Talk:Qualitipedia

Raise any issues, suggestions or concerns about Qualitipedia here! You may also create a blog if you prefer. Keep in mind that certain high-profile issues may be directed to a special page or blog to be focused, and that official polls and 'final' discussions may be done on a staff blog.

Feel free to use a local talk page (Discussion tab) to discuss any page or policy in particular. We will catch up to it.

How do I attatch an image to a comment?

Go to upload file. From there you can upload a file. Here is how to attach it to a comment or whatever you want, as long as it’s the source editor.

I want to fix the template “Conditional Support”. Is that ok?

Also, it should be named "Conditional support", not "Conditional Support".

Depending on what you mean by 'fix' I'm open to it. In fact you could go ahead, we can always amend or if required revert later.

It’s not possible without rights. It has to be someone who can edit templates.

I support sandboxes that present drafts to merge into the main, which give an idea of what you want to do. Otherwise it's unclear what you intend to fix.

Alright, I’ll start tomorrow.

The RfC will be closed when it's ready to be closed.

https://qualitipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/Community_ban_for_MarioBobFan#comment-2394 . Keep in mind most of the stuff he mentioned happened a long time ago, and I will be really mad if I get blocked until I turn 16 as I have been blocked from the four wikis way long. I am already extremely mad that this user made an RFC about blocking me and its against the rules. I also regret doing a lot of the stuff there. So this is why I am putting it here so it can get protected and don't want it to cause more drama.

While some of the examples I provided are a bit old, they still hold up today due to your behavior barely changing at all. Your reaction to this RfC is only making it more difficult for yourself.

I was waiting for this to happen. And no, NO one will protect it.

I am indeed here to help build the wikis.

Nope. It will proceed until conclusion and is in no way against the rules. You may find this defense best left on the rfc page itself.

I don't want to be blocked. I might stick to making only blogs on many of the wikis.

Should someone resolve this since its...well...immature?

Yeah.

Reception's message is entirely in order. Your message goes on the tired argument about 'freedom of speech' that has little basis in fact and you prefer to keep attacking a strawman instead of trying to meet in the middle and actually understanding what we're talking about when we tell you political content on these wikis needs to be appropriate and clearly justified for the topic at hand.

Now at the risk of you crying censorship, you can continue to use the topic you've already made and actually respond to me instead of bypassing me when I make problematic points for your political campaign and dragging in parties that have no reason to be fussed about what is clearly only your issue. If you have an issue with how mods, admins, and even myself operate on these wikis from a global perspective, take it to the Stewards' noticeboard as its own issue. If you seek clarity regarding this message feel free to ask as well. Thanks.

Since the survey has come up, I had raised the issues regarding not only the disallowance of politics and religion, but also about combating abusive conduct from abusive mods and admins.

Miraheze: "Hi, Thank you very much for participating in the annual survey. Since you have asked a question/addressed an issue here is your response: I'm not sure where you got the idea that political and religious speech is not allowed on Miraheze. That is simply not true and Miraheze has never closed wikis for being political or religious. There are certainly some political and religious wikis on Miraheze and there is no policy against them. If you mean local policies on Qualitipedia disallowing polticial speech that is not something that the central Miraheze administration can interfere with as wikis set their own rules (as far as they comply with global policies and UK legislation)"

Me: "Thanks for the reply. As far as I'm concerned, this is what the Qualitipedia staff told me regarding the Miraheze policies. What Qualitipedia is doing is against freedom of speech, and that is something that should be tackled. And it seems you haven't discussed about the other issue I've raised, and that is abusive conduct of abusive moderators and administrators. For instance, if someone is treated unfairly and abused, how is he/she meant to oppose them?"

For clarification, wikis that are meant to harass or belittle users are banned as a result of a community vote that occurred on September 2020.

Let me guess: @Reception123 sent an email to you? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably drama bait. Read the whole thing and see how weird it gets, with weird topics like "censorships". Reviweing97Shows (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Please leave closing topics such as this in public venues that are not overt vandalism or the like to the locally designated staff on each given wiki. This applies to all member wikis and to the character wikis. Thank you. Raidarr (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Well the wikis are closed now and this is old. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox | CentralAuth) 04:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there is something seriously wrong with Miraheze, and they have to be addressed.

