Requests for Comment/Adding Reception Wikis as a separate wiki category


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * There is a particularly strong community consensus against adding a Reception Wikis category to Special:WikiDiscover and the CreateWiki extension. Of course, consensus can change, but, at the same time, we do not want to waste the community's time with multiple RfC covering the same or largely the same discussion, so, from a procedural point of view, it would probably be advisable not to revisit this request for at least twelve (12) calendar months from the closing of this discussion. The two prevailing sentiments seem to be that a Reception Wikis category would be either too narrow or not well fit for purpose within the existing wiki category framework, and, secondarily, that the Reception Wikis are somewhat controversial in their own right. Dmehus (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that we should add Reception Wikis as a separate wiki category for the following reasons: This is why I feel like Reception Wikis should be added as a separate category of wikis.
 * 1) There are so many reception wikis.
 * 2) We have other categories like song contest wikis.
 * 3) A lot of the current reception wikis are mostly uncategorized, but some are in specific categories.

Support

 * 1)  As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  BookFandumb1 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Reception Wikis are on their way out, Bukkit previously suggested it on GitHub but it was declined. Additionally, Reception Wikis are very messy, adding a category for them would feel as if Miraheze is supporting and condoning them (which is far from the truth), they don't need more attention, if anything, they need less. They've brought Miraheze great disrepute, I don't think we need a category for them. Agent Isai (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It really does not seem like the Stewards hate the Reception Wikis, they seem fine with them. If Stewards hated the Reception Wikis they all would have been shut down by now. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I kinda have to agree with you, when I searched up miraheze, some search suggestions were “miraheze is bad” and most of those opinions of the wiki farm, was based on Reception wikis. This is a bad representation of the company, and Global Sysops and Stewards. —Bu kk it 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue with Reception Wikis is that they're very dramatic and messy, they will always cause division and conflict. They've damaged Miraheze's reputation a great ton, searching for Miraheze on Google or Twitter will yield many results in which they say that Miraheze harbors and approves of the hate that is spewed from the Reception Wiki (which is wholely untrue). But even so, if the Stewardship had issues with the wikis, they're not going to violate their own policies and remove them, they're going to follow official policies and procedures and remove them only if they violate policies. However, do note that the Content Policy does now prohibit "wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people." Many new requests for Reception Wikis have been getting declined for that reason. Agent Isai (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all of the reception wikis are bad though. I made a blog with a tier list on Crappy Games Wiki (one of the best Reception Wikis) ranking all of the reception wikis. Most of the reception wikis in the lower rankings are closed. Only the negative user wikis have caused problems, the media reception wikis and positive user wikis aren't that bad (with the exception of Incredible Wikis & Users Wiki and Healthy Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki, both of which are closed). The reputation of the Reception Wikis was damaged by only a few very bad wikis, which are all closed now. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here, the issue is/was user reception wikis, the media reception wikis are generally uneventful (apart from the occasional salty user), but as it stands, this was recently declined on GitHub and I doubt the decision will be reversed soon. Even so, I still hold the worry that adding a "Reception Wiki" category will seem like Miraheze condones the actions of past, abusive wikis. Agent Isai (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that adding a category about Reception Wikis will make it seem like Miraheze is condoning the bad wikis. It is more about efficiency, since there are so many reception wikis. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Reception Wikis, for many, denotes the negative, toxic, and hateful user reception wikis. People, especially those involved in the fandom scene, won't see past face value and will automatically assume that "Reception Wiki" = Hate-spewing User Reception Wiki and will see the category as further reenforcement of their believe that Miraheze hosts hateful content. Agent Isai (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) What's the point of this request anyways? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that after seeing the GitHub link I am bewildered by your strong oppose here. On the GitHub request you said you would "definitely approve" an here you are strongly opposing. What caused this radical (strong support->strong oppose) change of heart? --DeeM28 (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember that moment though. Maybe I wasn't thinking straight or something? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The main reason for this if efficiency reasons, since there are so many Reception Wikis. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  DuchessTheSponge (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Nope! Adding a category for Reception Wikis may make Miraheze's already toxic (not as toxic as FANDOM's hatedom) worse. As the RW's reputation were ruined by the Outcast Network and their userbase (notably flame wars triggered by Portrock's hatred towards Zenko). Not trying to gravedig here, but if it weren't for the user-based wikis, then maybe a Reception Wikis catergory might be fine but I digress. Not to mention that the first thing people think of Miraheze, they think of Reception Wikis. Milcery229 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Sorry but no. When I think of miraheze, I think reception wikis are here, so what's the point of this Request for Comment?   