Requests for Comment/Creating a reception policy for Qualitipedia

Qualitipedia needs a reception policy, as we need to state how you need to figure out which wiki a piece of media goes on. I have made a blog with a proposed reception policy for Qualitipedia. Before participating in this RfC, please read the blog post, which contains the entire policy. If this RfC is a success, the blog post will be renamed to "Reception policy" and various changes will be made (such as removing things for blogs, making it look more like an official policy, etc.). FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 10:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) as proposer. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 10:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think that if the media has been well recieved by one side, but negatively by the other, should not be made on either wiki because it has been proven by Fortnite and Asphalt 9: Legends pages on the games wikis. NJPet (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @NJPet: I forgot about that. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This helps specify many doubts involving the reception and how it affects a referent being in the wiki it is, in contrast to the current rule we have. I don't think reception itself should exclusively limit a product from being in the wiki, in those cases we can still have a product on both wikis —given the concept of neutral wikis failed—, this is a thing in the games wikis already and it is doing fine. Zangler (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) It depends on whether or not reception from both sides generally leans toward negative or positive. Extremely mixed media should not be added to either wiki. I have considered this with The Lego Ninjago Movie since it has very mixed reception. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Bukkit (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) The only thing I don't agree on is the mixed reception policy on both sides. Adding Good Qualities to the positive wiki and Bad Qualities to the Negative wiki is an okay thing in my opinion because both sides of the argument win.  ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This is ridiculous, as it sounds like you want us to change the brand back to "Reception" (wikis, or anything related to that word),  without even realizing why we (personally myself as well) preferred to have the name stay as Qualitipedia. The Reception policy wouldn't really make a difference here -- DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) A really radical change is not that necessary, we base on quality, not always a 100% on reception. Also, it breaks what we are and will make users to leave and feel unconfortable.    The King of Dice   (Talk|Contributions|Q&A) 18:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "we base on quality, not always a 100% on reception" you state this but the problem is that you treat quality and reception as separate entities. when we speak about media, it's the consumers of a specific piece of media that determine the quality of it, if they liked it or not; said consumers can be either regular consumers or critics. so as you can see, quality (something subjective) heavily relies on audience/reception (something more objective), which is actually what the pages on qualitipedia base on; people ask in what wiki should a game go based on critics score. that's the problem, you can't separate quality from reception. this RfC offers an approach on how we approach the reception of something to determine its quality; it'll still be subjective though, no matter what, but it's a good approach to objectivity. i also ask for more explanation on your last phrase "Also, it breaks what we are and will make users to leave and feel unconfortable." as i don't think it's a plausible scenario, so some clarification would be great. Yonydesk (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)