Loathsome Characters Wiki:Future of wiki discussion


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * All questions pass. As a result, this wiki shall remain open. It shall also be made independent from the Qualitipedia wikis, though full interpretation (and implementation) of what that means is left for local administrators. Previous local administrators (who were demoted on August 9th) will be restored. The election requirements for bureaucrats and administrators will be as follows:
 * Bureaucrats may be elected if:
 * At least ten (10) persons express a supportive view, with an 80% or better net support ratio; and,
 * They have made at least 250 constructive edits to the wiki and been a community member for at least ninety (90) calendar days
 * Administrators may be elected if:
 * At least ten (10) persons express a supportive view, with a 50% or better net support ratio; and,
 * They have made at least 100 constructive edits to the wiki and been a community member for at least thirty (30) calendar days
 * Again, local administrators will be responsible for writing these requirements into local policy, as well as establishing a forum for elections to go through.
 * Cheers -- Void  Whispers 20:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Following this request at Stewards' noticeboard to reopen this wiki that was closed and made private without any sort of community discussion, I have reopened the wikis, and am initiating this discussion on their future and procedural/housekeeping policy amendments (if they are to remain open) on an ongoing basis. These proposed policy changes, if passed, do not preclude future changes, do not preclude future proposed policy changes, provided there's consensus for the changes, but they would preclude undiscussed changes from being made unilaterally.

A few housekeeping notes:
 * 1) Sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) and include a comment of some sort, including stating you agree with another user's comment, for your argument to be counted;
 * 2) You may only vote once in each proposal;
 * 3) Regarding the second point, remember user accounts policy;
 * 4) I will refrain from expressing a view, so I can close; and,
 * 5) This discussion shall only be closed by Stewards after not less than seven (7) calendar days have passed.

--Dmehus (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) We need to acknowledge the presence of good characters. JuooIsHere33 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, because we need to base them on reception, we need to delete many opinionated pages on this wiki, we need new rules, and also, I will be an admin on this wiki as part of the new owners of this wiki. Shawn the Logo Boy September 7, 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) * That said though, while there shouldn't be any "opinionated" pages, we should still have characters that have horrible personalities regardless of their reception. Musicismylife (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, absolutely this wiki should remain open as well, the topic of this wiki and it's sister wiki is needed but the opinionated pages do need to go. Mr. Jay 641 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Yeah, just because characters are not reviewed by professional critics like TV shows, movies, and games, does not mean we cant criticize them, also I will be an admin as the new owner of both character wikis.
 * Also, we are going to have 4 new admins me (Kingjorbs), TheAnimeLover, Shawn The Logo Boy, and Mr. Jay 641, as you can see in this discussion in the comments section.
 * Here are the reasons why:
 * Me (Kingjorbs): I went to recreate these wikis on FANDOM after they closed, and that is a sign of a dedicated and determined leader and I had an active role on reopening these wikis.
 * TheAnimeLover: She knew what she was talking about when criticizing their closure and has good ideas on fixing them, so she would be good as admin.
 * Shawn The Logo Boy: He has a good plan for were each character should go and has a good list of pages to delete, so he would work well as admin.
 * Mr. Jay 641: He helped with the maintenance of these sites, like getting rid of duplicate categories, broken redirects and other helpful actions like deleting biased pages. He also did some category clean ups prior to these wikis closing, and deletion for clean up purposes, and also followed the rules, and had experience as an admin on FANDOM.
 * And, also there are no admins on both character wikis, since DuchessTheSponge (a former admin) demoted everyone to a normal user, so we at least need more admins. Kingjorbs September 7, 2021 (UTC)
 * A procedural point of clarification...the idea here is not to appoint administrators; that will happen later, using the "ground rules" established by this community discussion, so as not to confuse and muddy things. Dmehus (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, just because characters lack reliable reception does not mean that they have no quality. In fact, this wiki might give these characters some kind of reception because our reasons for them are mostly what a common person would like and dislike about the characters.
 * 2) *We may not give them ratings, but the character's qualities are taked about like in a "Reception" section on a wiki page, except each quality is a seperate, detailed pointer, and they are spoken like something we all (including the readers) think about them instead of simply mentioning the traits and quirks.
 * 3) *Plus, people may want to know why a character has a certain reputation, and they might want to learn it by a structured page instead of hearing a rant. I have made many good edits on this wiki, and I have created 3 (or more) pages, and I like how my Coconut Fred page is featured. Thank you all for that! CarlFilip19 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) The wikis should have a chance to exist and explore a new direction. If it doesn't work, it can be removed or abandoned later. What shouldn't happen is life being snuffed before it has the chance. --Raidarr (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) They should stay here, but we need to remove all of the opinionated pages and restart both wikis with newer and stricter rules so it can work better. TigerBlazer (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) These wikis should stay, but we need to have pages based on both reception and personality. Musicismylife (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Oughtta give the wikis a chance to truly heal. Marxo Grouch (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes they should definitely stay here, but we need to base the criticism on personalities in general, not reception. Musicismylife (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this wiki needs a lot, and I mean, A LOT of improvement in quality control terms. Some pages are very short and doesn't have a lot of detail, a lot of images with poor resolution, and some has even watermarks which is somewhat lazy in my opinion. StalkerGamer (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it definitely should, however, we need to start basing this and the other wiki on personality, not quality. Musicismylife (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes... for now. WrongOpinionWiki (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) see GCW. Galaxy Star (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Without this wiki, everything would go worse. WindowsViennaFish2010 (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Despite being right with somethings, this Wiki feels a little too biased towards fictional characters, and some of the characters added here just feel like bandwagoning. Jah99 (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We can improve on that. Musicismylife (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Indifferent

