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.

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.

This is my unblock request that I previously put on Awful Movies Wiki. The unblock request begins as "@SuperStreetKombat Please unblock my account on some Wikis, these are Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki. I will not be rude to anyone, including AkihitoZero5454. I will not harass anyone anymore. I will not do any mistakes anymore, if I did them. I have learned to not argue with others for differing opinions. I will read the Code of Conduct and will not violate it. I will only do useful contributions, after I got unblocked on all those Wikis. I will learn to respect opinions. See, my article about Miracle Star on Terrible TV Shows Wiki made it more useful than before. I will not be a brat anymore, if I was one. Please unblock my account on Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki.". See, I want to be unblocked in these Wikis. I was blocked for harassing other users. I know that harassment is wrong and I refrained from it. I want to be unblocked and want to do only useful contributions.

Dude, you just said the exact same thing and you still continued to spread your flawed ideology across various wikis.

at this point i think more mods need to look into this lol

I hate calling my ideology a flawed ideology, it's a personal opinion. But I will not say the same thing over and over again. Because, my best friend, Raidarr told me to to upload my unblock request which was on Awful Movies Wiki on Qualitipedia central.

If my ideology is a flawed ideology, then I will not spread it anymore.

I requested that it be posted here.

I don't get what 'ideology' is supposed to be involved here and frankly, I'll go by your followup response: don't be spreading ideologies. Just express opinions in a civil way and if they're too problematic to add to pages, add them to comments or blogs. Depending what others say here if they see anything interesting, I'll look into how contentious your edits are per-wiki and adjust blocks accordingly, either by setting an appropriate expiration time or removing them if they don't hold up for the wiki. In particular the character wikis are partially independent, so if you didn't do anything serious on them in particular a block for some other reason won't apply there period.

Hey, Raidarr, my best friend, are you an admin on Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki? I don't know if you are an admin on those Wikis.

I agree with you, Raidarr, my best friend! But, one thing. I got blocked from Loathsome Characters Wiki for harassment.

Please check my contributions pages on Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki.

There's a rule change I'd like to propose on the Terrible TV Shows Wiki, but I'm wondering if that's something that only admins can do.

You're free to make an RfC. No need to be an admin, but you should probably make it on the local wiki where it's most relevant rather than the central wiki which covers the whole of QP.

All you need to do to become an admin is be really active, make lots of positive contributions, have been on the wikis for at least 2 months since your account creation, and gain a lot of respect and trust from other users, including admins. An RfC isn't required to have such a permission.

He's not asking to have it, only if he has to be an admin to make an RfC.

He does not. Nor does he need to be to suggest rules, or changes to them. Naturally there will need to be agreement among other users/admins for it to come into effect.

To be honest, I changed them to reduce people's hatred of these wikis, and yet because of that, you were unnecessarily causing drama that you yourself said contributed to the downfall of this place.

Title, I was confused why he did this.

That's strange. I may have to take a look into this and reprimand the user if need be.

I haven't heard anything about this.

This happened in April, check his contribs

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?

Recently, I've been noticing that people have been removing videos from pages to reduce lag such as this edit and this one too. This got me thinking: should we define a maximum number of videos that can be in a page?

I always thought that 25-30 is a good maximum number. My phone has no problem loading around 30 videos, but when it gets to around 40, that's when problems start to occur.

Sounds like a good idea. Not too many, and not too few.

or maybe put the videos on a collapse section?

I once tried doing that, but it didn’t work.

I'd encourage people to be a little more conservative with videos in the first place, though understandably this is just a pain to enforce. Ie, focusing on videos directly supporting the topic, keeping down videos that say the exact same things, and so forth.

Some pages like Hong Kong 97 can take up over 100 MB of memory while loading, and significantly more if you load a video. Although the Hong Kong 97 page only has 15 videos.

I agree with limiting video to a maximum of like 25

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.

does qualitipedia have a discord server.

Yes. Is just under the Main Page at the right.

Every time I try to access them, I always get a message saying "This page isn't working". Are all of the Reception Wikis down at the moment or something?

Never mind. It's fixed.

Downtime was noted and seems to have been associated with the Babel extension.

UPDATE: The wikis are down again. I swear Miraheze is the Fallout 76 of websites...

I would support offloading QP to ShoutWiki in that case. Might be best for all parties.

Right, this is enough. Question is answered, users can capitalize or not capitalize the first letter of vote templates as they like. Please note that your vote will carry more weight when it provides a case for why it was made, and even better for discussing/countering points made by the other side in a civil manner.

Like, how exactly do I cast my vote?

If you are on desktop view, click on the [Edit source] of the header where you want to cast your vote. If you agree with the proposer's request, share your opinion on the 'Support' header, if you disagree with the request, share your opinion on the 'Oppose' header, if you don't feel like agreeing or disagreeing, or just have another opinion that doesn't lean towards any of those, share your opinion on the 'Abstain' header.

Add a # in a new line below the last vote. Depending on what opinion you have on the request, use the template of the respective opinion, {{Support}}, {{Oppose}} or {{Abstain}} and start writing what you think after the template. Sign your edit at the end of the proposal with ~~~~ to make your username and date that your edit was made appear.

The support, oppose and abstain templates do not need to be capitalized. Also, you can also use weak support with {{support|weak}}, strong support with {{support|strong}} and strongest support with {{support|strongest}}. You can do the same with oppose except with {{oppose}} instead of {{support}}.

@FatBurn0000 You are not even helping here. Zangler can capitalize it if he wants to.

That doesn't matter in any way. Mediawiki ignores capitalization for the first letter of links and templates. That's pointless compulsion to standardizing convention.

I capitalize templates if I want to. Stop being capphobic.

I'm not saying you have to decapitalize them. I'm just saying you don't need to. How am I being "capphobic"? All I did was say that you don't need to capitalize them.

I think @Zangler's point is that it doesn't matter whether or not it is capitalized

uhhh ackshually i think fatburn is in the right here, he was adding to zangler's comment that the templates don't have to be capitalized. doesn't help that he formatted it in a mandatory tone though (i.e. that bold not) so it can be taken as if he's trying to impose... capphobia hehe

i hope our OP doesn't mind the larpy exchange of words here and hope he understood how to participate in an RfC

@Zangler You are exactly right. That's how the voting system works.

I've heard this way too many times to the point of this being so annoying, or in this case, causing ad nauseum. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Some details for more of an actual answer.

1. The character wikis cannot be closed by a request through here. An issue must be taken locally.
2. Frankly, you just don't need to worry about them if they're minding their own business. Which, to my knowledge, they are.

