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.

The wikis are staying closed.

Hi Quadpedia. The Discord server has been rebranded, and that's cool (even though it will take me a long time to get used to). Everything is going fine. A few hours ago, someone asked why we can't give the wikis to the creators of Bad Webcomics Wiki. His reasons are

1. The work there is pretty professional and rather than writing pointers, the write like blogs or websites like IGN and GameSpot or even the earliest revisions of Plumbers Don't Wear Ties (as pointed out by Theresnoname).
2. Bias close to non-existent. Sure, some pages will mention stuff like SJW but they keep that minimum because the main focus is criticizing the product and not being politically biased (like QP with SJWs).

I agree with this idea. And your opinions guys?

No.

Heck no.

I agree with this idea too.

Look here how such a page could be written, and put this into your opinion: https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/User:Theresnoname/sandbox#Plumbers_Don%27t_Wear_Ties_(Newer-style_page)

I forgot to mention one thing: Carl Filip also agrees with this idea.

1. How do we know that they want that?
2. Bukkit is already planning on moving these wikis elsewhere, so we don't need to give them to anyone for right now.

Discord exists, dude.

What do you mean?

We talked about this in the Discord server, FatBurn.

Who is "we"?

retrogamer999, Carl Filip, Theresnoname and me.

Although Theresnoname disagrees with this idea.

Three people, none of which are staff, having an agreement about something does not mean there is clear consensus to do this.

That's why i asked if you guys agree or not with this idea.

Then what was the point of your comment in the first place?

The comment where i explained the reasons or Carl Filip's opinion?

The comment where you said "Discord exists, dude."

What i meant is that you didn't know who and where it was said, that's why i said that.

Yes, but what relevance does that have to the comments I made?

That's a good question. I can't awnser that. You defeated me.

These wikis are closed now.

Hi, I'm UnboundBeartic. I've been a viewer of Qualitipedia for a long time. Today I decided to make an account and join Miraheze.org and Qualitipedia. However this is my very fist and only account on Miraheze. I'm hoping that I'll become a legitimate unlocked user in the near future. I hear that Qualitipedia has a strict Anti-Van program that requires users to wait before editing. How exactly does this work. Could you help me since your an Admin? If your unlocked on Qualitipedia are you unlocked on all of it's wikis or do you have to get them unlocked separately?

I'm not an admin, but I think you'll be unlocked automatically when moderators approve 10 of your edits on a Qualitipedia wiki. It only applies to that wiki, however.

Bukkit removed moderation.

Note that moderation is only disabled for this wiki. It still applies for the other wikis in Qualitipedia (I think).

How often do the admins approve edits that are pending approval.

I would presume as much as they can, but that may not be a lot.

Appears to be resolved.

Originally I wanted to do it after the RfC ends regardless of the results but my patience has ran out. Given how I already apologized here I'd like my ban from the Discord server to be lifted (but not on the Wikis; I don't intend to crawl back to them ever). I want to reunite with my old friends and hangout on the soon-to-be lounge there after made peace with the network.

As one of the mods of the Discord server myself, I'm going to discuss with other staff members about this.

@Portrock1566Add Moisty#5936 on Discord and we’ll discuss it.

It's pretty clear that the community has agreed to forgive them, and the wikis are now closed.

Hi, it's me. Y'know, the guy that attempted to instigate an uprising against the Wikis a year ago? I've decided to come here in light of recent events. While I still don't like the Wikis or most of the userbase (particularly admins, with King Dice being the exception) I'd like to apologize for that incident after the hatebase has been given a somewhat bad name by Elijah, the funnimanes, DeviantArt, etc. If you guys decide to go apeshit or block me, that's fine, just remember that I've chilled out and would like to negotiate civilly.

mfw the QP closure RfC is so impactful it's bringing back some of QP's old users and "traitors"

Well, to be fair, the RfC literally regards the fate of Qualitipedia itself, and is thus the most impactful RfC possible on the Reception Wikis. Of course old users will come back to cast their votes.

