User talk:Tali64^2

Hello! This is my talk page. You can leave me a message here.

About this blog on Qualitipedia and their wikis
So, there has been this blog saying that Qualitipedia should be closed. For starters, that means all of those wikis will be closed down and judging by the votes, Qualitipedia is most likely going to be closed down for good. So... what should we do about it? Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it's kinda sad. Thousands of pages will probably be lost, and Crappy Games Wiki introduced me to Miraheze in the first place. The users there (including myself) could probably improve it if we all work together, but if they do close, it's probably for the better, since Miraheze's reputation has been tarnished by them. Tali64^2 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Qualitipedia and its wikis are now closed
https://qualitipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Project_closure

Yeah. It happened. I'm basically neutral on the situation. Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion
With reception wiki pages, I would recommend that if both wikis are bad/average (or one is bad while the other is average), the wikis together should have one page. To me, it seems unnecessary to have two pages. This obviously does not apply to cases where only one wiki is bad/average while the other is good/decent, but it does apply when both wikis are bad/average. Money12123 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 00:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion. However, the wikis may have different reasons for being bad/average, in which case a single page wouldn't cover both. Tali64^2 (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could still create separate sections for pointers specific to them and have an "Overall" section for shared bad and good qualities. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Having separate pages for each wiki is important for organization and reliability. Also, it would clash with the rest of the pages on the wiki that wouldn't be merged. Tali64^2 (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Atrocious YouTubers Wiki
Money12123 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I needed the other sources regarding SpangusSus to prove that all five accounts were the same person.
 * 2) ZONE TOONS is a stylisation, so it should not be used in pages.
 * Same thing applies with Blubabluba9990 vs. DuchesstheSponge, I was representing the full history. Money12123 (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary to list every username the founder of that wiki went by, and if users can draw a valid conclusion with three sources, then it's unnecessary to add more than that. Tali64^2 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, why did you remove the deletion tag on Incredible Wikis and Users Wiki? Mind you, per WP:ROLLBACK, the rollback power is only supposed to be used for vandalism and other intentionally disruptive edits. Money12123 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for accidental misuse of admin tools. Anyway, I believe that most of the points the article makes are valid. Tali64^2 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Question
Why did you remove the "2010s wikis" category from the NRW page? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 22:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see now that you said elsewhere it was unnecessary, but how? On wikis related to different subjects, there are decade and year categories, so why not here? Also, reception wikis and user reception wikis are necessary categories because there are multiple of those wikis on this wiki. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 23:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be a category for every subset of wiki. Also, people don't usually browse wikis by year of founding. Tali64^2 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, can there at least be one for reception wikis. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 23:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is. Tali64^2 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Um
Why did you do this? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 01:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was to make it consistent with the other bullet point, and it's unnecessary to number them. Tali64^2 (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it unnecessary? Lists should be numbered. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 11:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lists within pointers should be bulleted. It makes pages easier to read. Tali64^2 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's what I think a page's setup should be:


 * 1) The main pointers should be numbered, as they're the most important in explaining why a wiki is bad or average.
 * 2) *The secondary pointers should be bulleted, as they supplement the main pointers.
 * I hope this helps. Tali64^2 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they should be numbered if they are a list, since lists should usually be numbered. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 23:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 03:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already answered your question, so it would be unnecessary to continue the discussion, especially since it's 3 weeks old now. Tali64^2 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you haven't responded to my comment above. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting MOS:LISTBULLET on Wikipedia: "Use numbers rather than bullets only if: a need to refer to the elements by number may arise; the sequence of the items is critical; or the numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks." I know it's not a perfect fit for the reception wiki format, but it'll do. The main pointers should be (and are) numbered, since other pointers may need to refer to them. The sub-pointers are bulleted, since it's unlikely they'll need to be referred to (i.e. a pointer won't say, "See the first bullet of WIS#1.") Ultimately, it's not that important, and the time spent on this discussion could have been better spent elsewhere. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 19:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