--Raidarr (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Concept of characters having reception platform is rather unfitting. As characters wiki didn't have real reception or liking/disliking character is more opinion than reception, should been done with heroes and villains. 2. Most pages feel lame and poor with generic and boring pointers. 3. Forbidden page has a dumb and hypocritical reason (like Wario, while he's annoying, his reception was positive). 4. It could be filled with misleading information (e.g. SpongeBob Squarepants and Patrick Star flanderized since season 6 when the right one was season 4). 5. Unlike rest of reception wikis, made hurt some people who have different opinions.

...honestly, while I (usually) condemn the reception wikis haters for wishing the wikis to shut down, I agree with you of reasons why characters reception wikis should be shut down. in my opinion, I find the character wikis unnecessary.

I've heard this way too many times to the point of ad nauseum. It pretty much loses so much value when so many users are complaining about these wikis over and over again.

Even though I'm a little suspicipys of you (since you might be another sockpuppet of a certaib user), I do agree that the Characters Wikis suck ass nowadays.

good thing that characters wikis aren't affiliated with qualitipedia anymore. better raise this in the characters wikis than here.

i think the reasons they aren't being closed have been stated like 100 times.

The reason why they are, is that because ratings tend to be a hit and run, as there are always going to be most individuals, who happen to abuse them, like simply hating something for no reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stiRjqgdabo

I didn't watch the video, but regardless, that is a biased statement. Even if some online reviews are biased, online reviewers deserve to be listened to, whether they are a critic or part of the audience. If their review is biased, we can make them and/or their review an exception.

Uh, the final score still takes those into account so there's not much of a solution here. XD

Can't deny it, I feel like your "biased statement" answer came out of nowhere. Grenade linked a third to defend their idea and your answer sounds like it's trying to ignore the existence of the problem talked about, thinking it will make them less problematic that way. Public rating sites will always have these types of people, it's the internet after all.

While you might say that there will always be people like that, there are indeed ways to counteract it, like not letting them establish their chosen ratings until they type in "reason" text boxes. They can type as much, and whatever they want as long as they have responsibility over their words. Because that's what freedom of choice and speech requires the most. Freedom of speech and choice, are both not absolute.

I'm not saying I defend YouTube's way of getting rid of the ratings, because they could've improved it under the likes of what I proposed earlier, in other words, typing in reasons why they did or did not like it.

It's important to realize that ratings are taken in consensus, that is, from multiple sources, after a longer period of time and taking note of unusual bombs that don't reflect legitimate ingame issues. The alternative is people's individual ratings of what a game is like, which has proven to be every bit as if not far more unreliable.

With all due respect, that ignores the fact that ratings still have their fair share of flaws, and they must be fixed to have them much more reliable. Like I've said to Zangler, it should be important for users to type in reasons for their chosen rating, and that way will make the ratings less prone to being abused.

Personal opinions no matter how sugarcoated to sound reliable are just that, personal assessments by individuals, and if you cannot provide an aggregate then neither you nor the wikis as a whole will ever be seen as reliable by any measure. Because obviously personal research isn't working and never has worked as far as accuracy is concerned.

I still don't think we should stop relying on ratings completely.

So FatBurn0000, what are your suggestions that we can all use?

That's what I'm saying, but they need to be fixed via adding reasons for their chosen ratings to make them more polished.

How about this then: We only rely on ratings that give a good explanation on why something is good?

Not good enough, reasons are an important factor for ratings.

Explanation to rationalize the ratings is what the pointers should be for, or more accurately, what they are sourced from.

There's going to be some serious changes around here. You can thank @TigerBlazer for motivating me to get back to my former glory. I've been sitting on the sidelines for far too long, and that ends now.

What do you mean by serious changes?

I think a pro-Gamergate point of view shouldn't be allowed on Qualitipedia.

So far, you haven't provided a good reason as to why they should be banned from our wikis, and just feels like you only want them banned because of a personal opinion you have. While that is fine to be against something (as much as I hate Gamergate), that alone isn't a proper reason.

Saying that isn't good enough of a reason why we shouldn't allow it on our wikis. And in regards to your Requests for Comment/I think that an alt-right point of view isn't allowed on Qualitipedia request, I have deleted it mainly because of how malformed it was.

I wouldn't ban the viewpoint, but I think with rare exception it has little value being in articles. If it's used to prop up a page, please link it and it will join the list I intend to review tomorrow.

@Raidarr I found those examples.

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Star_Wars%3A_The_Last_Jedi

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Solo:_A_Star_Wars_Story

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Rise_of_Skywalker

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

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.

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.

Whenever I load the main pages for these two wikis, all I receive is "internal error". Anyone else seeing this?

This even happens on Best TV Shows Wiki, too. Thankfully, it's not too often and the page will go back to normal if you go back to it.

I'll check back tomorrow. Hopefully then the issue is gone.

I hope this issue won't last weeks.

I haven't seen it. If there's any more context as to when/how it happens (greatly increased lag on page load/no time at all, happens at certain times, specific IDs) feel free to report them here and I'll see if I can consider making a Phabricator task to look into it. Even see if it happens on any other QP wikis as well (perhaps even non QP with a different front page layout).

So far I'm getting that it happens all the time for one user and very intermittently for another, so it is clear in any case that this issue is unusual and unfortunately more data is needed for action to be taken.

The issue appears to have been fixed for me.

OP has 'changed his mind', and aside from that apparently nothing to discuss.

No more average category and header, that won't make sense on negative wiki even positive wiki and those are causing edit warring. We're must replace bad quality on positive one into redeeming quality or else.

Could you rephrase that and try it again? After your Stewards' noticeboard thread I'm frankly no closer to understanding what you are trying to achieve, unless it is confusion.

Now I change my mind and I never made mistake, so sorry.

Uh, so... what you're saying is you don't want average categories or headers on any of our wikis anymore because they cause edit wars? Is that what you're saying?

If so, then I've hardly seen any edit warring on average pages lately.

Can someone in charge of Qualitipedia list all reasons on why politics should not be allowed? Because in the event of something political affects something in a negative way, then that's when it can matter. I know for a fact that China for example, has banned violent video games, and that is a political issue.

I've been contemplating making an RfC to ban political matters from Qualitipedia unless they actively damage something's quality in a certain way (ie preachiness, double standards, propaganda, etc.), but I have yet to effectively articulate what I want out of such an RfC.

How come are you not listing the reasons? That's important.

The staff probably hasn't gotten around to it yet.

The main reason such political stuff are now forbidden is that they are generally a very messy subject to tackle among the wikis. Given their previous anti-SJW background such pages with those kinds of pointers will generally revolve around their quality being based around what part of the political spectrum they affiliate with, which won't look professional as a result. Along with that having pages about political-based media &/or similar pointers are incredibly hard to back up to make it seem like fair critisism of a side without feeling like generally bashing one side. It's really the case of politics in general being such a touchy and controversial subject that warrants these pointers getting removed often nowadays. Only some rare cases such as the Battlefield V controversy that deliberately led to a part something's failure (In that case, removing historical accuracy to be more inclusive) could they be seen as acceptable and reliable enough. Given the wiki's previous flak from having such things, this is preferably something that should be moved away from for the sake of being reliable and less biased.

