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.

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.

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

Couldn't you create that yourself?

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

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

This is for two wikis.

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

I've seen these Transformers-related pages on wikis like TTSW, AMW, and even BTSW, and 99% of them have custom headings on average pages as well as non-average/decent pages where custom headings are being added to the Redeeming/Bad Qualoties sections, which is against the rules of the Reception Wikis.

To everyone who's been adding these headings to those pages: stop. It's fine to add these heafings to the Why It Sucks/Rocks sections, but not on the Bad/Redeeming Qualities sections or the average pages on the negative wikis.

The next time this happens to a Transformers page will result in a block as well as a page protection. Thanks.

It might be best to temporarily protect the page now instead of waiting for it.

Maybe with Transformers Energon on TTSW, I'll do that, since that's the biggest victim of this problem, but the other pages seem to be all right for now.

Nobody who you want to see this and would be threatened by a block will actually see it. Notify the people who are actually causing the problem and avoid being heavy handed about a largely arbitrary rule, until they ignore it from clear notification. I wouldn't even bother protecting the page unless it's more than a few people causing the issue.

Also not to mention, I find this whole idea of blocking for such a minor thing ridiculous. There was also a rule in the global rules saying that you will get blocked just for putting blogs in categories, and it also reminds me of how Amazing YouTubers Wiki has a rule saying that you will immediately get blocked just for adding having a bad fandom or hatedom as a bad quality.

Lately my browser has been downloading random HTM files while browsing the wikis. These files are 0 kilobytes and have randomly generated names. The most recent one that my browser downloaded was titled "BEfawH53."

I've got more or less the same problem lately.

I'm currently using Firefox 103.0. Unlike in your case, however, it only asks me where to save the files and not download them immediately.

That's because I configured Firefox so that it doesn't save the file to the default folder as soon as it finishes downloading that file, but instead asks me where to save that file.

Files and Applications

Downloads

Save files to 📂️ DownloadsBrowse...

☑️ Always ask you where to save files

I suspect this boils down to a bug in Miraheze's servers or something.

Never had this experience.

same

At times, my browser, Microsoft Edge, a browser I have used the most on my laptop sometimes does that (If my hands were still wet, it does this occasionally).

I sure hope Miraheze isn’t distributing viruses here.

I don't think they are viruses, at least the fact that the files are blank.

On the 13 Reasons Why page, people keep removing the Redeeming Qualities. I've also seen it on the Sad Satan page as well. While I do agree both of these pieces of media are awful, was this ever a rule? I see people constantly reverting edits on the 13RW page.

I haven't paid attention to the latter case, but the reason I see for the former is that "it endorses suicide". For the latter I presume it's because of it being banned for containing child porn. This rule is also enforced on the Cuties and Tomorrow's Pioneers pages, and while I believe there is a mutual agreement to keep good qualities off the former, I'm unsure of the latter.

Also NGL, I think that it doesn't really matter how bad something is - a film of any kind can have redeeming qualities, no matter how bad their bad qualities are in comparison to the good ones.

I made this suggestion in the discussion section on the Awful Movies Wiki, but the staff didn't respond. I think we should rename the Disney films category to just Disney, since some of the pages in the category are about events and not films. We did the same thing with some of the company categories on the Crappy Games Wiki. I also propose that we make a category for Disney's downfall.

Sorry, dude, I didn't even know that you made such a suggestion on the wiki.

Your request is now complete.

So is that a no on creating the Disney’s downfall category?

Likely.

Couldn't we just make two separate categories: Disney films and Disney history?

I think renaming the category "Disney" is a more streamlined decision since it will cover everything related to Disney from their movies to their history.

While we’re at it, can we get rid of the companies owned by Disney category? It’s just a few subcategories that are already in the Disney category.

Custom headers have really gotten out of hand on these wikis. There are some good ones out there, but most of them just feel forced and annoying. At one point there was an RfC to ban them altogether, and it failed. But I have a better idea. We can just ban non-staff wiki users from giving the pages custom headers. And if there’s a custom header they think the page should have, they can suggest it to the staff and they can decide whether or not it’s a good header to have, just like the rule for creating new categories.

That sounds like a potentially good idea, but I can imagine enforcing it would prove to be a complete pain.

How?

A lot of users will likely ignore this rule, forcing the staff to constantly seek out and undo their edits.

Especially custom headings being used in average/decent pages or Bad/Redeeming Qualities sections in formal articles.

I'm pretty sure what he means is that it would be annoying because any time you wanted to give a creative page header you'd have to call admin. That would probably get out of hand.

I'm not really sure about only allowing staff members to add custom headings to pages, since some of us, like myself, aren't really big fans of them, and a lot of pages won't even have them.

"a lot of pages won't even have them." Having custom headers on way too many pages is part of the problem.

Okay, you do have a point, but people outside of Qualitipedia have been very critical of us for not having custom headings on our pages. Remember what happened to me on SephSpace last year?

What is Seph Space?

Abominable garbage that was run by a bunch of traitors that resorted to trollism and harassment.

Well, it was fun to visit while it lasted until things went downhill for it.

It was a private wiki comprised of ex-QP members (including admins like DuchessTheSponge) who made their own reception wiki.

And Duchess was the one who banned me from the wiki last year in June, one of the reasons being the fact that I "defended the 'no custom heading rule'" at one point.

if you were banned from there for such a pathetic and irrelevant reason then i don't think it was ever a place worthy of being praised in the first place IMO

Well, the wiki was pretty welcoming to me when I first heard about it, and I hung out there with its members for a while. Not to mention that while I was still a member of SephSpace, I tried to stay out of the drama between it and the Reception Wikis.

