Requests for Comment/Close the other reception wikis

From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This RfC has been rather eventful and consensus here is clear. This RfC is closed as following:
Proposal 1: Unsuccessful per overwhelming consensus against.
Proposal 2: While this proposal is successful per a 65% support ratio, a big point against is is that it doesn't define in concrete what a reception wiki is. This leaves it up to interpretation and wiki creator/Steward discretion. While this proposal will be closed a successful, it's implementation will be halted until a discussion finalizes, in a community venue, about what a 'reception wiki' constitutes. Though a discussion did occur on this RfC about what a reception wiki was, it did not fully tackle the issue and received minimal participation. For now, if a wiki creator believes a wiki would fall into the category of 'reception wiki,' they should put that request on hold pending any such further community discussion.
Proposal 2.2: While similarly successful with a 65% support ratio too, proposal 2 has more votes and is thus implemented. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the Stewards have stated on multiple denied requests on new reception wikis that are not based on QP, they have said "Declining per Content Policy provision, "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis."." Meaning they are banned from being created or requested, since they did. Many people who wanted to make their own reception wiki have quit from Miraheze altogether and many people have left the platform to go back to FANDOM or move to a different wiki host. Should we get rid of the other wikis altogether, considering the Stewards do not want them on the site anymore? I know many of you who like to contribute to these wikis will be upset about the outcome, but many people have to move on from them someday. Even the Stewards are ashamed for having these wikis on here, and they have started to get rid of them after QP's shutdown. Nidoking (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

About the reception wikis[edit | edit source]

A reception wiki is a wiki whose sole scope is to list negative or positive qualities. Although these wikis would make the site infamous for having tons of opinion disrespecting and many people called Miraheze a website filled with Reception Wikis, in fact the only videos about Miraheze is mostly about the Reception Wikis. In which made Miraheze look bad for years.

What will likely happen if this RFC works out?[edit | edit source]

If Proposal 1 succeeds, then the other reception wikis on this list would be all closed.

These are the following wikis that will be affected.

If Proposal 2 succeeds, then there will be no new reception wikis that will be accepted at all.

However if Proposal 2.2 succeeds, then there will be no new reception wikis that will be accepted for 6 months. After the QP wikis shutdown, the users will be allowed to request them again.

Proposal 1: Close the other reception wikis[edit | edit source]

This will result in other wikis that are reception wikis being closed, users will be able to generate a wiki-dump and move the wiki on a different site. The wikis will be closed and locked for 6 months and they will be deleted from the servers after that. Nidoking (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support[edit | edit source]

  1.  Weak support If I'm the only one going to support this proposal, so be it. Several of these wikis basically go unused, and most are almost entirely trivial. I don't think all should be deleted (music ones are fine, character ones are okay i guess), more so the pointless ones (Like Inferior Trains? Seriously?). --Blad (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    This proposal adds none of the finesse you are suggesting: your support is for an all or nothing approach which is incompatible with selectively allowing certain projects to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidarr (talk • contribs)
     Support Look, is Qualitipedia a network or not? There was community input that suggested consensus for the closure of Qualitipedia. With the suggestions that 1. Qualitipedia is a unification of projects, and 2. the organization and content itself is clearly lacking, I'm not convinced that there is justification for the content to remain. It would be more reasonable that these current projects are closed, and once deleted, be restarted if such is the course. Realistically, these projects couldn't even be bothered to delete the (sub)pages from Fandom comments. I don't mean to be harsh, but come on! dross (t • c • g) 08:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Qualitipedia is an organizational unit, its definition begins and ends with its official list. Other projects are maintained autonomously, one having been quite skeptical of QP and the other having split ties as seen on the list and the rest irrelevant/independent except where staff may overlap. It can be confusing but it is necessary to make the distinction; reception wikis are a formula, not a unified management as QP attempted to be. To compare broadly QP was the wikimedia of reception wikis; most prominent but its closure does not doom wikis as a whole, which is the spirit brought by this proposal. Which don't get me wrong, is a pedantic difference and it does not lend value to the remaining reception wikis. --Raidarr (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    This talks mostly about Qualtipedia, not the reception wikis as a whole --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 14:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    No, this proposal goes out of its way from the opening and this proposal to say 'since QP is closed all other reception wikis should close". If that's not what you meant then I'm not sure what you mean. --Raidarr (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    I was talking about Dross's argument here. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Striking to abstain in acknowledgement of my missing nuance on the subject. I will note my impartiality to independent reception projects. dross (t • c • g) 08:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  2.  Support per above. ScratchCoder (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    @ScratchCoder: You mean the vote that has been crossed out --Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    No I think he means Blad's vote --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 14:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    Whether or not he's talking about my vote, he can still agree with a striked-out vote. Sure, it's somewhat questionable, but it's not against the rules. --Blad (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 00:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    @LovingHaydeL: and @Blad: I'm pretty sure it's Dross'. Also, I'm not saying they can't agree with a striked vote, but just that they should probably take a look at the arguments against that vote. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 10:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  3.  Support Qualitipedia is dead, why not with the rest as well? Juan90980 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Juan90980: Because the others are not causing any issues. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    What Money12123 said. Plus that is not a strong argument. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 13:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Abstain[edit | edit source]