Circley  Does Extracter    ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud )  12:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  I have nothing against Reception wikis that abide by the Content Policy (since some of the comments seem to mostly refer to the Reception wikis that were shut down for violations) but nonetheless I don't think we need to add a special category for them just because there's quite a few of them. The current categories are quite broad so in my view a "Reception wiki" category would be too specific for that list. That is my view for the time being at least, if some day sub-categories would be created I could potentially be more open to consider the idea. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there is also a category for song contest wikis, which seems to just be because there were so many of them. Song Contest is not a broad category, so if anything the Song Contest category should be removed. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  When I suggested it on GitHub, Doug brought up good points, that makes me want to oppose to this. —Bu kk it  20:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  This clearly reveals my bias, but I think most of the Reception Wikis on Miraheze are a wild west, flawed at the core part of the internet that should be matured from, not encouraged with a category. I can get into what I think is wrong more on my user page if this were to spin into a conversation, but I echo the concerns that encouraging via category would help worsen the image of Miraheze. Further the style is neither strong nor 'objective' enough to be paired up with a conventional category. -- Raidarr (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Reception Wikis in general are absolute MASTERPIECES compared to abominations like the Outcast Network. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe a worse platform should be any defense for a poor one, especially if the bar is/should be higher. --Raidarr (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I do not have a particularly strong feeling about this problem but I do feel that it is preferable not to have such a category. Firstly I think that the existing Fandom category is sufficient for these purposes. Secondly I (and I am sure others also) do not even know why these wikis are called "Reception" wikis - where does this name even come from? If a user has no idea what this is they will be confused when they are asked to choose a category for their wiki  whereas all the other categories will be clear to everyone. Finally again related to the Fandom category is that this might create overlap with some "Reception" wikis being categorised as "Fandom" and some as "Reception wikis" which would potentially create confusion. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If the staff were to mandate a category change to existing wikis + have this as a more firm choice with initial creation, I don't think the overlap would be an issue due to the specific literary nature of a reaction wiki. If not, the critique stands in full. --Raidarr (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  this shouldn't happen, in reality most “reception” wikis probably shouldn't even exist to begin with, there's too much of a negative past regarding reception wikis for me to consider this. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 16:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean the User Reception Wikis? I would definitely blame the users involved in those atrocious User wikis. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point I would say reception wikis in general. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 17:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I would disagree, but then again, at the end of the day, it's just opinions. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) Just a quick note: This was recently declined on GitHub. I further believe that it might seem as if Miraheze condones the hateful wikis that were previously hosted on here and will see it as a harbor for such content, further tarnishing the Miraheze name. Agent Isai (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  While anyone can of course open an RfC I think it may be useful if you would first bring issues up on Community noticeboard and perhaps propose a draft RfC before creating the final one. The reason why I suggest this is because your most recent RfCs seem to have not attracted any support and it would probably save time if you would first see how users generally feel about the issue before opening an RfC. It's up to you but that's just my suggestion rather than opening RfCs for each issue you support but which seem to have no support from others. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Why is nobody going to mention the fact that the “song contests” category is a thing and yet people are complaining that a Reception Wikis category is too narrow. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Song Contests are too narrow as well. But it is one out of multiple issues, not least of which are the optics of Reception Wikis. It would seem the general membership and the staff are more optimistic about encouraging the category of song contests than encouraging a category of reception wikis. In addition the overlap of a reception wiki (which could be about vaguely anything) tends to be far greater than the highly specific subcategory of a song contest. Finally, a song contest category is very topical, while a reception wiki is explicitly built from (ideally) combined user commentary about something in its own category. --Raidarr (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes sense. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section