Either needs to be reworked by atleast 3 staff or deleted because the grammar, photos and 'usefullness' is awful. It's like all those tiny GTA IV pages that were spammed, like Ninjas and Peach Island. That page should also be deleted.
I'd put AliRocky's GTA IV Vampire up for addition, but he just raged and insulted other users and even vandalised us, and it would be a Vandal Shrine.
But I have some problems with it... he only throws a link to us in the bottom of the description. And this 'plaigarist' uses our info, directly, without any sort of clarification. We should do something, as a bunch of his 9 year old fanboys are saying we're copying the video. Yes, it got us a large amount of views, but we weren't even credited in the credits section a the end. I want to contact the creator and have him citate us for the info he obviously stole.
You should contact him and see if he will change it willingly. If not, I wouldn't push him because he might retaliate by vandalizing the wiki. I would warn him though that it is illegal to plagiarize and not give credit to the source from which you got the information.
I just looked over the video post and he did credit us for the photos with a link to the wiki. I would probably just let it go since he left a link and besides it only is free advertisement for the wiki.
I was reading McJeff's profile ,when he noted something about myths. A majority of them aren't written neutrally. Either they're written true (this myth is true...) or false (this myth is false...) instead of us editing neutrally. For example, we change "This myth is fake because there is no evidence" would need to be changed to "This myth is believed to be false due to the lack of evidence"
I completely agree. It seems that people have forgotten the neutral position an editor is supposed to have. The wiki's purpose is to present all the information known about the myth and leave it up to the reader to determine whether or not it is false. Not someone's personal opinion. While we are at it we should get rid of "admin investigations" since it's based solely on personal opinion.
And here's Wikipedia's definition of editing neutrally, we can probably shorten it into ~4-5 sentences.
Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support ofverifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.
I know you're obviously going to be standoffish about this, but I designed a newer logo at the same dimensions as the original, aswell as it being styled that way. The difference isn't very noticable and the logo is higher quality.
The news section on the front page was originally intended for news updates on myths but it never really took off. If you want to do a weekly nes update on new or possible myths discovered that would be a great idea.
It's not a bad thing to have multiple images of the same thing because as the wiki gets bigger it's more practical to just add another image. Plus sometimes the image is on a different angle or zoomed in/out to show the surrounding area.