 * 1) I don't know at all. I am neutral to this wiki but there were so many biased pages on both character wikis as well ad lots of drama, so it'll see an improvement later on. --TheName64 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Unlike games, movies, shows, literature, music, and websites, there is no real professional reception given to characters by people. Therefore it wouldn't be fair to call this a legitimate reception wiki since these don't receive proper reception. Even if there is (such as in the form of YouTube videos, IMDb, tier lists, etc.), there won't be enough to determine proper reception. Marxo Grouch (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) *Yes there is, see here. Musicismylife (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, keeping them away from QP is the best option TigerBlazer (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) *Yet again, see here. Musicismylife (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) **There is nothing to see. He made no statement regarding reception, only independence. A reception wiki does not inherently have to be a member of QP. --Raidarr (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) ***Well Blubabluba9990 and Shawn the Logo Boy said that there were tier lists online, but if you guys don't think tier lists are enough, then fine. Musicismylife (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) For simplicity sake, yeah. Maybe my answer will change in the future but for now I feel like it'd just be easier to dissociate from Qualitipedia as originally intended.ShortBusShawty (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I originally thought that this was the right option, but then it was argued that there is reception; however, I see that most users don't consider that enough, so I'm going to have to support this. Musicismylife (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No

 * 1) This wiki is basically the same as the other "Qualitipedia" wikis. WrongOpinionWiki (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) *Actually it isn't, because character reception is not professional enough. Musicismylife (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Indifferent

 * 1) There does exist proper reception, though I find the community's ability to judge this (and the vocal supporter above in particular with a professed preference for addressing personality over reception) to be far less convincing. I think it's really best to ask this of QP staff if they want this to be part of QP (which would largely invalidate question 3, as the defining factor of QP is its centralized administration). Not being part of QP is not the end of the world. In fact it's a new beginning this place might need, independent of its critically flawed power structure. But again, ask them, and again, decide if you want the people who half heartedly supported its deletion before changing tune in light of public backlash to be in charge again. --Raidarr (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Question 3: Reset the permissions to the default permissions
Whether Question 2 passes or not, but particularly if it does, this is because it's not clear there was ever consensus to change the permissions. Additionally, the sole bureaucrat has self-requested a lock, so if this passes, it makes sense to also reset the users with advanced permissions and require a discussion to elect positions.

Yes

 * 1) This was done unilaterally by the original bureaucrats for better controls on power (mainly addressing the potential for a coup by thinking 'hopefully not'). Note that the sole bureaucrat is not the sole previous bureaucrat - instead, like the website wikis, that user merely deleted any other staff to exist including DarkMatterMan and I believe MarioMario as BC's. I digress, and would find this reasonable with more weight put on what this title means. --Raidarr (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Question 4: Permissions elections
Whether Question 2 and 3 pass or not, but particularly if it does, this is because it's not clear there was ever a process by which permissions were granted.

Accordingly, this question proposes to allow the community to elect bureaucrats and sysops.

Bureaucrats may be elected if:
 * At least ten (10) persons express a supportive view, with an 80% or better net support ratio; and,
 * They have made at least 250 constructive edits to the wiki and been a community member for at least ninety (90) calendar days

Administrators may be elected if:
 * At least ten (10) persons express a supportive view, with a 50% or better net support ratio; and,
 * They have made at least 100 constructive edits to the wiki and been a community member for at least thirty (30) calendar days

Yes

 * 1) This sounds good. Musicismylife (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) A process like this has always been absent, instead staffing has been handled by a central core of bureaucrats. Going independent, it's quite reasonable to change this now. --Raidarr (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, as this hasn't been implemented at all for as long as I've been coming here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Indifferent

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