Blog:Pointers I think should be terminated from miraheze.

Note: If one of these pointers becomes forbidden, let me know in the comments and I will remove said pointer off the list.

On this website, there are plenty of pointers people add that I think are stupid. While there are already idiotic pointers that are forbidden (such as the "it's better than" pointer or the "wasted talents" pointer or the "let that sink in" term), some idiotic pointers haven't been forbidden. Here is a list of pointers that I think should be forbidden from this website. What I want is for an admin to see my complaints, then I want them to list most of these pointers on the forbidden pointer section of the main pages of Qualitipedia's Wikis (specific wikis are listed with the pointers, so you'll know which pointers need to be forbidden on each wiki).

The Pointers

 * 1) The "He/She is well/poorly animated" pointer (Only in the Incredible and Loathsome Characters Wiki's).
 * 2) *I think this pointer is stupid because a character being well/poorly animated has nothing to do with the character's quality. Instead, the quality of the character's animation has to do with the show/film he/she's from. Seriously, if a bad character was from a show with bad animation, and then said character was animated with high quality animation, the character would remain the same. He/She would still be a jerk, annoying, gross, unfunny, stupid, and/or ugly character even if said character was well animated. On top of that, the editors treat the characters like it's their own fault that they're poorly/well animated, when in reality, it's the shows/films/games/animators fault. While it thankfully got forbidden on the Loathsome Characters Wiki, it's not forbidden on the Incredible Characters Wiki yet.
 * 3) The "This episode/character was thankfully ignored/never mentioned again" pointer (specifically on the Terrible TV Shows wiki and the Loathsome Characters Wiki).
 * 4) *This pointer is equivalent to the "it thankfully got canceled" pointer. It's insulting to fans and it's more of a hate quality rather than valid criticism. Also, it's pointless, because an episode or character being ignored later on won't make them better! Sometimes, they will list examples of the episode/character being mentioned in future episodes, making said episode/character not ignored.
 * 5) The "This scene might be too frightening for a children's film/show" pointer.
 * 6) *While this pointer shouldn't entirely be removed, it should be reworded. Because using the term, "children's shows/film", makes it sound like we don't want kid shows/films to have adult elements. If it uses terms like G or PG rated, it would make more sense. Sometimes, the pointer won't list examples, and other times, it would list examples that aren't even scary, like a scene where somebody gets kidnapped. But thankfully, other times, they would put the pointer for scenes that are too scary for a G or PG movie, like a scene where a character dies on-screen.
 * 7) Any pointer that confuses butt-shaking with twerking.
 * 8) *A lot of people on Qualitipedia make this confusion. Whenever a character shakes their butt or something like that, users think the characters are twerking, even though they might not be. If you searched up the definition of "twerking", and compared the character shaking their butt, then you could tell the difference.
 * 9) The "This could be considered comeuppance for what {insert character here} did in {insert any episode that happened before the previous episode}" pointer (Only on the Terrible TV Shows wiki).
 * 10) *While this pointer could work if the character did something bad in the previous episode, it's stupid to consider someone getting torchered for no reason in one episode to be considered comeuppance from an episode that came out from 3 to 100 episodes ago. By then, it would be too late for their comeuppance.
 * 11) The "X does/still does a good job voicing him/her" pointer (only on the incredible/loathsome character wikis).
 * 12) *While I do think it's necessary to bring up a character's voice in character pages, I don't think it's necessary to say that the voice actor does a good job voicing a character. With the way it's worded, it honestly sounds like the page is giving praise to the voice actor rather than the character. Why can't it read "he/she has a decent voice, thanks to X voicing him/her" instead?
 * 13) The "Not well received" term.
 * 14) * First off, this term is pointless, because we already know if something is poorly received if you bring up a weak element of a show/film/ect. Besides, the term sounds incredibly unprofessional. The only exception is when talking about a specific dub of a show.

Comments
