now. I'd rather have a more limited form of quality control where only the absolute worst can be deleted than a structure where I have to keep 4 page creation rules in mind that can't even be enforced most of the time. A new form of staffing will be incredibly redundant, especially what I see here, an admin/leader structure is completely fine enough as it is, and is a lot simpler. And that's really why I oppose in general, it's overly complicated for what QP needs when a much simpler structure would be more beneficial and in turn be less hard on everyone, and that's why the Grust era was remembered so fondly. This is going to hurt us in the future, as what happened when Allistayrian introduced a similar concept, and I simply cannot see that happen again. I'm sorry. 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  13:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of me feels that the proposal could be amended to address these concerns. The proposal does state that Qualitipedia was meant to be a fun place after all. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When we have stuff like this introduced, I simply cannot have fun on Qualitipedia. QP needs a tutorial that is much more light on everybody, and this is not it. It needs staff lists to be simplified, and this is not that. It doesn't even need featured and good templates because it simply discriminates against users who don't know how to write any better, we just want to let people write how they want, not give a bar of quality that some can't ever achieve. This RFC simply cannot be amended for that in mind because it is fundamentally built on this kind of aspect, and I simply can't give weak support or even a conditional because of it, this is the exact opposite of what is needed in Qualitipedia, and it hurts me to see that history can possibly repeat itself if this succeeds. 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 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So the solution here is to remove all the overly authoritarian and restrictive aspects of Qualitipedia. Is my assessment correct? <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not all, but a very large chunk, about 90% of them, yes. These are causing more issues and are a main reason why Qualitipedia is simply not fun, it feels more like a workplace. This RFC looks to not be able to solve that big issue whatsoever. Remember what Grust said, "The wikis were made for fun, not professionalism". This is the complete opposite of fun, and I should know because I was around before the Allistayrian era, I made a few pages before quality control got in the way, and it was actually fun to write something back then. I simply cannot stay on Qualitipedia if something like this is tried again, what it needs is to better itself is a structure that is very different from this, but still has some form of authority. A wiki network without featured and good page crap, letting people write pages in any way they wish or feels comfortable to them and not how we expect them to write (with obvious exceptions of course), and plain, simple staffing. I'm trying to say modern approaches like this are not working and we need to reset the wikis entirely and start a better structure such as what I am suggesting. And no argument is going to sway me from this position. 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 15:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. The RfC plans to solve issues related to both pages/content and community/conduct, but it is mostly oriented towards the second one, a much bigger issue that should be prioritized and I made it more than clear.
 * My position has not swayed a bit. The new staffing roles are unnecessary to me in pretty much every way. We do not need three separate aspects that admins need to specialize in and categorize them in that way, it's simply too complicated for what QP can actually handle, that's been shown before. Technically speaking all admins must have some knowledge in all three aspects to make them qualified for a staff position, so the forth categorization, the operative, is really what all members of the staff should be like. And no, I don't approve of the new form of good template either. If we wanted to showcase articles on the main page and make them "faces of the wiki", the best we can do is to show pages of varying writing to them to show that smaller and the bare minimum such as this page are acceptable as well, I feel showing what is considered the best is going to still cause alienation for people who can't write as well, so at the very least still have a place on the mainspace for those smaller and so called "weaker" pages. And preferably the tutorial should show the minimum of what we need as well on that same note for people who prefer to write smaller. My opposition still stands. 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 16:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * : I was thinking about supporting this since a lot of users are supporting this, but after reading TigerBlazer's opinion as well as rereading this RfC, I can't help but oppose it. I'll go over each aspect of this RfC:
 * 1) Response to Part 1: Is there really any sort of need to revamp the rules any further? Raidarr and I already revamped the rules earlier this year and made them far more organized and less cluttered. Unless they somehow end up like they were in late 2021 with 50+ rules (which is highly unlikely), I see no reason to have a separate page for them since all it does is add one extra and unnecessary step to view said rules. The proposed new rules don't sound like actual rules, but rather tips and suggestions for newer users, so they sound better in a tutorial page if anything. The site notices sound nice on paper, but I don't think having four different types of notices is necessary. The red and blue notices can merge well with the gold and normal colored notices respectively fairly easily in my opinion.
 * 2) Response to Part 2: This part right here is the one I oppose the most. A better tutorial is a good idea, but it all goes downhill from there with the concept presented. This "defense" and "statement" concept, as well as coloring the text based on how it's written, will undoubtedly make creating pages a lot more like a tedious chore. It adds a ton of unnecessary extra steps when it comes to making pages, and trying to memorize all of the quirks of this concept also sounds like a pain since there's so much to memorize. These two problems will almost certainly discourage users from making pages, I know I would be. The repurposing of the Good Article template, however, sounds like an interesting and potentially good idea, although I think it's a better idea to name the template "Great" instead of "Good+".
 * 3) Response to Part 3: For the first two points, those don't need an RfC to put into action since they aren't exactly as complex as previously mentioned stuff. We can just put these suggestions into action and see how they do. As for the third point, I can see these new roles quicky getting underutilized. The wikis had a bunch of similar user groups in the past but were all deleted due to them never being used. Only having the basic admin rights is more convenient since there's only one group to focus on, and admins already have access to all four of these proposed rights anyways.
