Topic on User talk:Raidarr

Ultimately concur for closure; no additional commenters and little more to discuss (especially as I no longer care to pursue the idea).

I do not believe it is wise to merge the positive and negative wikis into a single wiki. The reception wikis have used separate positive and negative wikis since the beginning of their existence, and have worked that way for years. Going and merging the wikis into one wiki would not only be literally changing the basic foundation of what makes a "reception wiki", but would NOT be popular with other users who have been on the reception wikis since the beginning of their existence. I agree with the other points you addressed in your blog (except for the main page redesigns, I think the main pages are fine the way they are), but merging the wikis would be detrimental to all of Qualitipedia, and possibly the other reception wikis (because keep in mind that there are reception wikis that are not in Qualitipedia). Also, I suggested becoming independent first, but other users voted against it, so it is likely we will just stay on Miraheze.

Oh and also, I created a page for Qualitipedia on Reception Wikis Wiki, I didn't notice you had it in your sandbox.

I do not buy that merely because something is done since the beginning, it is good or should be continued. The beginning and following years lead to unceremonious removal from Fandom, the closure of many reception wikis on Miraheze, endless drama here on Miraheze, the rise of utterly incompetent staff and the ongoing poor quality of content that continues to blemish the reputation of Qualitipedia and Miraheze to this day. So fundamentally, the unbacked concern that people may not like it because it's new (...like the very concept of the network and QP central) is no reason to not give the idea a chance.

Though I will say that some have been pushing for it to simply happen all at once, which does not make sense. I prescribe a trial run for technical testing; if successful, followed by a trial run of a willing wiki (must be majority approved by residents, therefore it would not be a question of people not liking it because if I'm the only one who likes it, it will never happen) followed, if successful, by implementation for more wikis. This is not a process to be done hastily, otherwise it will promptly fail because QP lacks the resources to do that sort of job at the moment. It must grow into the ability and the idea.

I adamantly hold that the front page designs are candidates for a page on Rotten Websites Wiki with enough points to justify such a page's existence. They're nightmares in mobile design, atrociously colored, ridiculously long winded in rules, unhelpful in contacts, lazy in features and poorly spaced. Agree or disagree I will continue to hold this as a long term priority to be addressed, and will appeal to whatever majority or parties I need to see it done. Frankly, not everyone will agree, and some will inevitably be left behind as things change.

Also note that I did not suggest independence, which would entail server hosting and much more. I merely suggest custom domain, which is entirely doable on Miraheze.

As for Reception Wikis Wiki, if you already made a page, feel free to integrate whatever seems useful from my version and call it a day. Doesn't bother me, one less project on the list :p

Ok. I just noticed that FreezingTNT is back, so maybe he could join this discussion, since he was the one behind the rebrand. I don't think it will take too long though. Also, merging the positive and negative wikis would basically change the formula for the reception wikis, and would confuse users, so I do not believe such a merge is wise. The existence of separate positive and negative wikis did not contribute to past drama, as all of the past problems with Qualitipedia were caused by poor administration and infighting, but since DarkMatterMan4500 is in charge, and he is a very competent admin, there is currently no major drama happening.

I honestly kinda agree that we shouldn't merge the wikis, as it would defeat the purpose of Qualitipedia. Not only that, but it would be quite confusing as you wouldn't know what is good or bad, which is what Qualitipedia is about. It would also result in severe clogging.

Also AleXYZ-510, you made an account 6 days ago. I really don't think you have the right to judge what Qualitipedia needs based on your global edit count only being 5 and that aforementioned fact of how little you have been here.

OK I'll leave for now and contribute more before I vote for things. I've known quite a bit about Qualitipedia before I joined though, but I'll stop voting for several weeks, or maybe a few months before I start voting again. I'll get to know more about the community before I vote

Exactly.

You would be able to tell which is good or bad, actually, since there will be templates at the beginning of each to show whether the page is discussing a good, average, or bad piece of media, at least that's what is planned.