Besides, wikis are not about being biased and critical, and that's why I am sceptical of Qualitipedia as a whole. To be fair, there should be internet platforms for explaining and detailing why something sucks, and why something is good, but people are also allowed to comment on them as well. Wikis have no place for being biased and candid to or against something, and quite frankly, Qualitipedia as a whole, is about being critical and biased, which betrays everything on how a wiki is meant to operate.

I invite you to respond to the points I mentioned in particular. To respond to this bit, wikis have the right to be critical (or indeed take any form that they wish as there is no one universal definition, only an impression that is dominated by Wikipedia), but I agree that bias should be minimized. This is an obviously incomplete, yet ongoing effort. You can only contribute to it by addressing the problems directly, especially through examples and more specific points than expressing an overall distaste as you do here.

I do intend to publish a blog soon that more generally addresses points that hold up against Qualitipedia, and how the network intends to consider them including politics. Politics in particular I intend to treat through the lens of the below post.

Again, it is less about politics, the word as a whole, and more their role dominating the wikis in the past, including with the very bias you mention.

I mean, the Qualitipedia domains may have their place, but as long as they are handled in an objective, non-derogatory, and unbiased manner like what all wikis are, they should be fine to keep around. For example, in the case of the Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, the name could've been non-derogatory, especially the approach of the wiki itself.

That wiki is rightly closed, as are most others of their type. I don't care for the way reception wikis are named in general outside of that, but it's a concession that may as well be kept (ie, I don't think 'crappy games' is a very constructive start especially when traditionally just normal average games have been placed on it).

Then how are people going to have to easily know why if most of the YouTubers happen to be unpleasant and awful? If I were to recreate the "Atrocious YouTubers Wiki," I will not only change the title to a non-derogatory form, but also change the culture and rules of the domain, such as no longer using derogatory and biased language, instead explain the points objectively on why people think someone/the channel is poorly received. Because wikis are meant to be about knowledge and learning, and also being neutral, not about criticising and being opinionated. With all due respect, to say that wikis have the right to be critical, is simply false. Same goes with Encyclopedia books.

This is why I have said earlier, there should be a new, type of separate internet platform (let alone wikis) for listing reasons for acclaiming to criticising people and among other things, but balancing it out with comment sections. Why can't all of you in charge, do that instead?

Sounds like a review site, of which there are already many. If the users of QP want to make another, by all means. The rest is your opinion, which you are of course free to have.

I disagree, it can be a different type of critique site that lists all reasons according to a mass's opinions of something, on why something is well, or not well received. Because at the end of the day, the fact remains, that encyclopedias and wikis, are not invented under the purpose of criticising things, because that's what review sites are for.

Wikis, especially as defined by general purpose wiki farms like Fandom and Miraheze, are whatever they want to be within the boundaries of each platform's content policy. Thus they are invented for the purpose they are used for, and I've already long agreed that how they are practically used in the case of reception wikis is at best a flawed formula in need of change.

Frankly I saw this on mobile not long after it was posted and it simply was not a priority, nor does it entail an unprecedented response within three hours, nor indeed is Qualitipedia staffed in a way that a large but not emergency topic should be expected to be answered by 'top brass' within three hours as the thread's third message implied.

TigerBlazer offers the main gist. From my part it's not a question of politics, as a whole - it is not an issue for pedantry. It is an issue of a long reputation with the wikis being politically partisan in nature, obsessed with SJWs and anti SJWs in manners distracting completely from productive topics and better grounded reasons. That is the content that is unwelcome. Tactful, non-central references to various politics as reasoning is not necessarily bad to me. What Marxco suggests for an RfC is what should be the case already, where the political inclinations should offer an active and verifiable draw from the content's quality - at least as people think of it.

Thus political points should be clear, relevant, and as Tiger also indicates, notable in the media's reception. Even if the reasoning isn't perfect I would welcome a neutrally written point that brings up political controversy as something that harmed the reception of certain media, especially if properly sourced. However, such politics should be at a minimum outside of where they are relevant to a given wiki's objective. If you have an example where this principle was inconsistently or just not applied at all, please link to it.

Politics are overall way too divisive and controversial to talk about, especially due to how divided politics are nowadays.

If that's the case, then by all means, there can be a (good) politics wiki, and a (bad) politics wiki, and that way, all sides are happy.

A reception wiki around politics is actually a terrible idea.

Agreed.

Having a politically biased wiki breaks Miraheze's Content Policy and Terms of Use.

@King Dice That’s a valid point.

Political bias is not explicitly against Content Policy and has nothing to do with the Terms of Use.

That said, on basic credibility and really anywhere I think of the idea, creating wikis that are entirely dedicated to politics in the reception wiki formula does sound like an awful idea.

That would be me, but I do think Qualitipedia should talk about politics in articles a little less, as some people might get offended about a certain political topic.

that's just a typical thing of life DMM. in theory, anything you say can offend someone. there's things that offends more people (like hate speech) but if you're not bigoted on the grand scale, then having huge anxiety about everything you say or do to not offend everyone or over having a good look for everyone is silly.

I will suggest that Qualitipedia should be politically neutral and religiously neutral.

Ideally, this is the intention and partisan pointers should be removed on sight, along with a clear enough edit summary as to why of course. Articles entirely built on political, or indeed religious grounds should be reported. While it'll be rather busy today I hope to look into the ones you have referenced by the end of today or in the course of tomorrow.

Here's such a page that, even if I tried to make it less political, I'm still iffy on having.

I have considered marking it for deletion.

Actually, I think that page could stay if it was more sourced and had some obvious improvements (ex. removing the unnecessary capitalization), because the whole concept of black characters having to be played by black actors is one of the few political arguments we shouldn't remove, because it is ignoring the fact that it is acting. The only real problem is that they could be stereotypical, which really, is a different problem.

To be honest, I am getting this overwhelming sense, that while Qualitipedia has no problem being politically incorrect about things, it is being politically correct in regards to politics, which is not only hypocritical and pathetic, but it's also making it out to be a taboo subject, when really, it goes against freedom of speech.

Miraheze itself is not necessarily an outlet that permits absolute free speech anyways as well as encourages local wikis to develop a sense of where the limits are for speech that actually benefits wiki content, so ironic pedantry aside yes, you indeed have a point. Certain incorrectness causes less trouble than others.

Honestly, it's better that these wikis move away from politics, whether they're SJW-related or anti-SJW-related, 'cause stuff like that can seriously divide a lot of people.