In terms of Miraheze disallowing politics and religion, if that's Miraheze's problem, that's their own fault, because that way they are not only controlling people on what to do in terms of freedom of choice and speech, but also being hypocritical in the sense of allowing people to be politically incorrect about anything else, but are against people being politically incorrect about religion and politics. The very point about freedom of expression is that all of us should be able to have an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, what Miraheze is doing, is censorship, and that's a bad sign.

Besides, what we all need to understand, is that by all means, we can debate/oppose the opinions in whatever way we want, but censorship goes against freedom of expression, even if the opinions are terrible, and that is far reasonable. Censorship is not reasonable, and it interplays with controlling how people should think.

Plus, it also needs to be understood that no matter what the negative opinion are, there are always going to be some people could have an unreasonable reaction, no matter what thing it is, so it's stupid and narrow-minded to say, that politics and religion are the only ones. There's a thing called give and take, and that's something that also needs to be understood. By all means, opinions can be opposed, but there is also such thing as objectively bad or good, which is where opinion is left out of the equation.

What the hell are you saying?

This post attacks a strawman several times, I'll run through them briefly through two main points. 1. Miraheze itself is not Qualitipedia, so conflating them is unwise. But while we're on Miraheze, wikis on Miraheze as well as Miraheze itself have the right to determine topicality, what content is actually suitable for the wiki in question. Unchecked politics are generally inappropriate because especially in the modern age they are crude, argumentative, unconstructive and incredibly partisan. 'Freedom of expression' is not an unlimited right granted anywhere on the internet nor on Miraheze. Lines must be, will be, and are drawn. 2. Politics (and the even less relevant aspect religion) are uniquely disruptive in the history of reception wikis leading to content which is exceptionally problematic at a platform level and resulted in endless issues at a local level. Many, indeed most issues of their nature have already quieted down or been resolved as a result of taking an apolitical stance for QP. The strawman here is that it is not all politics or religion that are disallowed, simply either a) off topic references (admittedly, most of them) or b) overt, improperly backed up references to them (such as them unavoidably impacting public reception in a way that places the media on the wiki it ends up on). Politics and religion are not the only problematic subjects. They are frontrunners in being problematic subjects and so we might as well deal with them as such unless they strongly justify their inclusion in a particular case.

This won't change and unless you can specifically deal with it and raise the issue in a way that doesn't look like a nostalgic call back to when the wikis were close to being deleted by Stewards and the users on them made themselves entirely unwelcome for the platform with countless often ignorant political hot takes they were in no position to make and argue over, posts like this won't get you far at all.

One of the rules mentions COPPA, which is in the United States, despite Miraheze being based in the United Kingdom. Miraheze does require users to be 13 or older when they sign up.

Thanks for the notice, I've purged it on all mentioned wikis.

The rules on each of them are largely obsolete and read like rants - unfortunately this has been by the wayside to fix for a while now.

I made a topic with him asking him to be more respectful with what an admin adds or removes from a page so that he could appeal his block sentence, but he just continues adding toxic comments, and I tried to end the discussion, because it was going nowhere, but he re-opened it and continued his behavior, and so far, no one else but me is saying or doing anything about this, and I don't even know why: https://awesomegames.miraheze.org/wiki/Topic:Wxh6xpjqi98er82s

If there's anyone, ANYONE on Qualitipedia who's brave enough to make a single response to that topic, now would be the best possible time, because I really need backup, and we admins and other users should unite and help each in times like this.

To anyone with enough courage to do anything about this: please, please, please, help me out.

Ok, I'll take over on him when I've finished a few other things.

Thanks. I really could use some support.

And I'm barely getting any for no reason.

Stop baiting Lukas with replies and you won't get burned, especially when you could have let it be him only who would be warned for disregarding the opening post. I laid out specifically how it was supposed to go in my opening message and if you decide to ignore it by diving into the mud then there is nobody who can support you.

I did try to respond to you, and you alone, Raidarr, which explains why I made that reply to you, but Lukaaa decided to turn it into a conversation between me and him and nobody else.

