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.

There's no point of this continuing going forward. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Overturned. In spite of a somewhat inflammatory title this is not a bad topic nor should it be approached with the sensitivity that's been given to it. He very well should get on our case if our content is crappy. Reviews change over time, and so the basic status of articles on wikis could very well become obsolete and that needs to be recognized and reviewed. Regarding sources, that is why using *multiple* of them, ideally based on longer term data is best. Any form of criticism is welcomed but then we close this when we don't feel like addressing it anymore? That's silly. Please allow it to run its course. --Raidarr (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, this is old, so you might as well resolve it. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 02:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think handful of articles on Qualitipedia are misleading, I prefer Wikipedia and the CLG Wiki.

I don't get why you're getting on our case about the articles we make and moderate. Some legit criticism would be absolutely invaluable (helping us tone down the misleading information by entirely mitigrating the likeliness of false information).

elaboration on your concerns i.e. examples would be more appreciated.

The Awful Movoes Wiki includes the last three Star Wars Skywalker Saga movies which are box office hits, The AMW's perspective on the last three movies are full of right-wing talking points and unnecessary negative mockery of The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm, Kathy Kennedy, J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson.

There's no legitimate proof of right-winged bullshit being in there as you claim.

maybe he refers here https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Rise_of_Skywalker to the racial stereotypes thingy (inside point 11) and point 21 saying it panders to LGBT

Yep, I was referring to the Awful Movies Wiki article about Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

I'll be off to bed shortly, but I think it's time I close this topic.

wait what why, i was literally just starting to adress his actual question aaaaa

I don't see how it panders to LGBT.

panders or not is not what i was going for. instead, i was trying to see if he was refering to both of these points.

All nine Star Wars Skywalker Saga movies are box office hits.

Box office hit does not necessarily mean they were recieved well in critique, which is a significant part of what the wikis are after. But I agree that the pages should be reviewed, especially as iirc TFA was generally received well and TLJ was more controversial but needs to be assessed for how it is placed and written. TROS, however, I find it difficult to see moving. Either way it may be more warranted to create a page discussing the controversy rather than breaking down the movies individually if they do not fit.

@MJ2003 Now now, I've heard WAY too many people complaining about our articles, and suffice it to say, it went nowhere. Also, why even bother going to the wikis if you don't like them? Why not just entirely focus on the CLG wiki, rather than try to moan and groan about them being on the wiki(s)?

o you answered while i was writing :p

IMO his inquiry is valid, if someone has a question like this and have already (somewhat) elaborated, then "go away" isn't the attitude to have, especially without adressing anything the person is saying. we should be tolerant on these inquiries, aren't y'all being accused of "not accepting criticism" in the rants anyway?

@Yonydesk While I understand he has a valid concern, but I doubted his statement to ever be true. Suffice it to say, he replied below understanding what I wrote. Also, regarding that last bit, that's what a lot of users said about us in the past. ThePackagedReviewer's rant was more about criticism, and wouldn't tolerate anyone harassing Miraheze users.

maybe he understood what you meant but it does kinda deviates from what the original topic's question was, and what i tried to make him elaborate with my first reply

@DarkMatterMan4500 That's a fair point.

what point though :thonk:

He's referring to my point above about him focusing on other wikis. And I believe you didn't read the message above saying that any form of criticism is absolutely welcomed.

> my thonk message: 9 minutes ago

> that other message: 7 minutes ago

can't read things from the future

but yeah fair, i was more worried that he'd take it the wrong way but he didn't, that's good (and lucky maybe)

"Why even bother going to these wikis if you don't like them?"
That's a ridiculous thing to say IMO. When someone criticises these wikis, we shouldn't say something like "If you don't like it, leave" because that will just make more users dislike these wikis, and it if anything proves that we can't take criticism (as Yonydesk mentioned).

Yeah, but I'm talking about those who just chooses to shit on us and harass us. If it was for criticism, then that's a different story.

@DarkMatterMan4500 Tone it down, please.

???

@MJ2003 Actually, you might find that I am indeed in charge, as I was promoted as the leader, as Masson Thief wanted me to take his place, and ever since Raidarr's arrival, I've improved my administration.

Um, yeah he is. He's the main leader.

Also, DarkMatterMan4500 and Raidarr are also bureaucrats of Qualitipedia.

Correct, I am. But same thing with @Blazikeye535.

god i had to skim over that wall of text of articles to get your point

and i don't get it, like i'm not the biggest star wars fan but generally speaking, box office hits can still have a bad reception. people buying it =/= people liking it. couldn't find anything about the right-wing points and unnecessary mockery in the pages though.

I have to explain a little more on the last three movies, those movies have mixed receptions according to websites like Rotten Tomatoes.