Here we can debate, criticize, and praise politics as long as the SJW subject is strictly distanced. But at the same time, it is important to understand that social justice is not a bad term because of how positive it is, its just that some demagogues/rabble-rousers had been seeking to distort this term for years to shut down what people thinks. They have zero profession in defining words, zero. And that's how dangerous social media really is.

that's my main gist on it. both social justice and gamergate are/were campaigns with well-intended goals but mostly awful actors that justify malign stuff done to reach their goals.

How about calling them politically correct scumbags? How does that sound? Defining them as social justice warriors is just totally unprofessional in terms of trying to define them, and its abusing 'defining words.'

"politically correct" still falls under political bias territory IMO, especially with "scumbags". opposing someone based on their politic beliefs implies you have your political beliefs too.

With all due respect, there is such thing as being rightfully biased, and being wrongfully biased. PC is pretty much the latter. But the point is, why bother defining a group of people if some people are going to abuse defining? Unless you have a profession in defining words, then don't do it. Defining individuals as SJWs in a negative way is utterly unprofessional, and it's very disingenuous and divisive to define positive words as negative ones. Only a demagogue would do such a thing, and I have zero respect for them.

calling someone PC has never stopped other people from whining anyway, even if it's more tolerated than SJW. you see someone doing a small and innocent LGBTQ+ gesture, you call it PC, that someone will 70% not take it lightly. i have problems trying to understand your "defining words" argument but, wouldn't its logic apply to PC too?

"you see someone doing a small and innocent LGBTQ+ gesture, you call it PC, that someone will 70% not take it lightly."

That's totally not how I am interpreting it, because that's being an intolerant bigot against LGBTQ+ people, as well as possibly being a regressive leftist. That's the point. I'm sorry to say, but defining negative things under positive sounding words, is not just contradictory, but its totally stupid, reckless, unprofessional, and disingenuous. Only fraudulent fools think that this is for real.

At least I have nothing against the LGBTQ+ community.

Calling either side "scumbags" in a grey situation like this is bias. Even if our aim is to document the reception of works, we should still try to avoid being subjective in terms of political matters.

To be fair, you can also call them "political correctness warriors" as a non-derogatory term.

Being the biggest elephant in the room, there should be less talking about politics, and more focus on the problems based on personal bias of most people or whatnot.

Honestly about the "politics wiki" idea, I actually thought of the idea of making a negative reception wiki about politics and laws (not laws as in, the "laws" side of the wiki will be mainly criticising laws, it will mainly be stuff related to laws and when pages are about laws, it will probably only be old laws and won't be subjective or controversial [ex. anti-LGBTQ+ laws]), but it wasn't going to be like "our political views are [insert political views here] and if you don't agree with us, you're wrong", I was thinking of just talking about politicians that are proven to have done the wrong thing. However, if you don't think that's a good idea either, then fair enough.

I hope you can go back over the idea, consider the community/material involved and see for yourself the incredible issues with a wiki circled around politics no matter how much you try to gate them.

I do see how it could be problematic, but I'm still considering at least giving it a try.

Yeah, and besides, it is indeed hypocritical that whilst Qualitipedia has no problem being politcally incorrect, it is being politically correct in regards to politics. In other words, too scared to allow politics. The only reasonable exception, is religion.

It doesn't matter if you think it's scared or not. The boundaries are based on areas which have been the most problematic for the majority.

Well think of yourself this, is it reasonable to criticize religion and things relating to politics? What do you think?

In the right time and place, certainly.

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.

A user by the name of EMannDoorMan has been sending me foe requests and keeps sending me private hate messages on the Characters Wiki. Plus, he threatened to kick another user in the balls a couple days ago.

I told DarkMatterMan about it, but he hasn't responded, and no admin has dealt with him yet, meaning that this user is a dangerous threat to both of the wikis, so he needs to be stopped.

I advise reporting him to the Miraheze staff to have him globally locked.

Please message me privately with screencaps of the hate messages and their contents. Depending on what I see I will either escalate his existing warning or shut him down entirely on QP with a special intervention for the character wikis. If he does anything from there it will be grounds to lock and investigate further.

@Raidarr I think that's a good plan. A warning might be helpful, and if he keeps it up with the hateful messages, then you know what to do from there. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not know if these reverse wikis are worth keeping or even featuring on the list as they are on the other wikis mainpages, and it may be eventual that they close.

Its that the concept while funny at first is quite complicated and loses its novelty after a few articles. Issue is that the concept of reversing wikis is a strange and unintuitive idea that really doesn't have consistent rules to make it effective. I know they are supposed to be satire but it feels childish actually, its not my type of humour but maybe you find it funny.

And that also they don't seem to be that supported unlike the other smaller niche wikis (books, cancelled film, gameplay). Sure they aren't official but why they are still featured? I guess to conveniently link others to these sites in case they forgot. But even then is it worth it, could they still be kept?

They're not recognized in QP anymore, though the 'partnered wiki' lists are not updated at all and likely still have references. This will likely only be addressed if an admin takes a cleanup initiative or a new front page format is developed and put into use.

I don't think they bring anything, and further their merits struck me as quite weak in the first place. As you say they are largely ignored, and I agree with finding them more childish than amusing. Cancelled Films is actually largely ignored as well, even by me, and it is in my plans to suggest its split from QP.

Ah, shit, I forgot about the Reverse Wikis. Wish I'd contributed there more often.

We should migrate the reverse wikis to ShoutWiki.

Why?

I have contributed to them, they are kind of interesting, but it takes a really long time to create an article. I still haven't finished the Calm Parrots Show article on Reverse Awful Movies Wiki.

Any thoughts?

tried doing one some weeks ago but mr. raidarr was chasing a different style and i couldn't match it. i was gonna try again but i now got busy with other projects.

Logos for QP frustrate me completely. The current arrangement - both on local wikis and in general - is not acceptable, yet to be acceptable I would like to see a thematically appropriate design that can be applied to the entire Qualitipedia brand and retain some of the good elements the existing logos do carry, if very inconsistently.

Was this Qualitipedia logo made in paint? 144p!

We use it as it is the same as the logo of the Discord Server. That's the reason. I know that you may not be a fanatic, but we are trying our best.

This is the best you can? It doesn't even match the color of the wiki.

>dice didn't make it, MarioMario456 did it

>it's a f'ing placeholder

read dude read

It's fine for discord and fit the previous logo scheme well enough. Of course constructive suggestions for better are appreciated.

It's a placeholder, essentially.

it probably was made in paint. either way yeah it's temporary to replace the default miraheze icon.

If I can recall, MarioMario456 was the one who made the logo to replace the old one.

explained

No point in this being up going forward.

