Requests for Comment/Create average/neutral wikis

Okay, I understand that many of you are not keen on the idea of average/neutral wikis, and I used to not be keen either, but I've changed my mind now, and here's why. I feel like it doesn't really make sense that we have average media on a negative wiki as it feels kind of out of place. For example, mh:crappygames:Crappy Games Wiki is supposed to be a wiki for crappy games, consoles, controllers, etc. However, it has multiple pages about games, consoles, controllers and other things that are considered "average", not "crappy". I just don't really feel like it makes sense, and plus, it can come off as confusing to some. However, there are some things I propose that should happen in addition to this:
 * 1) All pages should be imported, not copypasted. Also, in addition to this, they must be imported properly, not like this, where only one revision is imported. All revisions must be imported.
 * 2) All average/neutral wikis should have the title of "Average [insert type of media here] Wiki" instead of each one having a different synonym, as I think that there aren't that many synonyms for average or neutral, and a lot of the ones that people think are synonyms aren't really synonyms (ex. "Okay" is generally more of a compliment than "average").

Support

 * 1) This may be a controversial opinion, but I do think it is a good idea to separate Average media from negative media, because, as said above, it just looks off-putting that average media is considered "bad". Not just that, but how "My Little Pony: Pony Life" is in both wikis, as well as how "The Patrick Star Show" is forbidden from TS&E Wiki due to being too divisive to talk about, further proving this potential the idea has. Fanbases could also potentially strike out at us because of the pages in the negatively-received wikis. Overall, this is why I strongly support this idea.This may be a controversial opinion, but I do think it is a good idea to separate Average media from negative media, because, as said above, it just looks off-putting that average media is considered "bad". Not just that, but how "My Little Pony: Pony Life" is in both wikis, as well as how "The Patrick Star Show" is forbidden from TS&E Wiki due to being too divisive to talk about, further proving this potential the idea has. Fanbases could also potentially strike out at us because of the pages in the negatively-received wikis. Overall, this is why I strongly support this idea. -AleXYZ-510 (talk) 22:02, 28, October 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reason Pony Life is on both wikis is that no one has deleted the page on BTVSW yet despite it being marked for deletion for being biased. And anyway, the plan is to put the positive and negative wikis together to create a wiki for on media type with all of its receptions (For example, Crappy and Awesome Games Wiki are planned to be moved into just Games Wiki or something like that). Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer 10:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @TigerBlazer While I'm personally not in support of that merge at all, if it does happen, it shouldn't be "Games Wiki" because "Games Wiki" sounds like a normal encyclopedia about games. If anything, it should be Reception Games Wiki. FatBurn0000 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  There is absolutely no reason that there shouldn't be neutral wikis. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Deja vu of previous discussions. While I agree there is a functional hole when wikis are a binary between 'good' and 'bad' that a bandaid average category does not fix, I don't think adding a third extra wikis to worry about into Qualitipedia does any favors as far as cleaning up the wikis. Just more to worry about administratively, divide a limited base of attention and multiply again the amount of work to do what should be basic things. This is reason to try and combine wikis (perhaps backwaters places like the Music and Literature ones as proof of concept), not add more to worry about. It's easy from the perspective of someone who doesn't have to deal with the administrative backlog of just one wiki that falls behind. This also still leaves a functional gap, where media can be mixed or controversial, not just 'average' that implies meh (which hurts the functional appeal of the wikis anyways) when there are multiple states that mixed reviews can be in. Bottom line, QP should be trying to slim down how many MediaWiki installations it's using, not bloat out even further. --Raidarr (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I've seen somewhere before that some people demand the return of 'Average Media' wikis, and it was unsuccessful, so I doubt that they will ever ask for it today too. If we were going to create these wikis, managing them would be more cumbersome due to the quantity, and know that not everyone wants that many wikis for the same media. Besides, 'Average/Mediocre' is more associated with negative, so they should still stay on 'Negative Wikis', just like the sister term 'Decent/Okay', which indicates positive and like 'Average', these media can stay to 'Postive Wikis' as well. The idea is fine on the one hand, but it is just a waste of nerves and sweat. One more word, don't take the wiki name completely seriously, as not all of these 'bad' media are 'crappy' as the name implies. —A llistayrian  (💬) 17:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * About what you said about "decent" though, contrary to popular belief, "decent" is a synonym for "good" and is not necessarily any worse than "good". FatBurn0000 (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is your interpretation. If you have to say 'contrary to popular belief' when popular usage defines the recognition of a word, then your interpretation may not be correct. --Raidarr (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Pretty sure we've said "no" to this very subject time and time again because of how unnecessary it is. Sure we had Okay Movies Wiki recently, but the wiki was poorly received to the point of getting cut loose from Qualitipedia. Given these circumstances, I can assume safely that this RfC will be snowballed. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) We have been over this multiple times, it is not going to happen. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  19:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) *I personally do not remember anyone saying "this is not going to happen". I originally thought that it wouldn't happen considering that mh:okaymovies:Okay Movies Wiki was a badly-received idea, but then MarioMario456 created the "We need neutral wikis" blog post, and while it seemed like the consensus was most likely going to be "don't create neutral wikis", I decided to make this Requests for Comment so I could explain why I thought average/neutral wikis were a good idea. FatBurn0000 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you just wanted to offer opinions why it might be a good idea, a blog might have been the more appropriate avenue. --Raidarr (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Every time we tried out neutral wikis, they failed every single time. Not only that, but I'm certain none of the admins want to manage 50% more wikis. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) It will be hard to decide if something is notable. There are way too many games that aren't really good enough to be notable on AGW but not really bad either. If obscurity will be used mainly for notability, it will be too ambiguous. Or maybe if we make it so that games need to be very average, then we will likely have just consoles and some rare case stuff such as Clash Royale (which has an article on both wikis). --Atomicstar (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Now that I think about it, having six extra wikis would be harder to manage. I would prefer just not having neutral wikis altogether than having Raidarr's suggestion of merging the wikis. Also, it seems like this proposal won't pass anyway. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) Not something I will care about to be honest. We should work with the ones we have for the moment. King Dice (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) My point of view for this is neutral because even though the change may be somewhat unnecessary, I don't believe that it's good to only have and use the "average" category and heading style on the negative wikis. If this plan is going to be rejected, I think we should have an average heading style on the positive wikis, for example have the headings "Good Qualities" and "Bad Qualities" on decent stuff pages instead of all the articles saying "Why he/she/they or it rocks". Average things that have more a bit more good qualities than bad should go on the positive wiki and average things that have a bit more bad qualities than good can on the negative wiki in my opinion. Mr. Jay 641  (📄) 20:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A key issue of working by number of pointers is that the weight, validity and sourceability of pointers is a constant issue in Qualitipedia, and it would be easy to have a dispute when someone attempts to objectively assess the points of a page. --Raidarr (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)