Oppose[edit | edit source]

  1.  Weak oppose Yes, although the closing to QP influenced this, and this WILL defeat other evil reception wikis, I feel like innocent reception wikis will get in the crossfire, ESPECIALLY the positive ones. I am voting weak oppose because of this. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  2.  Oppose Believe it or not I don't actually favor going all the way. I have the music and character wikis in mind, both as places which more or less mind their own business and collectively do nowhere near the damage of the primary Qualitipedia lineup. I don't especially like their scopes but I believe in right to exist when it is not very disruptive and I believe this applies. Other wikis have a harder time justifying their existence but for the same reason they're almost completely irrelevant and unlikely to ever get the traffic to be a real concern anyway. Wikis that do become real concerns at this point can be addressed accordingly. I'm instead in favor of a) eliminating Qualitipedia and any restoration and b) a stronger measure against the creation of any new such wikis.--Raidarr (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  3.  Strongest oppose Absolutely not. The Reception Wikis are important to society as they act as a guide for what to do and what not to do in terms of life. Also, they have brought Miraheze nothing but fame and fortune. The blog post that was made back in January explicitly states that Miraheze increased in popularity in 2018, the same year that the Reception Wikis came here. And many users who remain loyal to the Reception Wikis will spark mass protests. You have no idea how detrimental a proposal like this can be. This proposal could potentially destroy Miraheze. The reception wikis are the heart and soul of Miraheze, like memes are to Reddit and grounded videos are to Vyond. This would basically be the equivalent of banning memes on Reddit or banning grounded videos on Vyond. If you want to destroy Miraheze and make the world permanently unable to take criticism, then this proposal is the way to do it. Sorry for not using the oppose template or the proper signature but the keys on my Mac are broken (weirdly, it only is on Meta and on my Mac). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
    @Blubabluba9990: Really, Bluba? Important to society and what to do and what not to do in life? To me, they're important to the world of reception, but I don't know about that. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    And the world of reception is important to society. Imagine a world without criticism. People would never improve, and society would gradually decline until humans de-evolve because nobody gave them advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
    It's called IMDb and Metacritic and other review websites. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 21:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    But those sites don't tell you why it is received that way. And IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic only talk about movies, shows, and games, not other things deserving of reception, such as literature, music, characters, software, hardware, restaurants and foods, toys, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
  4.  Weak oppose Like the others, even if QP did shutdown. We shouldn't leave out people who want to make a new reception wiki that covers other things that QP doesn't cover. Nidoking (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Sir that warrants closure --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 21:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Did you just oppose your own proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
    Considering that I still have mixed feeling about the wikis, yes. But I support Proposal 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk • contribs)
    @LovingHaydeL: There is nothing indicating that a proposal must have the proposers support. It certainly does not warrant closure. An attempt to seek community input outside of your own support is commendable, if anything. dross (t • c • g) 08:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Ok Dross --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 13:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  5.  Strong oppose They are not causing problems so far, so there is no reason to close them. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  6.  Oppose I think this is too harsh. These wikis aren't causing as many problems as the original QP wikis did. Plus, what if the creators don't want them closed, then why would you even want to close them? ChessPiece21 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  7.  