EDIT: i sincerely apologise to the people that read the first version of this thread, which was much more aggresive in tone. i was very heated at the moment as i deemed what admins said to Bluba's current RfC as unfair, and thought that i could get my point across with the way i worded it. it clearly didn't and won't, and i shouldn't have worded my thread in the previous ranty style. i still stand by the point i expressed in my thread though so i'll reword it to remove the heated statements. again, sincere apologies for the inconveniences it can cause, and could have caused.

people telling RfCs to close is an occurence i've seen sometimes and while most of the time it's harmless, i personally consider it a problem. in this discussion i'd like to calmly adress it. you don't have to follow what i say, i can't force you to do anything the way i want, but you might want to reconsider it. take your time to read and thanks in advance for the time.

since some time, i've seen the problem, the most common example would be in this thread, with the three admins (DarkMatterMan, TigerBlazer and King Dice) in the opposition. it's the bit of "this needs to be closed" that's implied in there (and other RfCs across here) that i don't agree with. granted, it can be legit if the theme is controversial (like the suicide RfC), offensive, or overall invalid for qualitipedia, but for RfCs that express genuine ideas, especially when it's just because you don't agree with the RfC, that i don't think it's the best course of action. it's frankly, an insult, to the author of the RfC, and not the best look for the people telling the RfC to close.

now, normal users saying this doesn't matter as much as they don't have rights over the RfC... not as much as when staff does it at least. that's my main concern. i don't think the innocent intent of the admin matters much, when the author of the RfC knows the admin is able to close the RfC, and saying it should be closed practically imposes that kind of fear, and potentially deeming the purpose of the RfC to comment, invalid. i also think it's inappropiate and uncalled for, because the author never (and shouldn't) expected to be told that their RfC should be closed. that's why i think admins especially should stop randomly telling RfCs that they should get closed because of the reasons expressed. if we want to move forward then we shouldn't be pushing the example and putting fear on constructive people, or people with the intent of genuinely being constructive, that their RfCs run the risk of being closed just for a disagreement.

that's all i had to say. note that i don't intend to tell people this is the new way to think that they're forced to follow, no, this is a call for reconsideration, especially to the staff. you can take the word or leave it. and i again apologise for the first version of the discussion. feel free to tell me what do you think about this.

Also, making posts like this isn't going to get people to understand what you're saying, rather they will just walk away and it will come off as meaningless nonsense, if you get my gist.

Dude, if an RfC is bound to fail, then it's obviously going to fail. Don't act like you have authority over what we say and do, which you don't have any authority over anything.

this is not about you personally deeming a RfC being bound to fail, it's about the amount of disrespect there is in saying an RfC should be closed, especially for just disagreeing. i recommend rereading my post.

also i'm aware i have no authority of what people here and staff does and i acknowledged that in the first part in case you didn't notice. i called for reconsideration. take my word or leave it, i never forced anyone here to take it and i apologise if it came out that way.

Yeah, and it's good that you changed the wording a bit, as the first time made you come off as an angry user who was upset with how we do things. But meh, it's good you apologized for it.

I did see the original, and I will say the tone has shifted. Even in the original however I think there was a point that frankly DMM took the easy answer of not acknowledging. There was a point there, even a first blurb disclaimer that he knew he didn't have authority to tell people how to do things. He was frustrated, and I understand the concern; I expressed similarly in my abstaining vote.

I'll reply mainly in context of the latest RfC where the issue is best noticed.

There is a difference between noting the vote is unlikely to fail and frankly, not reading through the proposal properly and saying it will have consequences that were either clearly or outright explicitly addressed before Bluba's edit to indicate LTA was a case to streamline the process for. In general what his proposal is asking for is more of a process for users who are not clearly sockpuppets, vandals, and repeat disruption, which should satisfy anyone who is opposing. Heck, he almost addresses some of the oppositions verbatim. My only problem is that the gist of the RfC already exists as a Qualitipedia function, it's just not being pushed as hard as it should be. I'll probably amend the wording of the page in question to include reasonable elements from the RfC if it passes or not, because it is not only a major problem, it's one that multiple of the voting admins and many of the admins on QP as a whole have as a personal issue. I'm not comfortable with QP's block first, ask later attitude. If it's inconsistently enforced and grounded from either unwritten or badly written rules, then it simply isn't a very fair block.

As it stands there are enough votes to consider the proposal contentious. It would be inappropriate to close it within the next few days if the ratio holds up. This is obviously not a snowball. What I'm concerned about is a bureaucrat vehemently opposing, then just short of promising to close the proposal invalid purely on the rationale of disagreeing when I don't even think the implied bureaucrat has necessarily considered the points the RfC is raising. That is dangerous, and is a flashback to the past where users and admins alike would engage in mob mentality that would alienate users, creating ostracized members such as Freezing and Bluba, in my frank suspicion likely causing various LTAs that enjoy abusing this immature streak to this very day, and alienating former staff who were largely engaged in a toxic work environment when there is no culture of just stepping back a minute and giving the point a good read even if you find it contentious.

I think I might have been the first user to buck against the crowd on that - contentious, but yet a bureaucrat - but it's clear the issue still exists, and I urge the voters in the process and in all future RfCs to just give the idea a shot even if it results in an oppose anyway.

i did get confused at first at darkmatter telling me that i didn't have any authority despite me acknowledging that and making it clear that this discussion was invoked for voluntary reconsideration.

i await his new response, if he's gonna post again.

Yeah, I was not at all pleased with it at first, but Blubabluba9990's RfC does take quite an interesting turn. What I'm concerned about is the big jump that he has made.

What 'big jump' are you talking about?

What I mean by "big jump", I mean, he's practically doing the same thing he did on Meta, but we'll just have to wait and see where this will lead to.

On Meta he attempted to create a policy to enforce a standard for every wiki on the platform. It had some minor support but was obviously unsuccessful. This is an attempt to develop policies for Qualitipedia itself through the central QP wiki, asking for accountability that has been distinctly absent in the past with many of the details pretty much just asking admins to think before jumping to a block.

yeah, Bluba's RfC is more justified here since it's just in one system of wikis, and i find the RfC to be pretty good (though i'd change some stuff by personal taste). at first i abstained of dropping a support as i was wondering if a blocking policy was already existent or proposed in raidarr's plans. i still might drop a conditional support later.

i wanna reiterate that i want more people than just raidarr and Blazikeye to acknowledge the general issues i brought in the first post, especially the 3 staff members in Bluba's RfC i mentioned. raidarr and Blazi were the only ones to acknowledge it. i feel like i wasn't heard enough. if the aggresive tone of the first version, "imposing authority" part, and the apology i did is everything you could get from the first post, and not the relevant points i raised, then i'll have to assume that people here aren't interested in adressing this problem (as i call it) and other potential issues other users might bring. in this rebuilding era i think it's essential that issues that users raise should be heard and not dismissed, else you give more reasons to the deviantart rants to believe that "qualitipedia doesn't take criticism".

While it is not literally called the blocking policy, a page is up that covers a similar gist for how to handle issues and disputes in general, particularly for admin reference.