To be fair, Rotten Tomatoes isn't exactly as reliable as what other people say they are. Half of the time, people would take advantage of the rating, and rig them, so it would look legitimate.

Personally, I don't think we should avoid partially relying on Rotten Tomatoes just because they can be rigged. In situations where they are rigged, then there can be a reception.

In either case this is why multiple sources and proper research should be strongly encouraged. No one source can nor should be doing all the work.

...like Rotten Tomatoes for example.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about

in theory, any rating website can be rigged, even the so-called most trustful ones. that's why a more proper and bullet-proof method of researching reception (like fatburn's RfC which iirc involved an oscillating, game/movie/show-dependant selection on public, critics, etc) would make good for the reception wikis. but i digress.

now to adress the general question: @MJ2003 it's natural that you're gonna find youself disagreeing with some pointers of the wikis. after all, everyone has its own opinions, even the reception wikis. they don't necessarily reflect your own opinions, and we're perfectly fine with that and respect your opinions. while we make articles based on general reception, we don't mind if you have a different opinion on some piece of media that you i.e. find on a wiki you disagree with. don't hesitate to contribute with your own beliefs though! as long as they're not disruptive, you may freely edit articles to add, remove or tweak pointers and info with a good justification, or open a thread in the article's talk page if you want to do a more formal discussion on that.

Precisely.

Alright @Raidarr I'll let this stay up.

The 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters flopped because of the film's budget and the film's mixed to negative reception.

Also, season 8 from SpongeBob SquarePants did get extremely negative reception.

There is absolutely no need to continue this discussion. This is a stupid idea and it has a snowball's chance in heck of ever even being considered by the admins.

Not up to you to close this frankly. I'm considering similar, per the websites wiki comment, though not for the wikis mentioned in the title due to their scale and the additional issues they would have. Will keep this open a couple days and reclose if nothing more of use is added, but I strongly discourage closures especially by non admins who merely believe the idea is stupid. --Raidarr (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Well this is long dead now. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 02:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think merging the film and TV wikis into the "Entertainment Wiki" is a great idea.

No, that's not going to happen.

Not gonna happen.

Entertainment pretty much applies to all of the wikis on QP, so just doing it for the TV and movie ones is kinda dumb. And either way it would take to much time to do, would require two more wikis to be requested for such a thing, and is overall pointless since TV and movies are two separate things most of the time.

I think is a terrible idea. While they are similar, movies and TV shows are not structured similarly, and have different budgets and has to structure in a way so that the times can be (movies have higher budgets and shorter duration in general; while shows can be longer but have comparatively lower budgets)

No, we are not going to merge the wikis together! All of the wikis must stay separate.

While I don't like the idea, we should wait until more users read this Bluba

@King Dice To be fair, it's a terrible idea, and Bluba has a point that it should remain separate. I don't really like the idea of them all being merged together, when it should stay as it is.

Every wiki outside the TV Shows and Movie wikis in Qualitipedia qualifies as "entertainment", besides, merging the film and TV show wikis is actually a terrible idea due to their differences within their structures, so it's also never gonna happen, and even if it does happen, it's gonna take lots of time.

Way too much at once work wise, conflates scope of wiki topics (tv shows vs movies) I don't think would be wise to glue back together, and the name is really just not well suited.

However I am strongly compelled by the idea of doing this for the website wikis, which would encounter significantly fewer of the issues that make me not fond of the main suggestion of this thread and has a chance of reducing the damaging impact of a pair of wikis that are uniquely lacking in function on QP of the ones that remain.

Bad idea. Not only do you give no reason why this should be done (which contradicts the title of this topic), but the inherent problems with it (it would take a lot of time to merge, the scope of both wikis doesn't mesh well, etc.) make clear that it won't work out so well.

Not a good idea since there'd be way too many pages depending on each media, which would make creating or even editting them more difficult than it already is, and the whole merged wiki would be such a mess because of it.

Is there anything you'd like to suggest regarding the concerns raised here, @MJ2003?

Yeah, I think the Awful Movies Wiki’s article on The Walt Disney Company's acquisition of 21st Century Fox is uncalled for.

Also, I think that the film wikis should be merged into the "Film Wiki" while the TV wikis should be merged into the "Television Wiki".

1. Explain why you think the page is uncalled for.
2. While the idea of merging the wikis was passed around at one point, it was ultimately dropped due to unpopularity and impracticality. Also "Film Wiki" and "Television Wiki" are not very descriptive of their purpose.

This page is uncalled for because hateful nonsense regarding The Walt Disney Company's acquisition of 21st Century Fox is grinding my gears.

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney

Movies and Tv shows aren't the same.

Film and TV are all different forms of entertainment.

Than why merge them to one wiki?

