Requests for Comment/Renaming Crappy Games Wiki


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * per WP:SNOWBALL. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I propose we rename Crappy Games Wiki. I am not doing this to sound like a moral guardian and I understand that these wikis are for 13+, however my reason is simple: The wiki should be renamed incase a kid-friendly YouTube channel wants to mention the wiki. A while ago, PhantomStrider made a video where a brief snippet of a page on the wiki was shown, however he did not refer to the wiki by name, probably because PhantomStrider's channel is kid-friendly and thus he would not be allowed to swear. I suggest renaming it to Crummy Games Wiki, since it has the same abbreviation (CGW).

Support

 * 1)  As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  The wiki's name is fine the way it is, so there's no need for a rename. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 4:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  This wiki is intended for people aged 13 or older, so the name is just fine. TigerBlazer (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a YouTuber whose primary audience is under 13 would not be able to mention the wiki. Plus, people under 13 may still read the wikis anyway. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If we did this, that would also be renaming the URL and fixing every broken link everywhere else after the rename, which simply isn't practical. I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this for both age and practical reasons.
 * Also, PhantomStrider isn't intended for kids (Heck, his pfp is a South Park style character, and he talks about older-aimed shows too), but rather he is kid friendly, but intended for older audiences. Those are two different things. TigerBlazer (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, he is kid-friendly, meaning he cannot mention Crappy Games Wiki by name. And to reply to the other user, I also plan to make a proposal to move the wikis out of Miraheze and have them become independent, but that cannot be done until this RFC, Requests for Comment/Cutting out the Toys Reception Wikis, and Requests for Comment/Cutting out the Cancelled Qualitipedia wikis are finished. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Not by any means necessary. Under 13 is not and should not be the target audience, nor would it even be an allowed audience to create an account on the platform. It's not a severe word. It is not worth the technical requirements. Finally, moving to an independent platform is something that requires its own discussion with completely different prerequisites than what you suggest, not least of which an actionable idea for where the wikis will become independent and how. --Raidarr (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is more about kid-friendly YouTubers wanting to mention our wikis, or even just mentioning the names of the wikis in passing. Since Crappy Games Wiki was featured in a YouTube video on a popular channel, it has partial validation, however, since the name was never mentioned, such validation unfortunately does not exist. And I will make a Request for Comment about moving to an independent platform once the three Requests for Comment that I linked above have concluded. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if they don't want to mention it because of its name, that is their business. They also have a standard name to reference and point to, in the form of Qualitipedia in its official form here. We'll have to agree to disagree that the difference in letting some kid-audience youtubers think it's okay to say the name is important enough or overrules the existing case to keep it as is. If we were to change the formula, I would move away from how the 'binary' is drawn entirely - wikis focused on reception really ought to take the neutral stance and not color it with names that outright assume good and bad, and list grievances or praises accordingly. But justifying any of that is a matter for another conversation, and again I would disagree that this point holds on its own here. If you wish to speak of the bigger picture of independence, I can guarantee that the outcomes of individual wikis are far from the points that will be stickler'ed on. --Raidarr (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But the name change would be to avoid future incidents where the wiki's name is not mentioned due to containing a swear. Also, the outcomes of certain wikis are indeed a vital part of independence: We need to know which wikis we are going to move. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we must agree to disagree on this too, but dare I say what we move is secondary to how we manage and host, how the leadership would change in light of this, how the interwiki functionality would work regardless of what is ported, so on and so forth, all technical complications I shall raise on the other post. --Raidarr (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  with a recommendation of a speedy close: Frankly, this is a bad idea. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think this requires a speedy close. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would consider speedy closure if this became a 'snowball' of oppositions with only the OP as a supporter, but we can give it more time to see if an interesting idea crops up or if there's an undercurrent of support we don't know about. --Raidarr (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The only way I could see a speedy closure is if PhantomStrider himself came forward and gave his opinion on the subject, since he is the only kid-friendly reviewer I can think of off the top of my head. If he himself came forward and said that he would mention the wiki by name in the future, then this could be withdrawn. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I really don't think this will pay off in the end. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) This is something that is pretty unnecessary and our wikis weren't even meant for people under 13. We shouldn't have to make things suitable for just one demographic. We should be able to do our own thing. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Crappy is a pretty mild swear word, plus the wikis are intended for 13+ (although would personally rate it 15+). Another thing is that you intend this so that the wikis could be promoted easily and seen in mainstream which I feel would be not good for the quality of the wikis. If we get too many celebrities referring this wiki, it will be a mess and people would just start edit wars even with moderation. I really don't think it would be better to give too much attention these wikis. Techsupport Agent 05
 * Yeah, I actually agree with you. We have so many pages that criticize real-life people and companies on Qualitipedia and if any of said people or companies look at their own pages on our wikis, then there'd be some massive backlash from them, and they could not only file a lawsuit against us, but they could also shut down Qualitipedia in its entirety if it ever became mainstream. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 11:16, 15 September, 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well I want these wikis to become popular and maybe someday win the Pulitzer Prize. And even if that is too far fetched for now, we need to start somewhere. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, it sounds like you are trying to force your opinion on these wikis being popular by saying it's the way you want it. Anyway, I think that if we became popular, that would mean being a lot harder to maintain, and a lot of the admins on the wikis, including me, are only students right now, so it will be harder to manage and we will have to find a lot more people to help run the wikis. And frankly, popularity isn't what we need now either during our redemption era or ever if we want everything to stay on top of having a good userbase and decent pages. We don't need popularity, and other users feel the same way about that. TigerBlazer (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I want these wikis to be better constructed and more stable before we try to promote them into mainstream attention. Obviously we don't agree on this, but at the end of the day we have to agree to disagree and let the majority speak for itself, as this RfC indicates at the moment. --Raidarr ((talk) ) 17:36, 16 September 2021‎
 * I agree, stability is what is needed most, and popularity isn't needed to succeed at this point, since we have a good userbase and I'm going to get a few of my friends at school to join, so we don't need to many new people right now. TigerBlazer (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2021‎


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section