Yeah, that does sound a bit fair if you ask me.

sorry to pull this again but, i'm personally more concerned if the general practice mentioned in the thread will be repeated again.

Wanting an RfC immediately closed just for disagreeing with it definitely comes across as unprofessional and impatient, especially when it has barely received much input and attention so far. Who knows? Maybe the opposers turn out to be in the minority (something I personally view as unlikely) as more users add their two cents about it.

@Blazikeye535 Fair enough.

Unconstructive, and now from a blocked user.

Characters wiki have main reason is heroes and villains ripoff, but I know there's the difference between characters wiki puts heroes and villains on one wiki, while heroes and villains put heroes and villains separated wiki, but still. For the website rename part, websites should be companies and websites?

Okay, I have a feeling you're somehow the same user as Leilat, since all I keep hearing is "BAN X, BAN Y, BAN Z!", or other nonsense. Unless you have a good reason to request closure (which by the way won't be happening anytime soon), just stop spamming. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This user and Leilat also share some idiosyncrasies with other suspected socks of Mictrons, who did things like demand that Cuties be removed from the main page of Awful Movies Wiki by spouting something about "veganism" and demanded that real-life people be allowed on Rotten Websites Wiki (Exhibit A: Leilat, Exhibit B: Mictrons), and insisting that the first three seasons of SpongeBob are bad (Exhibit A, Leilat, Exhibit B: Mictrons). And that's without mentioning their eerily similar grammar issues.

@Marxo Grouch Another good point that you brought up. But I'm not sure what Dmehus would say about it though. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Will it actually fix comment sections on any of the Miraheze wikis? 'Cause they've been broken long enough and we definitely need them back.

From what I have heard, the migration will fix most, if not all, of the problems that have been going on right now, including the comments section. No need to worry on that I think.

I'm afraid the migration will not do anything regarding comments. What it will do is free up SRE's time to directly address the comments extension and hopefully restore it soon after.

In that case, it feels like the comments are broken beyond repair at this point...

i wonder what will happen after the migration . how will miraheze change ? and will it be the same again ?

Miraheze should be larger, faster and more stable. Features that have been buggy should be less so. After the transfer, features that have been disabled by emergency should be restored or patched up, and all technical requests should be addressed in a more timely manner.

Move along now. This serves no purpose anymore.

Hi guys! I am back!!

Wasn't aware that you'd left, frankly.

Since when did you leave, exactly?

he was kicked from the discord server for being an edgelord (in the worst sense of the word)

not sure if he means that as his department though, shrug.

I am a good boy now!1!!!1!

I am a good boy now!1!!!1!

you still are f'ing annoying though

Says your upside down cheeseburger lookin’ ass

Nah fuck that, you look like a Minecraft villager. “HRM!!” lookin ass.

ladies and gentlemen, here's the "good boy"

Clearly.

we see if you are a good boy or not .

I’ll be a good boy for you 😘😘😘😘

Clearly your behavior hasn't changed at all. In fact it seems you are still rude and disruptive as evidenced by the comments above.

He even sent me a private message calling me the N-word. I took a screenshot of it, and I'd show it to you publically, but I don't know how.

he already used it once publicly so there's no need in showing your additional PM, ecks dee

I am black!!

even if you're black you used it in a demeaning way which is still shitty, that's not how slur reclamation works (regardless of what i think about it)

you should know better

SuperStreet… I love you.

@SuperStreetKombat I'd recommend reporting MoistyTIT if you have evidence against this user. I've noticed this user was acting oddly, and even did the same to me on Discord, which resulted in me blocking him off of Discord.

clearly he doesn't own an air fryer

I actually do

@MoistyTIT Blocked for strange and childish behavior. I however left your talk page open.

Yeah, I already know he was banned from Discord; I just didn't know he'd been off the Reception Wikis for quite some time.

when did you leave ? and did you really leave qualitipedia ?

If you plan to return and stay, at least maintain basic civility and avoid the pithy efforts at trolling that have been rather apparent all along and have long been drained of comedic value. Otherwise a three month involuntary vacation from here will be in order and we try again later.

I've blocked MoistyTIT because this user also did the same thing to me, which was to annoy the fuck out of me, and now I see this user is doing it again, but to another user.

That was about what I was waiting for.

that's what i was gonna say in the nword thread on CGW before it got locked and my message prevented from being posted, it's so obvious he's trying to troll or smth but it comes off as frankly, pathetic

I would just to remind you that the infoboxes should be changed on the other wikis of this alliance, since I saw the updated one on CGW.

Yup, gotta keep the other wikis just as modern and up-to-date as CGW.

I welcome any administrators in the meantime porting the template over to AGW, the film wikis and others they have power on. In a few days I can see what's left and continue porting from there. For example, NJPet is fully authorized to port the template to the music wikis in the meantime.

Actually, after reviewing the infoboxes more closely as well as noting their reception, I neither suggest nor will personally transfer them to other wikis. In some cases what CGW comes up with is not the best or right way to go.

This is a topic that is not fully decided. The RfC on this does not specify between positive and negative; there's enough that eliminating positive pages would be justified. But clearly, local discretion has been to keep the positive wiki pages, since the negative ones are the true source of trouble. This is something that will need a dedicated community discussion for to make a final answer on likely in the form of RfC or bureaucrat consensus, which I invite users to start up as they wish minus the borderline incivility and clearly off topic points that have entered the thread.

I believe questions raised have been answered, feel free to start dedicated topics if you feel they did not suffice.

It imbalance to the wiki itself?

That's because positive Reception Wikis are mostly dedicated to praising media, and adding a page about a real-life person to such a wiki is fine because it wouldn't really baselessly slander said person in a page, because that's what a page on a negative Reception Wiki would do since those types of wikis are mostly dedicated to criticizing things.

Yeah, I get that allowing people on positive wikis, but not on negative ones does seem a bit unbalanced, but that's just the way it is, nothing more.

The reception wikis were never meant to defamate, harass nor insult people, we weren't defaming nor harassing anyone, we were just criticizing them, especially some really bad people such as Amber Heard, who abused her usband, exposed her breasts in a church and even stole money from charity.

Miraheze has SERIOUS flaws, is bad how no one has been able to speak out.

Can we make a wiki outside Miraheze?

Sure none of the Reception Wikis tried to demonize any real-life people, but it's still against Miraheze's Content Policy to make a page dedicated to criticizing them, no matter how fair or constructive it is.