Oppose I disagree with the idea of shutting down all wikis just because they are 'Reception wikis'. If they respect the Content Policy (as recent amended), especially clauses #3 and #10 there is no reason for them to not be allowed on Miraheze. While this vote is of course 100% in my capacity as a user I would like to say that there seems to be an impression that Stewards want to "get rid of reception wikis". While I can only speak for myself I can say that that's not true - if they fully respect the Content Policy there is no issue having them here. Reception123 (talk) (C) 12:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  8.  Strong oppose The perception wiki is an important part of Miraheze and without it the site will lose all relevance. If this proposal is successful, FANDOM will win and Miraheze will be part of a forgotten part of the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szczypak64 (talk • contribs)
    No offense, but you sound just like Bluba with that argument. Also, wikis like Polandball wiki exist, and Miraheze has over 200,000 users per day. If anything, it won't be forgotten. And even if this proposal pass (which is very unlikely), it will only cause a small blip as Miraheze has over 5,000 wikis. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 14:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Szczypak64: Also, please sign your votes with four tildes (~~~~). Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 19:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 9.
  9.  Oppose None of these wikis are causing ridiculous chunks of drama, and ( like what Reception123 said ) they seem to respect the Content Policy. Due to these 2 reasons, they seem good-hearted enough to be spared. However, if any one of these starts to cause chaos, then try to get it closed before a flame war starts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquirtSquirtle (talk • contribs)
  10.  Weak oppose I never thought I would be opposing this, but I am. While I don't like a lot of the unofficial wikis, and I wouldn't mind them seeing them go, personally, I don't agree with closing all the wikis, since most of them haven't really stirred up any drama (aside from the character wikis, but that was before Suppai and ShawnTehLogoBoi got promoted as admins and when a couple of troublesome users like Ammar and MarioBobFan were still unblocked) and they haven't been that much of problems since the userbase in QP was way more troublesome compared to these ones. I'm gonna go with Blad's idea and say that the best decision is to close down any of the wikis that are abandoned, pointless, have stirred up drama (I haven't been to a lot of these wikis, so please don't ask me which ones have stirred up drama, I know the character wikis used to, but not anymore). JigglypuffGuy04 (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2022 (BST)
  11.  Oppose per above --小美粉粉 (T - C - S) 1004065811 bytes of data NOTE: Do not {{ping}} me! 10:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  12.  Oppose Keep the non-QP reception wikis running as long as it doesn't cause drama that irreversibly damaged the wikis. Also, reception wikis are notorious for treating opinions as facts, which could get its reliability deprecated if someone discusses about it on Wikipedia, especially the reliable sources noticeboard. TF3RDL (talk | contribs | FANDOM | Wikipedia) 10:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  13.  Oppose Honestly, I think this is a proposal that is out of scope. I would like to point out that the decision of closing a wiki is not part of the authority of the community here on Meta-Wiki, but rather the authority of stewards who make the decision in accordance with the Content Policy or other global policies (this whole process is supervised by the community). If the wiki has not violated the global policies, then only the local community can decide to close the wikis or not. -Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 10:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments[edit | edit source]

Proposal 2: Keep the other reception wikis, but decline further new ones from being created infinitely.[edit | edit source]

The other reception wikis will stay on the site, but no new reception wikis will be accepted on the platform for a infinite amount of time. Stewards will further announce that no new reception wikis will be allowed to be created and will be declined. Users who would like to do these wikis, would have to go to a different wiki service. Nidoking (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support[edit | edit source]