It would be much easier to just have separate wikis rather than just have good, bad, and average media crammed into one wiki. Even if it is shown by templates, it will be much harder to navigate. I am strongly against a merge as it would be completely be rewriting the formula for reception wikis.

It would not be 'easier' to manage three wikis instead of one. You say cramming, but that is literally wrong - there is nothing crammed in the MediaWiki software if things are organized competently. You are assuming a worst case execution of an idea that would have multiple trial runs to get it right. And frankly? Lets rewrite the formula. It's not like it is especially reliable or helpful in a majority of cases, not considering the fact that most reception wikis created hardly even get off the ground and otherwise struggle to properly classify things with an objective measure of quality or reception.

There has been no trouble with the way the system of classification works right now. Besides, it would be easier to manage if we treat them as more unified, but we do not need to literally combine all of the wikis. There is no problem with the formula as it is.

Then there is nothing more to talk about. If you'd like to continue with TigerBlazer, feel free to move to his talk page. If you want to continue with me, don't. We won't see eye to eye and we will not be allies.

Fine then. But as DarkMatterMan4500 would say, this merge has a snowball's chance in heck of succeeding.

Even so, that would mean a lot more to manage, which simply isn't practical.

What is even less practical is changing the core framework for the reception wikis, since the separation of good, bad, and average has been a part of reception wiki culture. It cannot be that hard to manage 12 wikis, especially with the many administrators there are.

There really is no such thing as a core framework for reception wikis. Some people make reception wikis of all kind, some discussing average things only, some having three separate wikis for each reception type, and The New Reception Wiki had good and bad media on it on one singular wiki, and it was easy to tell which was which despite that wiki's lack of vision. It can work no matter what "formula" you put wikis in.

The separation of good, bad, and average has been the established practice since the beginning of the reception wikis. Besides, when searching, the user would not know whether or not the page is for good, bad, or average media until they read the actual page.

My issues with the formula are more nuanced than what you describe, but I've presented the reasons before and you're free to address them in those avenues. I'm not sure there's more we can say here as actual data of community response is what makes the difference. Nonetheless @FreezingTNT is free to bring his input. Actually I think I've expressed the issue to him before as well, though I'm not sure if he remembers my rationale.

I further consider the main arguments against merging to be a sheer lack of imagination and willingness to consider another way of doing things and to properly organize a system, which is a common problem - but a problem of the user nonetheless, not the idea. Wikis do not clog. They're simply organized badly. This is the point of a proof of concept to demonstrate otherwise per the above posts and it is fruitless to complain about the idea until that much is established.

It is not wise to go and change what has not only been an established practice on Qualitipedia, but has been the core framework for the reception wikis for as long as they have been around. The separation of good, bad, and average has been an idea that has been a fundamental part of reception wiki culture, to the point where suddenly changing it would most likely cause mass chaos.

You see, there are three key concepts for the reception wikis:

1. Reception wikis focus on reception.
2. Reception wikis are separated into good, bad, and average wikis
3. Reception wikis all have a section for numbered qualities listing why the subject is good, bad, or average depending on the focus of the wiki.

Changing any one of these key concepts would be a disaster. We cannot change the established formula.

This should probably be continued in a different discussion. I don't think one user's talk page is a good place to talk about such a massive change as this.

When the discussion is an actual proposal it can certainly be discussed there.

Ok.

Raidarr, please leave this thread closed. There is clearly nothing else anyone has to say on the matter, this discussion just turned into a big argument, and like DarkMatterMan4500 would say, this merge has a snowball's chance in heck of happening. As for you pinging FreezingTNT, he doesn't have any edits on this wiki, and since I do not think he has Global Notifications turned on, the odds of him ever replying to this thread are nil.

The argument ends when its participants do not add more fuel. Procedurally, I will close this thread when reasonable time has been given for outside input as a function of my talk page.