I forgive you, Portrock. Besides, I actually did my best to stay out of the drama between SephSpace and Qualitipedia. Luckily for you, I am a kind of person that would be willing to give others a second chance.

Doubt we'll ever find the answer, if you find evidence, add it to pages on Reception Wikis Wiki.

Who first coined the term "reception wikis"?

That's probably something that happened on the Fandom era that we'll probably never find out about.

SuperStreetKombat is retired, the wikis are closed, the people on PRWs RFC was withdrawn, and the website wiki RFC has been created twice and its second RFC is still going.

And those are individually about banning franchise pages, reopening the Websites Wikis, and renaming Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki and Best Shows & Episodes Wiki to Terrible TV Shows Wiki and Best TV Shows Wiki respectively.

Should I still open up each of the RfCs or should I just back out of them since Qualitipedia might close soon?

Do it while you still can.

Thanks for the advice, and all, but with the closing QP RfC still being very much active, I dunno if my 3 RfCs will get very much attention.

Why should we rename the show & episode wikis? They are fine how they are.

Well, technically, both of those wikis are primarily about shows when they were first created, and episodes were (and should be) a secondary subject like companies and channels, similar to how companies and consoles are secondary on both of the Games Wikis.

Both the web series and episodes were part of the wikis back in the day, in fact, they even had all kinds of YouTube content back then.

You haven't adressed the other 2 RfCs, by the way.

Do you really think people have a problem with everything you do? Sounds like very low self-esteem and terrible need of attention if I'm being honest.

Uh... who are you talking to?

To you. FatBurn doesn't have and doesn't need to have an opinion on the other RfCs and you don't have to force him to do that.

Who said I was forcing him (which I'm not)? I just wanted to hear his opinions on the other 2 RfCs, that's all. I'm not being forceful.

Oh-kay... that was a very bizarre (and false) accusation.

Well the website wikis actually reopening is subject to conditions that everyone is ignoring, and for as long as they do it's not going to happen.

Pretty soon I'm tempted to put them to the axe permanently since that is showing no signs of changing.

I am opposed to all three of these:

1. No, we are not banning franchise pages. There is no reason to ban them.
2. No, we are not opening the website wikis. Those wikis were inactive, and Raidarr just said he is planning to axe them.
3. Absoultely not! Putting the rebrand aside, the wikis discuss web series in addition to TV shows. If anything they should be renamed to Terrible Shows Wiki and Best Shows Wiki.

1. The reason why I think franchise pages should go is because they kinda defeat the purpose of giving each installment in a series a seperate page. Other wikis outside of Miraheze do that, so why not these ones? If I remember right, franchise pages were banned at one point during the early Miraheze days after the Reception Wikis left FANDOM. I even suggested adding franchise pages only to Crappy Games Wiki, but people somehow misunderstood and allowed them on ALL wikis, and I've regretted that suggestion since.
2. The Characters Wikis were once closed but then reopened as seperate wikis that aren't part of Qualitipedia, so I kinda thought the same should happen with the Websited Wikis.
3. That... doesn't sound like a bad idea for a rename of those wikis, I'll give you that.

That 3rd point is ABSOULTELY the most based thing you have ever said Bluba!

Oh, and I forgot to mention another RfC I wanted to make, and that is to re-allow individual pages on the positive Reception Wikis.

Question has been answered, and Qualitipedia is now closed.

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

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

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

Depends on why.

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

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

Please explain.

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

Yes.

They were deleted due to an RfC.

What templates?

Please explain (what you mean).

Qualitipedia is now closed.

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

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

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

Yes, but what about audiences?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decide what?

What is even sadder is he retired with unfinished business.

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

To call it an era is a stretch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are my reasons why closing them was a mistake:

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

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

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

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

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

It is just embrassing how almost no one did that.

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

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

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

My opinion about the wikis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was not originally my idea but it can happen.

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

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

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

Reopining them while disowning them is a great idea.

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

that is exactly what I want!

You can an RfC about this if you want.

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

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

I think Vos was a girl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah yes I remember the outcast network.

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

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

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

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

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

Couldn't you create that yourself?

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

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

This is for two wikis.

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

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