Blog:The importance of these wikis

Note: This blog is not intended to bash anyone's opinions on these wikis, and if you don't feel the same way, that's fine. I'm just saying why I think they are important with the hope of people understanding my (and potentially others') views on these wikis, and explaining how we can fix them. Hello, it's FatBurn0000, and I am going to explain why I think these wikis are important and what we can do to improve them if they don't close.

The importance
The thing with these wikis that feels so special is that they put reception together and document it, and talk about why a certain piece of media is bad or good. I am aware that there are already reception sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDb, etc. that do a similar thing, but (a they don't add everything together and (b they don't explain everything wrong/right with something. The special thing about these wikis is that they put every piece of reception together, which to me, is a relevant part of reception: What is the true consensus? Yes, Wikipedia and other sites explain reception a lot too, but (a they usually don't list everything relevant and (b they don't write down all of the reasons that it was bad/good. I like the idea of a wiki that creates a big page criticising something (or a page praising something, though the negative pages are admittingly a lot more interesting). Ultimately, I feel like without reception wikis, the world of reception just isn't the same. I know that this is not the best explanation and I really wish that I could explain the rest in words, but that's the best I can do.

How to fix the wikis
Now, these wikis have made attempts at improvement in the past, and I am aware those attempts haven't done much, or at least, not enough. However, I do have ideas. I am aware that some users have suggested independence, which might be an idea as it would prevent us from ruining sites' reputations, however, my problem is, we need someone who can actually do that. Regardless, we should try to improve the wikis, as although it will help Miraheze's reputation if we do (getting rid of them completely is indeed probably the best for Miraheze, but just in case, we'll try and make it better) we should try anyway as independence doesn't make our wikis that much less problematic.

The main idea for the wikis
This will be an idea similar to one of TigerBlazer's ideas for the revamp where she suggests deleting all pages on Qualitipedia wikis and starting them all over again. However, instead of doing that, I propose that all pages at which are taken a look. The idea for pages that need something done about them is this:
 * 1) Pages that are poorly made (weak pointers, lack of pointers, etc.) should be renamed to User:[username]/sandbox without leaving a redirect if they do not have anything in their sandbox, or User:[username]/sandbox/[page title] if they already have something in their sandbox/have other sandbox pages.
 * 2) Pages that are opinionated should be moved to blog posts (and by move, I mean rename without leaving a redirect, please don't make this mistake). This does not apply to the films mh:awfulmovies:Cuties and mh:awfulmovies:Leaving Neverland, as the former is a definite exception and the latter I would definitely recommend be an exception too. This also does not apply to politically biased pages, see below.
 * 3) Pages that have pointers that are nitpicky, politically biased, and/or untrue, can be moved to the creator's sandbox or sandbox page (and as I explained on #1, I mean renamed) if they have potential to be a good page (ex. belonging on the wiki it is on) but if they do not have this potential, they should be completely deleted. They should not be moved to a blog as an opinionated blog post. The creator can request it be restored and moved to a blog post anyway if they want to make it less like this, but when the pages are first discovered, they should be deleted.
 * 4) *Note that while this does not apply to mh:crappygames:Gamers Are Dead since you don't have to be a GamerGate supporter to know how stupid that is, but the corruption in game journalism and mh:crappygames:Quinnspiracy articles should be deleted, as both are unsourced and some accusations in the latter are even proven false.
 * 5) Any controversial page should be deleted and forbidden, such as mh:crappygames:Pokémon Sword and Shield.

Disclaimer
To further prevent controversy, we could put a disclaimer on the main page of every Qualitipedia wiki saying something like this: "Disclaimer: These wikis are not meant to disrespect opinions nor to treat an opinion as facts. They are made to document and explain reception, and are mainly intended for fun. Those who disrespect opinions will be blocked."