I've deleted two messages which both missed the point. Either of you can stop. The one who stops will look better for it. Your message is noted and right now it's all I need until I get an on-topic response from Luka.

I just replied to your recent comment clarifying the whole Xbox's lack of exclusivity thing, and I thought it was very well-written and well-elaborated on. It also makes me feel a little bit better now, and because of that, I think I'll stop taking part in that topic after my last comment. Thanks.

It's not out of the woods yet, and I think I see Luka's point. It's worth working out and making clear since like it or not, the availability of exclusives on console platforms ultimately does contribute to how they are taken, and if one is lagging behind in competition then that is something that's going to be seen as inferior. I was misunderstanding him initially.

Also, I feel kinda bad for harshly blocking him the way I did. Normally, I'd apologize to him, but now, if I say anything to him, no matter how polite I am, he'll leave an angry comment towards me. You don't think it's impossible for me to earn back his trust, do you?

Lukaaa640 shouldn't have made those unnecessary angry comments anyway.

I think if you put a show of good faith via apology it will help not only you with him, but outside observers who saw how the whole affair was handled. The principle matteras as much as what Luka might say. If Luka throws it in your face it becomes entirely his problem and I will rebuke him as such, just as long as an apology is not backhanded or digs up what caused the problem in the first place.

These wikis are named Qualitipedia. However, our focus is on general reception, not necessarily quality. The pages aren’t really reviews on the media of topic. Which brings me to my “issue”. Shouldn’t we be called something that goes with reception, not quality? Our former (unofficial) name, the reception wikis, did this correctly and was representative of what we do. But, it wasn’t really unique, so we collectively decided to change it to Qualitipedia. But... as I said, it doesn’t work with the theme of the wikis. Maybe Receptionpedia? This makes sense and is faithful to our old name. Honestly, I’m surprised that this didn’t come in mind.

I’m not really asking for a name change, because in all honesty, it’d probably be hell to go through with. I’m just wondering if anyone ever thinks about this.

It is too late now. This wiki's domain name is already Qualitipedia. The name has been associated with us for over a year now. Also we are focused on both reception and quality. The main focus of the wikis is not only what is good and what is bad, but why it is good or bad.

How are we focused on quality?

Qualitipedia is better because it may not always be reception.

The main focus of articles is detailing the content (quality) of products from a popular perspective using their reception to determine at what wiki a product should go.

The reception is a second entry in pages, while the reasons why a product is considered good or bad are the first entry and most likely the bigger reason why people visit the wikis.

Quality of public perception. You might not agree with it but 'qualities' themselves especially on collaborative wiki platforms anyone can edit tend to be defined by consensus and public reception is as close to that as you can get. It's that or the anarchy where everyone had their own idea of what was good or bad, let alone how good or bad it was. That still happens in pointers but I'm willing to bet it's not as bad on average as before when the reception wikis hardly even bothered with the 'reception' part. And the distinction has merit - QP is a brand, while 'reception wiki' applies to a wider stretch of wikis than these.

To me at least, it really distracts the user that is reading, how users under 18 are still able to edit those pages, it's inconsistent in each media wiki and doesn't really translates well for Moments in History. My proposal is to give it a smaller, more of a warning to sensible users and rather than "This game was rated M by the ESRB" or "This film was rated R by MPA" it should be "The content of this page may be unsuitable to readers that are susceptible and sensitive to some topics.‎" and with the ability to edit it when needed, Like:

{{Mature|Gore and violence}}

Here is my proposal in more detail

Why do we still need a mature template? It has no value, it makes us look like moral guardians, and it can be a total eyesore on pages, so I still think it needs to be deleted.

What is a "moral guardian"?

They're people who are against things they believe will corrupt children.

Okay, well, "corrupt" might be the wrong word, and out of question, do you mean all pieces of media or just ones for children? Regardless though, my point is, people have the right to criticise things for being inappropriate for children when they shouldn't be, and provided that their reasoning isn't nitpicky or biased in any way, they are in the right.

Furthermore, in the case of these wikis, if a page is about a piece of media for children, unless it has information about controversy related to inappropriate topics or there is some other necessary reason, it can and should be as appropriate as that game, and it is unnecessary for inappropriate things to be there (ex. use of profanity). Therefore, overall, children should have the right to read these wikis, and therefore should be warned about inappropriate content.