Originally, last year, I'd planned to retire from QP and move over to SephSpace, but Inkster (using a sock account) told Duchess to kick me out of the wiki for 3 things: those being defending the rule against custom headings, removing Nintendo from CGW's Forbidden Pages list (which I didn't do, BTW), and restoring the YouTube page on RWW, despite the site being liked by a lot, which caused me to quit Miraheze entirely.

2 weeks later, however, I returned to this site, and clarified all the things I did on the Reception Wikis, which got me back into SephSpace and I even regained its members' trust until it was closed.

TBH, I'm surprised nobody ever brings this up, despite being such a big deal, and me explaining perfectly well how it went when I first got kicked out of it.

It was a private wiki here made by an ex-user named XXSeph MySpaceXx, and that wiki mostly consisted of former Reception Wiki users who left due to drama and stuff like that.

In August of 2021, SephSpace was shut down, possibly due to having had enough of dealing with too much drama on Miraheze, and the members of it defected to another site.

Given the general attitude towards custom headings among the staff, limiting adding them to staffers would essentially be like banning them. This is why I feel mixed on the idea.

Yeah, I disagree with the idea. I can see the reasoning, but still, it's annoying.

Just FYI, I'm not saying we should allow custom headings because I like them (which I don't); it's just that, like I said before, people outside of Qualitipedia have criticized us for not allowing these types of headings, and I'm trying my best to make the image of our wikis look as good as possible.

As much as I hate how most custom headers look on pages and the fact editing wars often start over them, I'm overall mixed about this decision.

I honestly prefer to get rid of custom headers entirely. They can cause a lot of drama.

And drama will also be caused if we just outright ban custom headers. It's basically a lose-lose situation.

Drama was the same reason why it took so long for us to put Nintendo on the Crappy Games Wiki, and the RfC to give them a page on there said "...if Nintendo does get a page on this wiki, then it'll be permanent, and you'll all have to accept its placement here and no amount of complaints with remove it again." I think we should say the same thing about a custom header ban if that happens.

I would disagree with that. The Nintendo page RFC was a clear success, the two custom header RFCs weren't, and probably never will be.

I believe we've tried that twice now, and it still didn't work. I am aware there wasn't really a clear consensus but regardless, it's probably going to end in the same way, and rightfully so IMO.

One of my biggest problems with this is the way the word “prequel” is used. A prequel is a film that was released after a film from the same franchise, but takes place before the events of the previous film. For example, Star Wars episodes I-III were released after episodes IV-VI. Many people on these wikis are getting this wrong, however. For example, on the Greatest Movies Wiki, Shrek is listed as a prequel to Shrek 2. Yes, Shrek takes place before Shrek 2, but it also came out before Shrek 2. The right word to use here is “predecessor,” not “prequel.”

Another problem is that people will count the next film from the same studio as a sequel, even if it’s from a different franchise. For example, the Greatest Movies Wiki lists A Bug’s Life as a sequel to Toy Story. Just because they’re both from Pixar, doesn’t mean they’re from the same franchise.

I just think we should stop putting this stuff in the infotables. Wikipedia doesn’t do that. They either just mention the sequel in the intro paragraph or just make a whole header about sequels, prequels, and spin-offs.

I still think that it should be in the infobox because while Wikipedia doesn't do it, that's because they add a lot more information. On reception wikis, it's more beneficial to just add a part to the infobox. Otherwise though, I agree with you, and I think that the "prequel" in the infobox should be changed to "previous game" on the game wikis, "previous film" on the movie wikis and "previous book" on the literature wikis.

So then what’s wrong with just putting sequel and prequel information in the intro paragraphs?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. In that case, yeah, we should remove it from the infobox.

They are apparently now using the abysmal new Vector 2022 skin, but they should be using the original Vector skin. Luckily I have the original Vector skin set as my default skin but I do not always browse logged in.

Bug at a Miraheze level. Fixes are pending.

This has bugging me. I think we need to make it to where pointers in regards of length should only be noted if they actually benefit or hold back the game in some way. A game that is 22 hours can be a bad thing if it's bloated and a short game can be bad if poorly paced or the developer/publisher makes the game more expensive than it should.

Games have benefit for being as short as they are. Most COD campaigns, while short, are enjoyable because of how well paced they are. The same with things like No More Heroes, Lollipop Chainsaw, Resident Evil games, etc. We shouldn't be adding pointers where the complaint is how something is only 4 hours and that's a bad thing just because. It's pretty common across both wikis and it should probably stop since, in my opinion, it hurts the quality of the pages; especially from an ousider's perspective.

I agree that length needs to be qualified and simply saying it's short isn't enough. Short by design and short for being unfinished are worlds apart as just one example.

Exactly.

I completely agree, I see this a lot on HMW, and I usually remove the pointer.

How do I attatch an image to a comment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright, I’ll start tomorrow.

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

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

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

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

I am indeed here to help build the wikis.

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the hell are you saying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. I really could use some support.

And I'm barely getting any for no reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are we focused on quality?

Qualitipedia is better because it may not always be reception.

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

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

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

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

{{Mature|Gore and violence}}

Here is my proposal in more detail

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

What is a "moral guardian"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it should be like a warning.

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

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

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

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

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

Nice. Who’s idea should I do first?

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

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

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

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

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

This is my idea.

This material is rated M by the ESRB.

This material has been rated M by the ESRB.

Game Wiki version

This material is rated R by the MPAA.

This material has been rated R by the MPAA.

Movie Wiki version

This material is rated TV-MA by the TVPG.

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

TV Show Wiki version

This material is for mature audiences.

This material is intended for Mature audiences only.

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

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

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

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

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

don't you have something else to do?

I do, but still...

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

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.