  1.  Weak support I'm going to put a proper mark here to contest the usual crowd that has every reason to oppose. Weak for lack of definition, present because such wikis are not hard to identify by anyone reasonably aware of what they are and consist of. Demonstration to wiki creators for enforcement would be easy. This support would be full and strong given proper definition and more granularity (option to dismantle QP permanently vs all other requests for reception wikis, though I would support both). I can explain why to an uninvolved participant if they do not know, otherwise camps on this issue are defined and the reason why has been offered many times over in many places. --Raidarr (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  2.  Support per above. --Blad (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  3.  Support Per Raidarr. TigerBlazer (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  4.  Strong support An indefinite prohibtion for one of the more toxic wiki communities would greatly help Miraheze's reputation. It's essentially became protocol for wiki creators to deny reception wikis from wiki creations. -- Bukkit[cetacean needed] 19:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  5.  Support per Raidarr. Raichu's Endless Nights (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  6.  Strongest support per Raidarr. ShawnTehLogoBoi (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  7.  Support per Raidarr. Marxo Grouch (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  8.  Weak support Not too many Reception Wikis are being created nowadays, so I don't see why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquirtSquirtle (talk • contribs)
  9.  Strong support per Raidarr. JigglypuffGuy04 (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2022 (BST)
  10.  Strongest support the "reception wiki" has to be the most pathetic form of writing ever invented. deleting all of them would be ideal but would be terrible site policy; this is the pragmatic option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kljgaghjf (talk • contribs)
  11.  Support If Proposal 2.2 fails to address the issue, I support that as reception wikis tends to be contentious. TF3RDL (talk | contribs | FANDOM | Wikipedia) 10:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  12.  Weak support It should be obvious why. I mean, I was introduced to Miraheze by Voxelvillager back in 2019, but didn't join until January 29th, 2020, at exactly 4:01PM (although it was 21:01 in UTC). --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  13.  Support Pur Bukkit and Radarr Eytirth (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Abstain[edit | edit source]

Oppose[edit | edit source]

  1.  Weak oppose That is too harsh of a measure. At best a month to 6-months before we start accepting them again. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 18:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  2.  Strongest oppose Per my oppose above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
  3.  Strong oppose Per LovingHaydeL. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  4.  Strong oppose Per LovingHaydeL's comment. They said it better than I could. ChessPiece21 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  5.  Strong oppose I gave the reason in Proposition 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szczypak64 (talk • contribs)
  6.  Oppose per above --小美粉粉 (T - C - S) 1004065811 bytes of data NOTE: Do not {{ping}} me! 10:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  7.  Strong oppose I don't believe that a full ban on Reception wikis for an indefinite period is necessary. I strongly oppose this however because there is no definition of reception wiki for this specific proposal so it feels impossible to implement. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments[edit | edit source]

I would support per comment below if the definition issue was resolved, which has been the main hurdle to proposing something like this myself. There are two ways to handle this, which could even be offered as different solutions: permanently sealing the closure of Qualitipedia wikis simply defined by pointing to/making record of their lineup) or having a definition that requires various statements be filled. For example the binary nature of the wikis (even if it's just one, the scope implies a 'mirror' for a negative or positive version to fill), the way the pointers are listed, the overall management structure they almost universally have. Things like that make them easily recognizable. With votes already in place this may need to be done as proposals 2.1 and 2.2. --Raidarr (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2.2: Current wikis unaffected, no further creations for a period of 6 months[edit | edit source]

No new 'Reception wikis' may be created for a period of 6 months starting at the time of closure of this Request for Comment. A 'reception wiki' is a wiki whose sole purpose is to list negative or positive qualities.