Well, it's the parents' job to monitor what a child looks at on the internet, not ours, so we really shouldn't be doing all the babysitting for them.

Nice idea, but considering a good portion of the wikis including their admins are underage we can't play on ignorance or laziness as an excuse. That said, nothing truly mature does (or should) appear in the pages. Content rating iirc is already noted in the infobox and there's no reason for descriptions to get too graphic. I'm actually leaning towards abolishing the template even though with actual description it can be better.

What about in pages such as South Park (seasons 1-19, 21-present) where one of the bad qualities is some of the disturbing content in the show. In addition, as I said before, the age rating on the infobox, in my belief, is not good enough.

If the content is explicit to the degree it requires a caution then it should be toned down in the text. In that article there are potential 'triggers', but nothing I'd consider extreme enough for the current (vague) warning format. Perhaps we could consider a tvtropes style system where spoilers or more extreme content needs a click to view.

Does Miraheze have a spoiler text extension? I know that one exists, but does Miraheze have it?

EDIT: After looking into it within my own wiki, I can confirm it does have one. Can we enable it?

Still, it is useful to have a warning so our sites don't seem completely 13/15/18+.

To make it smaller so it's out of the viewer's way, here's my idea.

I actually have a much bigger idea, see here. Although I have a different opinion to you, about moments in history pages, I have ideas about that, so you will see more information there.

Zeus' idea seems to be the most elegant for me given it doesn't insist in occupying a large spot of the article and, as Street said, isn't a total eyesore.

I thought it said it is a total eyesore? Also, infoboxes already have age ratings, so having a mature templates should be obsolete by now.

Yes, you said that. I was only citing your statement to support mine:

Zeus' template design is good because <it doesn't occupy a large spot of the article> and <isn't an eyesore>.

Street's concerns about the current mature template is that <it is an eyesore>.

That is not nearly as much of a clear warning that a Mature template is.

I wouldn't say the ratings in an infobox are a warning, but rather, basic information about a page's subject.

Well, it should be like a warning.

A while back I said that I’d change it myself, but frankly, school and my laziness took the best of me. If a designer is needed in this, I’ll be glad to help since we don’t have designer.

Actually, we kind of do, Moisty. Katsumi and his upgraded templates qualify the best for that role.

Katsumi sounds like the ideal person. We need to give him a basic description of what we want and he will do an amazing job.

I'm in favor of Katsumi designing the template, too.

I'm not opposed to both giving it a go, may the best template(s) win.

Nice. Who’s idea should I do first?

I will like to share my idea. Is smaller than the other one, translates good for both media and events and rather than being just for 18 and up, is just towards susceptible users

Warning! This article is marked as Mature! The content descriptions of this page may be unsuitable for readers that are susceptible and sensitive to some topics.‎ Reader discretion is advised.

I'm pretty sure it'll be as abusable as the NSFW and NSFL templates were.

I’ll change up the wording a little bit but I’ll get on it.

This is just a sketch, but this is my idea on how it should look. At small stop sign is good because it looks nice and doesn’t take up much room.

This is my idea.

This material is rated M by the ESRB.

This material has been rated M by the ESRB.

Game Wiki version

This material is rated R by the MPAA.

This material has been rated R by the MPAA.

Movie Wiki version

This material is rated TV-MA by the TVPG.

This material has been rated TV-MA by the TVPG.

TV Show Wiki version

This material is for mature audiences.

This material is intended for Mature audiences only.

Book and Website Wiki version. This can also be used in general.

Also, like King Dice's template, you can specify the mature content.

That's right. And because of some parts of "[BLANK] Moments in [BLANK] history" have the template, I decided to change it to "The content descriptions of this page may be unsuitable for readers that are susceptible and sensitive to some topics"

Since this topic is getting a bit old, @Raidarr: have you decided yet?

Anybody else kind of bored because there's currently no real activity on this wiki besides the CWW RFC?

don't you have something else to do?

I do, but still...

This isn't supposed to be active until it's needed, as an administrative wiki. It needs some reorganization anyway, I'd rather not see it too heavily used for what it is until that's done.