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.
Old, barely of relevance to QP and not going anywhere. Please bring this subject to a blog if you really wish to keep an expression of these thoughts open.
I've asked them to globally lock a few users like Harry2003, and that user who sent me a rape threat on TTSW, but they ignored me for no reason at all and aren't doing a thing to stop these users, thus allowing them to do whatever they want. Is Miraheze dying? Is it suffering from a lack of quality control or poor communication with other users? If these Stewards can't do a thing, then this site's in serious trouble.
If a user is being handled locally and only affects locally, the Stewards likely look over it in favor of greater priorities. What Miraheze does lack is available time for them to address just anything at all, and so if you want the topic addressed with linked evidence of their activities as a global negative or if there needs to be a CheckUser to establish long term abuse with multiple accounts, perhaps pass it on to DarkMatterMan. He is fairly persistent and if there is merit, there is at least a reply or something gets done.
Well, the problem is that I actually do show evidence of these users' wrongdoings; it's just that the Stewards don't even respond, leaving me to handle these situations myself.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Topics like this die for no reason, because no one wants to continue discussing them, so this discussion might as well be deleted.
I'm not sure there is anything more to say really. Perhaps as compared to somewhat dancing around the issue outside the Stewards periphery, you may ask it of them on their own talk pages on Meta to ask for a review and status.
You would have to discuss it with User:DarkMatterMan4500 and/or other current bureaucrats, whenever they'd like to comment. We don't have a true 'joining qualitipedia' policy yet, beyond getting in touch with them.
To make it part of QP you could add DarkMatterMan and Blazikeye as bureaucrats, given they are leader and co-leader respectively. I guess it's up to them from there to QPify it, unless you have other ideas to make it fit.
This does raise a question for QP as far as trust; I don't mean for all of QP, but for each QP wiki if people 'founding it' are trustworthy to be (ideally permanent) bureaucrats on QP for that place. Considering just founding a wiki and getting it approved makes it easy to get at least one slot of absolute power since founders expect to have those powers even if they join QP, where they otherwise wouldn't.
No widespread issues have been reported, even to corroborate the initial statement. Indeed, they've done no harm with reported abuse and at least some people seem to get a kick out of them.
Since DuchessTheSponge, the one who came up with the idea of allowing them, is retired, should we go back to disallowing custom headings on Qualitipedia? Because, I've been looking at these pages and, if you ask me, the headers are unfunny, immature, and they add nothing to the page, and at some point in the future, the wikis are gonna end up looking like Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki and Healthy Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki.
Not enough support to remove these templates on local wikis. Topic may be raised again, in blog or in (ideally new, with a stronger suggestion for action) topic here.
I think we should just do away with these templates, because they're unnecessary, the pages don't even show any pornographic or graphically violent content, the templates are added to certain pages for no reason, they clutter the pages, and they often cause other users to engage in edit wars. What does anyone think of this?
I agree. They need to go. They may have been useful before, but now they are just a problem (For example, a SpongeBob episode had the NSFW and NSFL templates when it was just an episdoe of a children's cartoon that doesn't even have that in it (Key words: Children's cartoon)).
There were two SpongeBob episodes you refer to, and those are The Splinter and Ink Lemonade. A user kept adding the templates to the pages when neither of them needed one, and started edit warring, but I block them for a couple days and had to protect both of the pages for a while afterwards.
I somewhat see the point of NSFW, but NSFL not so much, and both on one page is redundant. As it is I wouldn't mind if they were simply removed, but I do think the NSFW one can be used responsibly.
The thing is, both of these templates have been abused for quite a while, because not only do both of them get added, but either one of them will be added to a page for no reason at all, like how months ago on Awful Movies Wiki, when pages like Logan and Joker had the NSFW templates when those pages weren't even well-suited for one, and on Best TV Shows Wiki, shows like One Punch Man and Courage the Cowardly Dog had the NSFL template when, again, those shows didn't even warrant those templates, nor is there anything NSFL about them.
NSFL is rather hyperbolic anyways, so I'm fully in favor of pitching that one. The other would be dependent on simply knowing where it applies, namely content that has traditionally nsfw warnings already (ie, that type of game on steam).
UPDATE: I made a poll on CGW about whether or not these templates should be deleted from Qualitipedia, and most people voted "no", so they're both pretty much here to stay.
Discuss issues, suggestions and so on related to all wikis part of Qualitipedia (that share this administration). Also, Global rules and other pages for things that apply to multiple wikis.
This is the first time we actually use our meta wiki. After some drama (we will not say who caused it because it would be gravedigging), we removed the person's logos after we found out they ripped off MatPat's profile pictures. I'm currently making my own logos, but so far only the CGW and AGW logos have been made so far. Since I was busy with some other stuff, I only made these two logos and moved along with some other stuff. I will be making my own logos as time goes on. Here are my logos (I already have the vectors in my hard drive, but I'm uploading them here as PNG for people using old-as-shit browsers):
I think there should be a common design. My suggestion is to make it based off the MediaWiki logo with two square brackets surrounding the icon. Also, there will be a caption in the Graphik font showing the name of the wiki.
I want to make a mix of FreezingTNT's logos and the MediaWiki logo. There will be three petals for each wiki, because there are 24 petals in the logo, with square brackets surrounding the sunflower. The wiki's icon would be located on the disk (the circle surrounded by the petals). I will use the same colors as NJPet's proposal.
Actually, now that we have only seven wiki sets now (The character wikis will be reopened if the community agrees, but will not be part of Qualitipedia), I think we should go back to using FreezingTNT's designs.
The only reason why FreezingTNT's designs were retired was because MarioMario456 blocked him and Mario couldn't tolerate his hard work for designing the logos. He decided to make unprofessional logos that rip off MatPat's profile pictures, and he decided to make Qualitipedia's logo a rainbow, which has nothing to do with the agenda of the network, which is to review entertainment (websites, games, home and handheld consoles, movies, TV shows, TV show episodes, literature, game developers, entertainment companies and game developers) and categorize them into negative and positive reception.
I think you're on a better track in shape and idea. I would say the problem is; too detailed. There is no sense of contrast. Logos are not about being detailed or artistic, instead memorable. And I don't get why they feel the need to include the text every time. Logos should stand on their own without it, as that is what they are for.
I actually wanna remove the touchpad as well. But, When I removed it, It looks too boring to me, so I decided to add it back. If it's still too detailed, I'm sorry but this is as far as I can go.
-
My contenders. Inspired by FreezingTNT's ones and by Qualitipedia banners. Note these are prototypes.