No, it's not. If it's properly sourced, from a neutral point of view and avoids legal consequence, it is fine from a Content Policy perspective. The problem is that the Reception Wikis did an awful job at this and people don't give that fact enough credit. There was no sourcing. Points ranged from pathetic to slanderous. This is the essence of why wikis particularly regarding users became such a problem with the amount of drama they spawned, causing the mass closure of such wikis for endemic violations and Qualitipedia itself to kneejerk somewhat. I don't trust the writers of today to do much better on the whole, so I do support QP's policy on this - but I can assure you, what you're saying is more of a QP policy. It's just been so badly managed that both top management here and key Miraheze volunteers (particularly wiki creators) are too familiar with it being done wrong. If it was blocked entirely, Real Life Villains Wiki would not exist.

I thought a lot of pages about individuals on negative wikis did have reliable sources that backed up their flaws, like the Grey Griffin page on Terrible TV Shows Wiki.

Scenarios like the Terrible TV Shows wiki probably were not addressed at all when user-focused wikis were shut down, and instead the page you mention was likely struck when it became Qualitipedia policy to remove them regardless of how good they might be.

For the thread overall, My response above applies. Strictly speaking, criticism is not blocked. However, it is approached with a careful eye. It must be responsible and reach a higher standard, both for legal implications and to avoid well established platform drama that the OP here is not giving credit for. The pages were awful, and the wikis were awful, failing to come even close to systemically acceptable. That is why the subject is very closely scrutinized by Miraheze as a whole, and blocked entirely on Qualitipedia itself.

I actually agree that people should be allowed here again. However, pages should use reliable sources to prove the claims made on pages, and the pages on people should be mainly based on their creations, not their personality. You should still be able to talk about someone's personality, but you shouldn't create the page just because of it, and again, you need reliable sources to prove your claims. In addition, I think that celebrities with more than one career should be banned on both negative and positive wikis, because otherwise we won't be able to decide which wiki they go on (sure we could put them on the wiki about the media they are most active on, but it makes more sense to do something else). This also should apply to actors who act in both shows and movies, because otherwise we can't decide whether or not they go on one of the movie wikis or one of the show & episode wikis. I also created a wiki known as Fabulous Celebrities Wiki 2 months ago that the positive pages on celebrities with more than one career can go.

Hmmmm, I doubt that would ever work.

The page about Amber Heard on Awful Movies Wiki had enough sources and proof of her acts, we were just criticizing bad people.

I think we did try to use reliable sources in the pages about individuals on negative wikis, but the policy against making such a page still came into fruition regardless.

I'm kinda for allowing people pages again, but that attempt failed the first time, so how do we know it won't do so again, no matter what we do?

as I said before the content policy of Miraheze is flawed, they came off as abusive when they started to delete (or make people delete) everything that criticizes people when the Qualitipedias were never meant to defamate, harass nor insult people, we were just critizing people, and very bad people such as for example Amber Heard, who abused her husband Johnny Depp, exposed her breasts in a public place and stole money from charity, Joss Wheldon, who mistreated the actress who worked with him, and Harvey Weinstein, who was convicted of sexually harassing multiple women, also, those articles had enough sources about the actions of those persons and we never tried to spread misinformation.

This is why pages about people should be allowed in the Qualitipedias again, since the admins can protect pages and delete them if it is necessary.

@SuperStreetKombat It's not really worth it. We have users like SuperSoul who launched a couple of personal attacks against the stewards over it. We should just keep them banned indefinitely, given the sole fact that I don't want our wikis to look hypocritical in the end. Overall, what's the point of attempting to overturn this? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

my intention is make everyone see the flaws of the Miraheze staff, I do not know how the wikis will look hypocrital when we were just criticizing bad people, we never tried to defamate, insult nor harass anyone in the wikis.

Meanwhile you are being questionably civil at best on Meta, heading into outright uncivil. You are doing an awful job of supporting your point. Miraheze management having flaws or not is a separate issue from your clear demonstrations of trying to bring back a problematic subject while exhibiting every bit of behavior that is problematic with the subject. Consider your request(s) officially refused by Qualitipedia bureaucrats. Bringing them up further will be futile until you learn manners.

Sorry but I can't believe how DarkMatterMan4500 defends literally EVERYTHING the Miraheze staff does, just because they are the owners of Miraheze does not mean that they are perfect, everyone has flaws.

He is basically an slave to the Miraheze staff.

It's not a matter of having flaws or not, it's that you don't understand how to discuss in a way that people would be inclined to listen to you. See your talk page on Meta for more details on the matter. I believe this topic has run its course.

even i want to know why we have not deleted the people pages from the positive reception wikis ( not trying to take Salty01's side by the way). can anyone tell me ?

Some users (including myself) say that custom headings aren't allowed on pages with average/decent headings (Bad Qualities/Good Qualities), while another faction states that there is no such evidence of this rule. I request an evaluation of the custom heading rule to determine if the rule against having them on average media pages actually existed or not.

From a network perspective, the custom headers RfC made a blanket allowance of custom headers. Though the result was hotly contested, the move to ban them failed. In that process, identifying type of page be it average, a business or something else was not done, so from a bureaucrat perspective they would be allowed on any kind of page.

Locally it is simple enough to verify through the local rules. For example, through CGW's main page Rule 1 clearly states that custom headings are allowed without stipulating average or not. So even locally with updated rulesets there is no stipulation. That said, there are outdated rule sets which I actually plan to address this evening at least in part, so for now I would take CGW as the best reference for common convention.

In sum, there are no updated grounds for admins or bureaucrats to restrict header use based on the page being 'average' or not. I see no evidence of that being our policy anywhere. The key is that they are appropriate to the content. If the custom header makes no sense to the content within or makes the media look worse than it should, it is your prerogative to remove it with that rationale. If there is a disagreement/edit war, the issue can be forwarded to staff review.

While I think we should have custom headers on average pages, I think it should be clear on how they should be used. See this blog for more information.

While not officially sanctioned, the linked blog is a good guideline. I'd only say pt 2 of the second example I disagree with; if the custom header works, there is nothing wrong with 'bad' being included.

Upon closer inspection, the only wiki that explicitly bans custom headings on average media pages is Awful Movies Wiki while Dreadful Literature Wiki outright bans them, though considering what Raidarr said it can be surmised that the former is something that the admins had thought of instating as a rule but never got around to and the latter is an artifact from before the headings were allowed. As such, I think it would be acceptable to have custom headings anywhere unless otherwise stated by QP staff.

Precisely, and both wikis you mentioned are indeed behind on updating rules. While I'm currently starting with CGW, when the content is finalized I can port the gist to every wiki and have that aspect covered.

Arguably, what you're doing can be considered spam and you should probably stop.

Those words are overused and annoying.

I know this wiki is not part of Qualitipedia, but since I believe users here will be interested, I will state that I have started a RfC about what should be done with the wiki.

I reported the wiki to Miraheze through discord, and they didn't care about it, so there are 2 options, either you report it and maybe they will listen to you, or we close the wiki from inside the wiki itself (like you did by making the proposal to close the wiki inside the wiki).