I was referring to the film wikis and the television wikis with different qualities.

Yeah, if they are different types of entertainment than why merge them?

Because the film wikis with different qualities should be merged into a neutral wiki about movies while the TV wikis about different qualities should be merged into a neutral wiki about TV shows.

So, is this to say you wish to add neutral wikis to make them three wikis per concept?

Yeah.

They are distinct enough in terms of length and production values that they can't really be considered equal.

I don't have time with people bitching about me, these projects clearly fail and this is for the greater good. -_-

I was going to make an article for Fantastic Toys Wiki but for some reason that wiki closed. Asking it here is my only option despite that the toy reception wikis are no longer part of Qualitipedia.

You should ask Duchess if he can reopen them and give them to you.

DuchessTheSponge closed it because "oNlY kIdS pLaY wItH tOyS". He also closed the roblox games wikis for no reason.

I'm not too concerned about the closure of the toy wikis, but the Roblox game wikis I would agree should be revived. There is still Perfect Roblox Games Wiki though.

Better not to argue with you.

I have decided to leave these wikis after I've caused heat on Crappy Games Wiki, so I'm going to focus on other stuff just so that I'll not cause any trouble for the admins and stop with my very questionable edits, it's just I've realised I haven't been behaving well and have caused trouble a lot, so I'm leaving for good, so bye guys.

And to GyrineZ, I promise I won't be negative and hurtful to you, and sorry for harassing you anywhere.

Goodbye Qualitipedia, I will never come back ever again, you guys can now block me since I don't want to be on these wikis as an editor and just do other stuff instead.

Just because some madman who wants to close this wonderful place ?!

>wonderful *try not to laugh (Hard Mode): Fart Edition*

99.42069% FAIL. 👌😂👌💯💯💯💯🅱️🅱️🅱️🅱️🅱️🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💩💩💩💩💩

You insult me ​​and dozens of honest people who point out your weak qualities, Bukkit is preparing a dump and we'll see who'll laughing! It's You who is the funny ones, you want to condemn those 9 years of hard work and dozens of interested users just because you can't cope. It is YOU who will disappear, not the website.

Honestly, you might just be worse than Bluba with your obsession with QP. It's quite concerning. And besides, how exactly are arguments like "NoOoOoOo I lIeK TeH wIkIs" and "tHeY cAn Be ImPrOvEd" pointing out the supporters "weak qualities"? If anything, you're only pointing out you and the opposers own weak qualities with this behavior.

What, someone trusts me, I'm safe now, thank you, I apperciate, I will now stay on these wikis for good.

Don't force yourself to stay on the wikis just because some QP fanatic defended you. If you truly feel that way in your first post, then I can almost guarantee that you'll be a lot happier moving on from these wikis.

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)

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.

Due to the RfC being passed, should we introduce a template for a page move like Wikipedia?

This is how it would look if I designed it.

Sounds like an amazing idea for me

Yeah, just don't forget to add it to all member wikis instead of just CGW just because it's a spiritual center of the network.

I actually have those in my sandbox.

I like it.

Good idea, and seems to go chord with the request's intentions very well.

I see no problems with this, so I'm behind it.

Should I close this as resolved then?

Happy Easter everyone!

I hope every qualitipedia user gets a lot of candy <333

i already ate it

Attention all admins and other users within this community, I am here to discuss some possible changes in regards to all the fighting on our network. Keep in mind that I am talking about the petty fights I've been seeing within the past 2 years over pages being moved to other wikis, edit-warring, and so forth. I have had enough of the petty fighting, edit-warring, uncivil behavior, and the persistent disruption on specific pages all across the platform. Some of the rules that I ask to be added is any fighting over a certain page shall be given a warning first, and if they continue it, they shall be blocked for a period of time to give the participants involved some time to reflect on their actions and learn from their mistakes. We should not hastily block users like we did in the past, and in the present. As much as this community has been on its hind legs within several months as of this writing (and possibly within the past couple of years), all I've seen was disruptive behavior from users who can't exactly discuss in a civil way, and the constant fighting will only escalate certain aspects of this situation, pretty much worsening the problem by 5 times the amount. We really need to make these changes so we can mitigate the problem before it worsens. I am asking for everyone to put some ideas down that MIGHT be effective in the long-run. I hope this discussion from this topic will help this community get back up, and regain the former glory it once had. Thanks for reading. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

My RfC may be a bit helpful, but it definitely won’t fix everything.

Then again, the changes will likely fix half the damage done by mitigating the fighting.

The suggested change by Moisty, while in good faith, does not strike a meaningful source of crisis.

I would encourage stronger communication, better due process and understanding in reviewing situations/issuing blocks, and deferring/not stepping on each other's toes as far as possible to limit the situations that spiral out.