Support[edit | edit source]

  1.  Support This could in fact work out better than Proposal 1. Not only that the currently running reception wikis will stay, but it will make the community a bit more healthy. After the 6 months the QP wikis would be deleted, and we could start the wikis again from scratch. Nidoking (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  2.  Strongest support Per my oppose on Proposal 2.1 --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 19:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  3. If Proposal 2 fails. I feel like there needs to be a cooldown as the reception wiki controversy dies down. --Blad (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  4.  Support I think this could be fine, it's MUCH better than 1 or 2.1. ChessPiece21 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  5.  Weak support This COULD work, but I'm not really sure at this point. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  6.  Weak support although I support proposal 2.1 more. Raichu's Endless Nights (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  7.  Strongest support Because reception wikis like now-closed Qualitipedia tends to be filled with drama when poorly executed, I'd support this and keep existing ones intact as long as it doesn't cause drama that warrants a wiki closure. Also, wiki creators should be extra cautious about reception wikis (which primarily documents the reception of things in question by summing up good and bad pointers) even after the 6 month period after this RfC closure to reduce the likelihood of reception wiki controversies/drama being re-ignited. TF3RDL (talk | contribs | FANDOM | Wikipedia) 23:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  8.  Support As per TF3RDL Eytirth (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  9.  Weak support Even if I wouldn't see a big issue with new reception wikis being created, I feel like it could be a good thing to impose a break from creating reception wikis in order for the current drama to settle down. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Abstain[edit | edit source]

  1.  Abstain Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  2.  Abstaining as I'm not against this as a stopgap, yet it will do nothing to resolve the issue long term. Vote moved. --Raidarr (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  3.  Abstain I don't see any reason why to support or oppose this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquirtSquirtle (talk • contribs)

Oppose[edit | edit source]

  1.  Oppose Per my other opposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
  2.  Oppose as this compromise is unacceptable and will not resolve the problem. If nothing else, Bluba clearly intends to cause disruption by bringing the case up as soon as it is possible. Others less obsessed will likely follow in his tracks with or without him. These wikis must be resolved with an answer that will last until successfully and deliberately overturned. This will merely codify a bad solution: if proposal 1 fails then another should be made which will be agreeable yet lend a solution. --Raidarr (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Raidarr: This proposal will go further than the status quo though which is already not to accept the QP wikis until 6 months due to the fact that they would be in violation of the direct forks clause. This proposal as written would also ban any non-QP wikis from being created during the next 6 months. I do agree however that if we're having this RfC anyway it could make sense to deal with the QP question as well - only the fact is anything voted on here will be hard to square with the fact that there was more participation in the QP RfC than any other global RfC we've had on Miraheze, so how could any decision here override that consensus? Reception123 (talk) (C) 12:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    I understand this would go further than nothing, but it would not be an answer as it literally kicks the can down the road - 6 months in the bigger picture is not very long and I don't doubt that Miraheze can sustain its status quo for that long with or without this proposal. If something concrete is established then it should be broader in scope, clearer in its address and final in its determination. As for decisions made here, I would argue that it's a matter of different scopes; Qualitipedia successfully undid itself organizationally, and now the question is if Miraheze and its global community/volunteers who are more broadly aware are willing to deal with a project that is this fundamentally broken. I can promise you that if the people who restart it are who I fear they will be, we're going to be right back here next year or sooner. In other words I would rather see a bit more time pass and then something substantial can be brought than a sloppy OP as we find here, so we can really deal with this question properly. --Raidarr (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    So would I understand that what you'd prefer isn't a ban on 'Reception wikis' but instead an clear indefinite ban on QP wikis only? Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'd like to see both as options; I would support both as long as the distinction is clear and reception wikis are appropriately defined. --Raidarr (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  3.  Strong oppose I gave the reason in Proposition 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szczypak64 (talk • contribs)
  4.  Oppose per above --小美粉粉 (T - C - S) 1004065811 bytes of data NOTE: Do not {{ping}} me! 10:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  5.  Strong oppose perfectly useless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kljgaghjf (talk • contribs)

Comments[edit | edit source]

General discussion[edit | edit source]

