Talk:Reviews

i feel we ought to think carefully about the intended scope here. tmbg's releases have been reviewed hundreds if not thousands of times. do we need all of them? how should they be organised? many are available elsewhere on the internet, particularly places that are unlikely to suffer from linkrot (e.g. archive.org, google, etc). (fwiw i'm not arguing against featuring any of this content here. i'm not sure where i stand yet... but i can see this potentially ballooning into something massive and unwieldy.) -- 14:39, 18 July 2021 (EDT)

My feeling personally is that this and also the just-created Articles category are not needed at all. I think it makes sense for the wiki to quote bits of these things on relevant pages if necessary but that there's no need whatsoever for a page like this or uploads in their entirety. I will also point out that my site already contains nearly 600 articles with more added on a regular basis, so it's not like there isn't an easy central location to find things if people want them already. --Self Called Nowhere (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2021 (EDT)

I gotta concur. I see the wiki not as a place for primary sources, but for boiled-down research. I think the wiki is great for critical consensus, with maybe a couple money quotes from outliers (positive and negative), but I think the actual primary sources would be best archived on another site — i.e. the aforementioned Museum of Idiots — than here. It seems like it'd be a bunch of clutter here, since I think of the Wiki as more of a quick-stop for info. THere's a LOT of great info here, but it's been consolidated. And IMHO, that's how it should stay. Let MoI be the archive for the hardcore fans/researcher-types, let the Wiki be the place to find the researcher-types' hard work. - Rev. Syung Myung Me (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2021 (EDT)