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.

Question has been answered, and Qualitipedia is now closed.

Do you automatically get banned from the wiki's associated with it?

I think what you meant by getting banned from Qualitipedia is being locally (and of course indefinitely, if I interpreted the question correctly) blocked from Qualitipedia Meta (the wiki where you added this talk topic).

The answer is no. Even if our list of wikis are indeed associated, this isn't part of the literal design of Miraheze (as far as I know), it's just an imaginary association. However, getting blocked indefinitely from a Qualitiedia wiki might result in a chain reaction of admins manually blocking you across the rest of the associated wikis.

Depends on why.

Admins have cross-wiki blocked users in the past for any reason, but they are trying to stop doing that.

Qualitipedia is closed, so they won't come back.

Please explain.

I'm assuming you mean the featured and good templates?

Yes.

They were deleted due to an RfC.

What templates?

Please explain (what you mean).

Qualitipedia is now closed.

I think the negative wikis should have a category for media that was liked by critics, but hated by fans. We should also have vice versa on the positive wikis.

Personally, I find the whole reception group of "fans" questionable. Wouldn't fans be technically critics or part of the audience (usually the latter)? I don't really see why "fans" has to be a separate group.

Fan/general reception can sometimes clearly and wildly diverge from the opinions of professional critics. Hence a distinction exists.

Yes, but what about audiences?

What about them? Sounds like another term for unprofessional critics, public/popular reception... or (and I admit the term is a bit limited, probably why you're trying to make the distinction) fan reception.

TBH I'm not 100% sure but I believe it refers to YouTubers (with some exceptions as some are officially listed as critics) and online users on review websites.

I am creating this in a discussion since blog posts now require moderation. Anyway I have an idea for a logo. It is an idea I have had for a while. The logo will be shaped like a four-pointed compass rose:

• The green color for the game wikis will be on the top, since they were the first wikis
• The red color for the literature wikis will be on the bottom, since they are the newest wikis.
• The orange color for the movie wikis will be on the left side, since Hollywood is located on the west side of the United States
• The blue color for the show and episode wikis will be on the right side since that is the only space left.
• In the middle will be a gray circle with the wiki's abbreviation in the middle (for the network as a whole, the grey circle will have a Q in the middle, which can be used for non-wiki specific purposes, such as the logo for the Qualitipedia discord server).
• There will be four points to the compass, and each point will be divided in half for both wikis. On one specific wiki, one of the halves of the wiki's color will be filled in, and the others will be in a faded version of each of the wikis color's, and the wiki's abbreviation will be in the center. On the central wiki, all of the colors will be filled in. The left halves and bottom halves will be for the negative wikis and the right halves and top halves will be for the positive wikis.

It is kind of hard to describe, and I have a better picture in my head of what the logo will look like rather than what I described. Since I am not a very good artist, I will invite one of you to design it.

This is actually rather neat, and worth seeing a proof of concept for.

He's not becoming a bureaucrat again, and Qualitipedia is closed.

Raidarr, our best bureaucrat, has just retired. This, paired with the new moderation extension, has officially begun a new dark age of Qualitipedia: The Moderation Era.

And who gave you the permission to decide all of this?

Decide what?

What is even sadder is he retired with unfinished business.

Now I know how TyrantRex felt when he was constantly viewing things on the wikis as an overreaction.

To call it an era is a stretch.

Retirement wise, yes. I've been falling off for some time and if I waited for everything to be finished or stable I'd be better off making QP a full time job, which doesn't interest me.

You couldn't have been bothered to make a public announcement about your retirement?

No, I find them to generally be attention seeking and it doesn't change much day to day anyway. If you wanted a place to just ask questions then my talk page is open.

I already have planned out certain portions of Qualitipedia history into "eras":

• FreezingTNT Era/Experimental Era (December 2020-June 26, 2021)
• MarioMario456 Era (June 27, 2021-September 8, 2021)
• Transitional Era (September 9, 2021-December 22, 2021)
• Raidarr Era (December 23, 2021-August 10, 2022)
• Moderation Era (August 11, 2022-present)

The rebranding officially begun in December 2020, so nothing before that is counted. I have also heard people talk about the "Allystarian Era", though I don't know when specifically that was. Also, I didn't officially join the wikis until October 6, 2020, so I don't really know much about the history prior to that.