Definition of 'reception wiki'[edit | edit source]

@BlastoiseTheWikiEditor: In order for this RfC to work, there will have to be a clear definition of what a 'reception wiki' is. Either you would try to give an actual definition or if not you'd have to list all wikis that you think are 'reception wikis'. Otherwise it would be very difficult to implement this RfC if succesful. I'd probably propose "A reception wiki is a wiki whose sole scope is to list negative or positive qualities'. P.S. To respond to "Even the Stewards are ashamed for having these wikis on here, and they have started to get rid of them after QP's shutdown" - While I may be wrong I'm not aware of any wikis being closed as a result of that, except TNRW which was due to it copying pages entirely from the ones closed. The QP wikis were not closed because Stewards were "ashamed" of them but because the community itself voted in favour of that. Reception123 (talk) (C) 18:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest replacing Proposal 2 and instead of having an indefinite ban proposing a 6 months moratorium on creating new reception wikis. That way: if Proposal 1 passes all current Reception wikis would be closed, if it fails they stay open. If the new Proposal 2 passes no Reception wikis will be created for 6 months, if it fails the status quo remains (which is that there is no ban but wiki creators must be confident that the CP will be respected) Reception123 (talk) (C) 18:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that definition is an issue here or you would have me as an immediate supporter of #2. With definition I favor an infinite, until further notice restriction on new reception wikis - to set a time limit is to kick the can down the road. --Raidarr (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Close this as invalid[edit | edit source]

I think that this proposal should be closed as invalid because not only does it both completely annihilate Miraheze and damage the world of reception, but Nidoking, who made the proposal, opposed it. I also suggest that both Nidoking, LovingHaydeL, Blad, and Raidarr be globally locked for high treason since by supporting this proposal, they are dooming Miraheze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)

  1. There are so many wikis on Miraheze outside of QP. More than you think, actually. Over 5000. Plus, Nidoking really only made this RfC because he was seeking Community consensus, not necessarily because he supported the idea. --Blad (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Also, us being locked for 'treason'? Seriously? Give me a break. --Blad (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well Nidoking can be let off with a warning since he has mixed feelings. Also, you, Raidarr, and LovingHaydeL should be locked for treason since these wikis are important to Miraheze, and here is proof: https://phabricator.miraheze.org/phame/post/view/16/2022_technical_vision/. As you can see, Miraheze's userbase and wikis increased in 2018 when the Reception wikis came here. By getting rid of the Reception wikis, you will be annihilating half of Miraheze's userbase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
    Almost all of those users are immature, so I wouldn't mind that. And last time I checked, Miraheze has over 200,000 visitors a day, see Fundraiser. If anything, Miraheze needs less users right now, especially with the massive 503s in the summer. --Blad (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Immature or not, the Reception Wiki users have brought Miraheze great fame and fortune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
    "treason against Miraheze" more like a personal attack on me, Radiarr, Blad, and Nidoking --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 22:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    The definition of treason is openly betraying something or someone where you formerly held allegiance. By supporting a proposal that will destroy Miraheze if it passes, you are comitting treason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
    I never supported it. I just said that no new reception wikis should be in made in 6 months. And besides, there are other wikis besides reception wikis (Polandball, AVID, All The Tropes). Now I see why TF3RDL wanted you gone (but I still wont impose that ban) --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 22:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    I have said it a million times before and I will say it againː All The Tropes is not popular. It only has 53 active users as opposed to the Qualitipedia wikis, Character reception wikis, Polandball wikis, and AVID which have a few hundred. Also, you are still supporting not allowing new reception wikis to be created for a period of time, which can severely damage Miraheze within that period of time, so you are still guilty of treason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
    I'd rather not have this discussion where you tell me, Radiarr, and Blad to go the fuck away because you can't handle a temporary ban on creating new reception wikis. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 23:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Wow. Bravo, people, bravo. I have never seen anything massively childish like this in this proposal, which has led to the block of the proposer of this notion. Whatever happened to acting civil and not getting so defensive over the wikis closing? That's so many hours I'll never get back from this thread. I'm sorry, but this is getting outright ridiculous and out of hand, and I am quite appalled by this type of behavior. Can we please have a calm discussion on how we can resolve this without going ballistic? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  2. Let the deranged ranting of the author of this little tangent be the ultimate illustration of why the Qualitipedia project must be terminated and these wikis as a whole reduced to rubble; if not as a whole, then from ever being a relevant issue in the future. If the value of Miraheze can be reduced to turds like the the reception wikis then let Miraheze rightfully collapse. The only user as a consequence of this deserving to be locked is Bluba for his own mental safety. These are the strongest words I have used against a user on this platform and god willing they will be the strongest I ever have to use: but I have never seen a user as categorically obsessed, absent of anything valuable to add to the platform while also being individually damaging in his intentions. In other words the next request for community ban would be a request I'd most likely support at this juncture. I was never aligned with Qualitipedia and as a Steward/Qualitipedia bureaucrat, my duty was to hold back the tidal wave of garbage that is demonstrated by the antics of this thread. No self-respecting volunteer should break their backs, experience stress or otherwise be distracted by the what must be some of the most consistently stressful, high-maintenance and low-quality content that has ever assumed wiki form. --Raidarr (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know about a community ban - I think I have better ideas. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 01:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Question[edit | edit source]