 * 4) Overall, while there are some interesting ideas in this RfC, the other ideas are not so good. I know you made this RfC in order to try and make the wikis fun again since that was the original purpose of the wikis, most of these ideas will do the exact opposite, especially with the weird and inconvenient method of page making that is being proposed. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "as well as coloring the text based on how it's written"
 * That's not what Zangler meant. He meant this:
 * "Hi, if you had observed my proposal more carefully then you'd already know the text colors and brackets are only there for the tutorial's examples to be more understandable. It doesn't say anywhere that I want to have those in normal articles."
 * <span style="font-weight: bold; background:blue; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">The Goose Named Zeus '' [[File:ZizouDarkWitch2Spritebutactuallytransparent.png]] (chat) [[File:Sola sprite in Dark Witch 2.png]] (contribs) [[File:Franzer sprite in Dark Witch 2.png]] (CentralAuth) 12:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did he say this? I looked up and down for a mention of not using colored text for actual pages, but found nothing. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it. That should be addressed in the RfC itself and not as a response to a comment, that will cause confusion. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All done! :) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Response to your response to Part 2: <span style="font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">"This "defense" and "statement" concept, as well as coloring the text based on how it's written, will undoubtedly make creating pages a lot more like a tedious chore. It adds a ton of unnecessary extra steps when it comes to making pages, and trying to memorize all of the quirks of this concept also sounds like a pain since there's so much to memorize." That is the reason we have templates. It does not eliminate the problem entirely, but it helps a lot. The method that Zangler proposes is certainly possible, providing that it's elegantly implemented. Like this:
 * Simple as that. 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! <span style="font-size:1.15em;display:inline;padding:.1em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;text-shadow:0 0 6pt white,0 0 6pt white;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,yellow,yellow,yellow,yellow,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5);">⚡ <span style="font-family:FOT-Rodin Pro,sans-serif;">Thunder Gale <span style="font-family:FOT-RodinNTLG Pro,sans-serif;">Katsumi ⚡ <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  14:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If templates don't eliminate the problem entirely, then why add in this new style in the first place if it's going to be a problem like you stated? There's nothing wrong with the current pointer style we've been using ever since the wikis were created, so why try to fix something that isn't even remotely broken? --Blazikeye535 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, even if it is going to cause a problem, at least the problem will not be much that concerning since Zangler's methods will certainly reduce lots of burden from editors. Secondly, you say that the current pointer style we have been using is not wrong. And I have to say, you do have a point about that — for now; because, pretty soon, the current style is going to be considered outdated and bland by many. Users and visitors alike are getting sick of reading vague descriptions like "the soundtrack is decent" or something like that. No, we need to change. We have a chance to change. We could change, but we CHOSE NOT TO DO SO multiple times, because apparently somebody is still sticking their conservative way of thinking like " something broken + still works = don't fix " right up their お尻. Pandering to status quo is not a good option, my friend, so please understand. 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! <span style="font-size:1.15em;display:inline;padding:.1em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;text-shadow:0 0 6pt white,0 0 6pt white;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,yellow,yellow,yellow,yellow,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5);">⚡ <span style="font-family:FOT-Rodin Pro,sans-serif;">Thunder Gale <span style="font-family:FOT-RodinNTLG Pro,sans-serif;">Katsumi ⚡ <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  10:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly is me expressing concern over a potentially huge change like this pandering? Do you even know what pandering means? Not only that, but telling me that my "conservative mindset is right up my ass" isn't going to paint you in a good light at all. I've seen plenty of people say that the userbase here can't handle opposing opinions and openly bash said opinions, and you're proving their point with that rude response. You also seem to be missing my point; I'm not against having new writing styles, I'm concerned with how that's going to be executed. If the "defense" and "statement" templates are only used in the revamped tutorial to provide a clear idea on how to write good pages, then that's fine by me. But if they're intended to be used on the regular pages as well, that's where my concern is. Having to constantly add these templates in every page will get repetitive and tedious quickly and will make every page that uses them play out like the tutorial page, essentially making them feel more like a simple variation of said page. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly is me expressing concern over a potentially huge change like this pandering? Do you even know what pandering means? Not only that, but telling me that my "conservative mindset is right up my ass" isn't going to paint you in a good light at all. I've seen plenty of people say that the userbase here can't handle opposing opinions and openly bash said opinions, and you're proving their point with that rude response. You also seem to be missing my point; I'm not against having new writing styles, I'm concerned with how that's going to be executed. If the "defense" and "statement" templates are only used in the revamped tutorial to provide a clear idea on how to write good pages, then that's fine by me. But if they're intended to be used on the regular pages as well, that's where my concern is. Having to constantly add these templates in every page will get repetitive and tedious quickly and will make every page that uses them play out like the tutorial page, essentially making them feel more like a simple variation of said page. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

 * 1) Your suggestion of putting text in the "Why It Sucks/Rocks" and "Redeeming/Bad Qualities" sections in [s is a terrible idea as it looks extremely ugly. Everything else though I don't care about. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Don't really care about many of the things said here. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 02:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you had observed my proposal more carefully then you'd already know the text colors and brackets are only there for the tutorial's examples to be more understandable. It doesn't say anywhere that I want to have those in normal articles. I apologize for the misunderstanding. You don't mind explaining why you don't care about the other changes? 10:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't really explain. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 02:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You should try, that's what RfC's are about after all, discussing ideas and such. If you have nothing to add to the conversation, then simply don't engage at all. 03:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand the concerns from all the opposes, but I'm a little mixed, nearly doubtful, seeing as it could be at least be a bit maintained without changing much substance. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)