Before that: The rebrand transition era (sept 2020 - dec 2020, the part after the UWAUW and the outcast network fell) The UWAUW era (May 29 2020 - sept 2020, after the fall of CSW, and rise of uwauw) I didn't edit miraheze before may 2020.

Every single time when I finish editing, there is an infamous Pending Review, which can wait for a long time after a single edit, so can anyone please remove that situation?

i don't know about this. It happened to me too.

It also happened to me when I tried to edit the TCAGS blog on Terrible TV Shows Wiki.

That situation was established by the Moderation extension being enabled, requiring review from wiki management before the edit is made public.

You guys should've known earlier as we advertise our local Requests for Comment in all three pairs of wikis via sitenotices.

Requests for Comment/Anti-vandalism system for Qualitipedia-affiliated wikis

I'm adjusting the user group rights right now, hopefully that fixes the problem.

I've adjusted the rights on all wikis. If that doesn't fix the problem, then this system might have to be discarded if no one else has any ideas on how to make it not an annoyance.

Hasn't been commented on in a month, and there is an RFC.

when I noticed that the website wikis were closed I was so angry because I actually liked those wikis, I know they were closed because of a RfC that was sucessful, but I was one of the users that was against the idea of closing them.

Here are my reasons why closing them was a mistake:

1.- Those wikis had good articles: A good amount of articles in those wikis were good like the Disney+ and Netflix articles in fresh websites wiki, the InfoWars, Goop and NFT articles in Rotten Websites Wiki. Those articles had good criticisms and were very detailed. not only that but they are also very informative and RWW made me know more about the bad side of the internet.

I planned to make an article about Pluto TV on FWW, and making more articles could make more people visit the website.

2.- Their articles on other wikis would be too out-of-place: at some point of July someone imported the TikTok article to Terrible Shows and Episodes wiki, which is a bad idea since TikTok is a website, not a TV channel.

Importing articles from the website wikis is not a good idea since they talk about websites and the website wikis are the only place to talk about them, it is just like when there were articles about YouTubers in the gaming wikis which were out of place since those wikis are for Games and Consoles only.

3.- Anyone can source the articles: A few days before the website reception wikis were closed I added sources to the Goop article, we could add sources to more articles just like how I added plenty of sources to that article.

It is just embrassing how almost no one did that.

4.- Admins could be more active, or we could have more admins: I once saw a page criticizing the Qualitipedias for having poor quality control, I think that we need to have more quality control, I once had to make an admin delete a malicious comment in an AMW article since nobody has done it, we always need to delete malicious comments, revert vandalism and block the users who do that since not deleting them could give us a bad name or even make the wikis shut down.

We could improve the articles, or even delete poorly made articles since the other qualitipedias also have bad articles on them but sadly sometimes nobody does anything about them.

Because of this, I think the website wikis should be reopened since they were closed by the admins of those wikis, not the Miraheze Stewards

My opinion about the wikis:

I think Rotten Websites Wiki was better before June 2021 because the pages related to internet movements and people were very informative and were really good for most of the time, thanks to that wiki I became more careful with the internet, I didn't really liked the idea of having pages that focus more in the userbase rather than the site itself, even if they had valid criticisms about them.

Even if Fresh Websites did not had too much activity as the other wikis, it had some good articles like the HBO MAX and Amazon Prime Video articles, I even wanted to create my own articles.

I agree that it should be back, and I think it's annoying that the ShoutWiki version is being revived into what it was supposed to be all because of its closure.

2. can be corrected by not shoehorning pages where they are poor fits. 4. suffers from a critical lack of volunteers. We'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of the wikis overall. I didn't find the articles you mentioned particularly impressive and there are infinitely better ways to 'let you know about the bad side of the internet'.

the other time I had to make someone ban a malicious user on Best Shows and Episodes wiki back in july, we always need to report malicious users to the admins, the option of banning users exists for a reason.