Only a different argument will elicit a different response, not a different user. Fatburn's current approach seems correct to me.

So, I think the thing to do, is to warn Miraheze somewhere about the wiki, and tell them enough evidence to shut it down.

I already asked the stewards to shut it down, and Dmehus suggested that I start a discussion about it instead.

Update: I applied for a wiki called "Disgusting Gacha Life Videos Wiki" on miraheze, the original idea was to replace "Crappy GachaTubers Wiki" with the wiki I wanted to apply for, but it was not accepted.

It's not proper to try and request one wiki to usurp another.

yes, in fact they rejected the wiki I requested for that very reason, because "I was making problems with other wikis, through that wiki".

One problem is that wikis of the like come under far greater scrutiny than they used to, so the chances of accepting already take a hit even with various concessions to try and make it sound different.

No.

Immediately?

Why?

Yeah, why?

Because I got bored with low number pages.

"Low number pages"? The wiki has a pretty decent amount of pages, from what I've seen.

Considered, denied. No further appeals will be taken on the subject until a reasonable period of time passes as I or another discord-side admin deems fit. Sorry SST, this scenario and attitude has become endemic to the degree a previous admin likely would probably performed a QP wide ban by now. Suffice to say it was not for no reason.

My tag is Moisty#5936. Keeping me banned would be a violation of my rights. As you may know, you know, Raiddass has insulted me. Here’s my response to that: “What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at Harvard Law, and I’ve been involved in numerous Supreme Court cases, and I have won over 300 cases. I am trained in constitutional law and I’m the top lawyer in the entire US court system. You are nothing to me but just another defendant. I will sue you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of FBI agents across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your right to life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can bankrupt you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare oratory. Not only am I extensively trained in maritime law, but I have access to the entire legal staff of the Walt Disney Company and I will use copyright law to its full extent to sue your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking sued, kiddo.”

Unban me right this very instant.

I don't know what you did to get yourself banned from Discord, but this type of attitude won't help you in the slightest, and is likely to get you into more trouble than you're already in.

You already made a topic like this on this wiki a while ago, which was also just as uncivilized as this one is, so if I were you, I'd do my best to ask to be unbanned from Discord as professionally as possible without raging for no apparent reason.

I am sorry for being mean. I just wanna be unbanned from the Discord server. Please consider unbanning me, I will be a good boy.

I'm not on Discord, so you'll have to ask another user who is to unban you.

Now can you tell me why you got banned there? If you can tell me why, I'll know whether or not you should be unblocked there.

Or else we will continue to be spared the inane attempts to troll the regulars, oh no.

In any case I think this request alone makes it clear nothing has changed, so as an admin on the discord I consider your appeal (of sorts) unsuccessful, try again another time.

👿👿👿 My tag is Moisty#5936!! Unban me or else!! 👿👿👿

So anyway, as you all know, one of the categories of wikis on Qualitipedia is the music wikis. However, they're not the original music wikis. The original music wikis are mh:thehorriblemusicandsongswikia:Horrible Music & Songs Wiki and Best Music Wiki. However, they were poorly-received by Qualitipedia users, and as a result, they were replaced with the original Miraheze versions (The Miraheze Best Music Wiki was later replaced with mh:delightfulmusicandsongs:Delightful Music & Songs Wiki). However, the wikis eventually migrated from Fandom to Miraheze as The Horrible Music and Songs Wikia and The Best Music & Songs Wikia. On March 22, 2021, I tried to tell MarioMario456 that the Miraheze version was a ripoff as he was trying to adopt it at the time (see my contributions page for more information) because at the time I believed it was a ripoff (although in reality, it was just a migration attempt created by CHICHI7YT, the former owner, and the attempt failed due to outcasts editing the main page and therefore their edits caused the new owner to falsely believe it was a duplicate deliberately created to replace the wiki). I admit I acted somewhat immature in the situation, but regardless, MarioMario456 told me that it would be kept as some "form of backup" which wasn't true, but whatever. Afterwards, I asked him what his plans were, and he told me what he was going to do about everything. On the comment section of a blog post, I replied to this comment and suggested that the wikis could be merged, but MarioMario456 said that many pages were trash so the wikis wouldn't be merged. I then created this thread to explain that the wiki can still be improved (I actually sent him another message before that which I originally posted on the original Miraheze HMASW on his talk page there but he pretty much said what he said before and when I tried to continue the discussion before he replied his talk page was merged into a flow discussion so I had to make a new discussion) but he then said it had the wrong domain, which is a point (although domains can be changed and you can create a new wiki with a better domain and import all pages including the main page) as the database name is thehorriblemusicandsongswikiawiki, which is extremely messed up. However, he marked the topic as resolved in order to reply, even though I wasn't done as I still wanted to know what was gonna happen, so I started this thread which DuchessTheSponge replied to, and he said they were going to close it down although it wasn't really clear how and I didn't make my message clear enough so I still had questions. Due to users necroposting, MarioMario456 marked it as resolved, even though Qualitipedia doesn't use necroposting rules, it uses gravedigging rules, which gravedigging only applies if it has been resolved. Anyway, I didn't start a new thread on his talk page after that, because by the time I decided to make another thread, both Duchess and MarioMario456 retired, so I started a new thread which pretty much went nowhere. Anyway, I'm sorry this message was so long, and I know that I probably shouldn't have sent so many messages, but I didn't get the situation resolved in one thread so I needed to make more to officially see what had to be done. However, could something be done about this? Even if it's decided the wikis won't merge in any way, I just want the Qualitipedia administrators to make some agreement with the owners of the original wikis.

Dude, thehorriblemusicandsongswikiawiki and thebestmusicandsongswikiawiki aren't affiliated with ours. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I know they're not affiliated, I'm saying that I would like for something to be done about them, because the existence of two wikis about the same topic is a violation of Content Policy.

I don't see anything in Content Policy regarding anything about two wikis of the same topic. "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis" might be the one you are referring to, but it does not "hinder other wikis".

Yes it does.

It does not hinder in a way that requires global action, or necessarily obliges local admins to act. But again, sit tight on this one as I do respect it as an issue and intend to look at it if my RfP is successful from a QP bureaucrat capacity. Though not as a first or top priority.

In spite of the delivery, I see the point and I intend to have this topic on my agenda upon successful resolution of my Qualitipedia RfP, which does seem quite conclusive so far.

If you want to suggest changes to the presented/featured pages on front pages, suggest them on the wikis you would like the changes for specifically.

on the main page switch: 1. Super Mario Bros. with Minecraft, 2. Cuties with pre-2000 movie, 3. Star Wars with post-2000 movie, 4. Wonder Woman with pre-1997 show, and 5. Google+ with pre-2005 website or Youtube with post-2005. If you have any suggestions, you can reply to this.

Why?

?

Do you have a reason why you want these changes?

I don't understand this topic.