What will be the point of Proposal 2 if Proposal 1 passes? --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 19:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@LovingHaydeL: Proposal 1 only affects current wikis, so if it passed nothing would stop new reception wikis from being created. Reception123 (talk) (C) 19:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks! --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 19:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
However it could change in the future, if Miraheze wants to have a better reputation. Even if that means that the new reception wikis would not be allowed to be created. Nidoking (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
It would negatively impact the future because these wikis are important to Miraheze and to society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
Explain why reception wikis are "important to society." I didn't care about them at all until the whole Qualitipedia shutdown happened. --Whistler98 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Imagine a world without advice or criticism. Nobody would know whether what they are doing is the right way or the wrong way. Humans as a species would de-evolve, and we would go back to prehistoric times. Telling people if what they are doing is the right way or the wrong way prevents us from going backwards as a civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs)
To add my two cents, I believe Wikipedia does a better job at detailing criticism than Qualitipedia ever did. And people can study from the writings of, say. Siskel and Ebert (RIP to both) or Leonard Maltin when it comes to advice or criticism. No offense, but if you claim that humans would devolve without Qualitipedia even though it was only around since 2013, then maybe, just maybe, you may be over-obsessed. I just hope you can wake up and smell the coffee. Accuse me of treason all you want, but there's a reason the sites' founder came to regret making the original one of those sites. Trevor807 (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Trevor807: Personally I think that reception wikis have a purpose because they combine all reception into one page. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 01:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@Money12123: Speak for yourself. IMO Wikipedia does it better. Now can we agree not to let ourselves devolve into children and argue a la Chip and Dale? Trevor807 (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@Trevor807: I'm afraid it's easier said than done when we're talking about users constantly not respecting policies and/or guidelines. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
That's why I hope Proposal 2.2 passes. So that things can cool down a little. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 19:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think these will be the results[edit | edit source]

Proposal 1 fails due to overwhelmingly opposition Proposal 2 passes due to the number of supporters Proposal 2.2 fails due to Proposal 2 passing These are just what I think the results are. What do you think --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 16:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2.2 doesn't necessarily fail because 2 passed. 2.2 is an amendment to 2, and if 2 passes, I believe 2.2 would pass due to similar consensus. --Blad (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 18:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Proposal 2 is ban reception wikis from being crated forever. Proposal 2.2 is ban reception wikis for being created for 6 months. Since Proposal 2 has over whemigly support (tbh, I hope it fails), that makes proposal 2.2 look pointless. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 18:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Comment/Close_the_other_reception_wikis&oldid=336408"