About the reception wikis page deletion
Why was the page about Reception wikis on this wiki was deleted? Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A user expressed their concern that the page made this wiki look ironic, since it's a reception wiki. Tali64^2 (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Inkster controversy
Hi, I noticed that there are some deleted edits on this page that were deleted due to the page being renamed to Jennie and then deleted. Could you please restore the Jennie page and merge the deleted revisions into the page using Special:MergeHistory? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 11:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Same thing applies with Bad Scratch Wiki and Big Boy Throwing Three Stacks Wiki. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 11:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The merge failed. Tali64^2 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then please rename Inkster controversy back to Jennie, restore the deleted edits, and rename it back. Same thing with BSW. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be more disruptive than anything, and few people look at page histories as it is. I think that this should be left alone, as ultimately, it's not that important. Tali64^2 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's for the sake of history. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 22:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

About the criticism section
The criticism section is useful to show that the wiki has been criticised and therefore can be on this wiki. While wikis that can be proven to be flawed regardless can still be on this wiki, showing that the wiki has indeed been criticised further justifies its page here. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 23:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Few wikis are actually criticized by people outside of other wikis, and wikis aren't a piece of media. Also, please stop leaving messages on my talk page. They're getting excessive. Tali64^2 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just don't know where to put them. However, I don't see why a criticism section can't be added if the wiki has indeed received criticism. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 01:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User who removed anti-meme section on Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms Wiki
A user named Leerdoman74 removed the Anti-Meme bad quality and sections about memes on the Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms Wiki. They also quoted using "Jokes are not automatically funny. It doesn't matter if it's a joke or not." Should we warn them or let it be? I also reverted his first edit, so they decided to get rid of the bad qualities about memes with the quote "I don't care if it's satire, jokes can still be bad." Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave the user a warning. In the future, please sign your messages with ~ . Tali64^2 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Atrocious Deviants Wiki
It isn't specifically stated on the blog when exactly it was closed, nor is there proof elsewhere. There is just proof that it was closed as of April 21, 2020. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me. I don't have permission to view the blog (and most of this wiki's visitors probably don't, either), so I replaced the link to it with an archive of the wiki after its closure (April 21st). The wiki appeared to be open on April 19th, so it's likely it was closed on the 20th or the 21st. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you have edited the article again. The wiki could have been closed later in the day of April 20, 2020, so that's not really proof. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, unless we find a snapshot from April 20th, 2020, that shows a closed wiki, we'll have to assume that the wiki was closed on the 21st. Or it can be changed back to April 2020. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at a bunch of archives from the Wayback Machine, and I couldn't find any from April 20th. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that means there's no proof. If anything make it April 2020, please. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 01:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
To be honest I have to disagree that this is useful as an informative page. There are essays and other things on Wikipedia that explain why vandalism is wrong. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 07:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we make pages about bad pages?
Hi, uh, one question. Can we make pages about bad pages? These pages can criticizes certain pages that are either poorly-written, biased or nitpicky or straight up false. Can we do that in this wiki? CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, poorly-written pages are usually a sign of a bad wiki, so it should just go in the page about the wiki itself. Tali64^2 (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What i meant is big pages that are still awful, like the AniMat page on Atrocious YouTubers Wiki/Rotten Websites Wiki. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It should still go in the page about the wiki it's on, even if the wiki's a good wiki. Tali64^2 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, an opinion here: creating pointers for a page would be very hard to make and the pages might clog up the wiki. If anything I would support articles on the Celebdumb and perhaps Celebsmarts articles because they could actually have many pointers. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be a good idea, but it would be mostly user-focused and would be prohibited under this wiki's ban on user articles. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? I meant pages criticising the Celebdumb and Celebsmarts articles, not our own versions of the articles. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread your reply. Still, my point stands. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly though? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 19:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This wiki primarily focuses on bad wikis, and bad pages are part of that. However, pages criticizing pages on other wikis doesn't make sense for three reasons: 1) As you stated above, pages on pages would clog up the wiki; 2) Pages aren't complex enough to have many detailed reasons on why they're bad. In fact, the only two I can think of are "they're poorly written" and "they're false"; 3) Pages can easily be edited to fix their problems. Granted, the same can be said for bad wikis, but there are other factors that make a wiki bad (e.g. the wiki is overrun with spambots/vandals or its administration is awful) and there may be hundreds of poorly-written pages on a wiki and the userbase/admins can't or won't fix it. Tali64^2 (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)