All the wikis have good articles, and let's not forget that the other wikis also have bad articles too.

I think the Websites Wikis should be reopened and become independent Reception Wikis like the Characters Wikis did.

It was not originally my idea but it can happen.

They were fundamentally flawed, but I don't mind if they are brought back but not affiliated to QP.

I left a wide open door for them to get their shit together and be restored on that basis. That offer never expired. However, simply reopening without remotely addressing their issues is the lazy answer that will simply recreate the problem.

I am aware of their issues, but I can fix them.

Reopining them while disowning them is a great idea.

I feel like these should be reopened, but not as a jigsaw piece of Qualitipedia, similar to the character wikis.

that is exactly what I want!

You can an RfC about this if you want.

Well, I don't really have a good reason to believe people, so as far as I'm concerned, he's mostly innocent.

Okay, so I know that this is potentially beating a dead horse, but since it's not really clear and is still potentially important (given that they are still active on ShoutWiki), what is the deal with Mar9122? I get that they abused multiple accounts, but it wasn't known until they got globally locked again that they sockpuppeted (yes they were previously locked for it, but I'm pretty sure there was no actually evidence they maliciously sockpuppeted, which is one of the reasons they got unlocked in the first place), and the block summaries on these wikis reference "lots of drama and doxing." As I said I'm aware this could be seen as beating a dead horse, but it's still kind of important to verify these things for the record, and as I said, they're still active elsewhere.
Edit: Also I will mention that VosVosKitsune claimed that Mar9122 doxed her back on Fun Shitposting Wiki and that they are a pedophile (), however, there is no proof of this.

I think Vos was a girl.

I know that, TBH I don't know why I didn't say her.

I remember asking this on a deleted wiki in 2020, and everyone was like "We dont speak about this".

I think it was on incredible users and wikis wiki, on my old account.

I could be wrong but TBH I'm pretty sure these wikis have became more able to talk about past situations since then. To quote Yonydesk from a while ago, "I'd argue mentioning past scenarios in a referential sense is not gravedigging" ().

I agree. There's nothing wrong with talking about past incidents tbh.

yeah, and i still stand by my quote. i understand if it's to bring up something just to mock the user behind it (unless if what he did was extremely shitty) and not to raise anything constructive or actually rational, but we shouldn't discourage passively talking about past events; that's not "bEaTiNg A dEaD hOrSe" (yeah sorry i'm fucking tired of that phrase being thrown around in the reception wikis), that's just talk and it can be used to raise interesting retrospective points about the situation and in the grand scheme everyone ends up winning and learning something, as long as there's no significant mockery of course. there's obviously no ill intent behind so why even bother discouraging?

A lot of the evidence of what he did is long lost since a lot of the bad stuff he did was on the Outcast Network. The only evidence left that I could find is him resorting to creating vandalism-only sockpuppets, only for Void to lock all seven of his accounts: https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=globalauth&user=&page=&wpdate=2021-03-03&tagfilter=&subtype=

Ah yes I remember the outcast network.

So... as far as we know the doxing and pedophilia thing could all be false?

It was proven that he did that stuff back then, but all of the evidence is now gone. There's these two pages about him that mention this, but both are sketchy and provide no resources:

1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wMP9mkuhgOMQR7o1bO3PVUZYnqc2WhCS0xyY-DiePSI/edit#heading=h.cfgdxcggh80o
2. https://encyclopediadramatica.online/Mar9122

Look at the discussion page on BTSW. I explained why there.

Both the Greatest and Awful Movies Wikis should have a directorial debuts category.

Couldn't you create that yourself?

Generally it's preferred for admins to create the category, as an organizational function. That is why he doesn't do it. I do concur that this would be best requested locally.

Also, why don't you say this on the AMW talk page instead of here?

This is for two wikis.

Yeah, but it still would be a conversation for the movie wikis only.