Requests for Comment/Close the Websites Wikis

Being with the staff of the Discord server and the subreddit made me realize how little we use the Website wikis due to a couple of reasons:
 * The problems they caused due to the userbase and the type of pages we have.
 * It used to have heavily politically biased pages, and even some based on people, which is considered unacceptable and hypocritical.
 * That in comparison of the Game wikis, the Movie wikis and even the Show wikis, there is little-to-no moderation and a consistent quality and verifiability of pages.
 * In comparison of other pieces of media, websites and apps are a lot harder to rate, due to how usually Play Store and App Store's ratings are full of nonsense and the little to no sources we found online, usually all saying the exact same things.
 * With some exceptions, all websites had been known for their userbase and not the quality of the site itself. Take for example Reddit, that has some bad users that had caused troubles, but also good subreddits and groups. The same goes for things like DevianArt, Twitter, Discord, Facebook, ect. We can't judge a full website due to the userbase, because that does not represent the entirety of the people that use it.

What I propose is to cut ties with the Websites Wikis and close them. 15:00, May 23, 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Doug as closer
'''This is not the section to vote for closure, only for a nomination to close the RfC. Votes must be properly placed to be considered. See below for the appropriate sections.''' --Raidarr (talk)

Hi all. Raidarr mentioned this Qualitipedia wiki RfC to me, and that I may be asked to close this RfC after a few week's time. I'm happy to do that. I am an uninvolved Qualitipedia moderator and editor, but I'm also an experienced Steward with plenty of closes under my belt. Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I don't see the problem. You can do it if you want :D  03:52, 24 May, 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Reasonable suggestion. No objections from me. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) All bureaucrats here are involved parties and if a closure is done, it should be with as much legitimacy as possible. This would be the ideal way to achieve it. Doug also takes into account the 'native contributors' of a wiki, who bring the votes that should have the most impact on a possible wiki closure. --Raidarr (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't see why not. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably better that you close it when the time comes considering the nature and impact of this RfC. You're the most experienced one here with RfCs. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably to know that these wikis should fade away and considering how many years that these website wikis spend, it's time for this wiki to take a good rest for one last time. I think we should all agree on this. Quixolite (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) As much as I wanted the website wikis to keep going, I am gonna let them go. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Meh, you can do it if you want to. --XanManYT (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Better to do close as its clear that one side seems to be the more compelling option. Most of the negative points aren't very valid enough to justify an oppose, and its been a few weeks since the RFC started so this could be quick close as many other supporters have given already valid reasons and its quite massive already. Equal One 28 May 2022
 * 4) I agree with others above, Doug can just do it if he wants, no objections from me either. Dragonite (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Yeah, let Doug close this disaster of a "wiki". Really I don't see how someone could argue back, for christ sake there is no opposers. Reviweing97Shows (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit: Oh wow, someone actually did. But I'm pretty sure that'll be the only one... Reviweing97Shows (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Nuke it, Doug.    08:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Blubabluba9990 (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Blazikeye as closer
Due to Dmehus' inactivity regarding this RfC, I have decided to nominate myself as a closer. While Dmehus did nominate himself to be the one to close this RfC, we have heard little from him since then. It has been nearly a month since his nomination, and he stated that he would close the RfC after a few weeks, but it has clearly been more than a few weeks at this point. The other issue is that there's nearly 70 votes at this point, which is more than enough, and tensions are starting to present themselves because of this RfC staying open for so long. I know I openly support this RfC, but if I'm chosen to be the closer, I will examine this RfC and its votes from a neutral perspective and make my decision accordingly. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Two more things to mention, once I have more votes than Dmehus, then I'll close the RfC. And if you previously supported Dmehus closing the RfC, I recommend crossing out your old vote so it's easier to keep track of the votes. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  We should just get this over with, it's been more than several weeks that this RFC has been around. Dragonite (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) End the RfC. Most of the opposes suck.    22:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Let's just end this before more incoherent votes get added  23:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) This has gone on long enough (almost a month now) and most of the opposition just keeps getting stupider. Since it doesn't look like Dmehus will be responding any time soon, you're our best bet since you're more active here than he is. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Let's close these wiki once more and hopefully the opposition doesn't get overflowed by a number of immature people that wanted the wikis to stay. Quixolite  (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) If Dmehus doesn't come back. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Per the above, a few weeks have passed and nothing has been really done, and the discussion reached its peak as well. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  01:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) It has to be closed now, the results are clear already and the Rfc has overstayed the welcome. Any new opposes would be already invalidated by how much support this has got. Should've been ended quickly before when Dhmeus messaged but they haven't fufilled that so it be up to Blazikeye to continue the favour. Equal One (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Dmehus pretty much called dibs already on closing this proposal. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So what if he called "dibs"? What matters is that this RfC needs to be closed at this point, and Dmehus hasn't closed it yet despite stating that he will. You're only unnecessarily drawing out this RfC. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I must agree that 'dibs' are meaningless. However, the following oppose is much stronger. --Raidarr (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Doug's nomination was merely a suggestion (per the sub-RfC above much like this sub-RfC) and not necessarily "calling dibs", and he has yet to fulfill the promise of closure. Marxo Grouch (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To add on, I prefer when a steward closes proposals since their closure messages are usually more detailed and mature, and given Blazikeye's comments about "random users", Blazikeye closing this proposal may be rather biased. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I am sorry, but I don’t think I can vote to a user who have voted in the discussion. I am afraid stuffs like Supervotes may happen. That alone doesn’t make me to vote for oppose, but having looked at the support votes, I think that this is just a planned proposal by a group of users who would like to close the wikis, which is a sign of supervote. -Matttest (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At least me, I just want this RFC closed so the incoherent votes like "I want this wikis to stay" without explanation just stop. 12:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the point that made me interested in a third party vote in the first place: a strongly opinionated involved party making a decision that is very significant in QP could harm the legitimacy of the decision that comes out. I've notified Doug that the residents in this RfC are getting a bit antsy and for my part I believe any substantive discussion is over. --Raidarr (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit that I made my proposal out of urgency. In regards to bias, I examined every vote yesterday while following some advice from Raidarr on deciding what votes could count as valid and invalid based on how strong the argument is, and the involvement that the user has on the website wikis. My current tally is 22 valid and 14 invalid supports, and 5 valid and 30 invalid opposes. It's either we wait for Dmehus, who has been unresponsive, let me close it, but as you said I have too much involvement and am not free of bias, or a third closer is proposed (which I believe will most likely be Raidarr). --Blazikeye535 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the proposer of this RFC.  15:00, May 23, 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) In all honesty, shutting down the website wikis is hardly even a big deal at all, and I barely even visit the wikis myself. JigglypuffGuy04 (talk) 15:13 May 23, 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Closure makes sense to me. Cutting ties however is a bad idea and I explicitly oppose that part of the wording. We cannot run from problematic wikis; only deal with them by closure or improving their content. Support hinges on my belief that the content is beyond reasonably saving, but I will prod them along should the consensus be in favor of keeping them so they do not become a problem again. --Raidarr (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I explained myself wrong, but I want to close them. 15:40, May 23, 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) These wikis have devolved into a waste of space. There's not really much activity there to warrant keeping them, websites aren't as easy to aggregate as the other three media in the network, and page quality suffers for that. Closing them would just be one less problem off the table. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? I'd check the recent changes on that wiki first. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Raidarr's responses to you and Pituckos in the below section apply to your response here. Marxo Grouch (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I rarely visit these wikis, besides, I found them to be inferior in terms of moderation compared to the mainline ones. Dragonite (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Nothing more needs to be said. I tried my best to fix this place, but they should have been closed long ago. The wikis are extremely problematic at best, or have nothing of value at worst. Closing them would mean one less thorn in QP's backside, and I don't even care if we lose users opposing to the closure to the process, it has to be done. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  15:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) The issue with these wikis is that they're very controversial due to them being initially wikis of political stuff. These wikis also show hypocrisy, for example, they allow Reddit on Fresh Websites despite the toxic community, yet they ban Twitter for the same thing. It does not help the fact that it was also banned on Rotten Websites because most of its issues are related to the userbase, yet the wikis allow websites like Twitch, Instagram and Facebook, which pretty much have the same issues. -CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This post I made on the Discord server pretty much says it all: "Ever since all the political content, content about IRL stuff, and content aimed towards users/people/userbases has been deleted, the website wikis have been completely gutted and are now just a shell of their former selves. A lot of websites don't even have a proper form of reception either unless we're talking about notoriously bad sites like IGN or Buzzfeed." --Blazikeye535 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I 100% agree with TigerBlazer and Blazikeye's points. Although I never visit the Website wikis, I find their uselessness very obvious in comparison to the more reknown subsidiaries of the network. King's reasoning sums it up well.  16:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Fresh and Rotten Websites Wikis are pointless and could potentially slander the web developers who are trying their hardest to make their websites good. There I say, close them. - Awsworthy (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2022 (BST)
 * 1) This was originally a weak support, but I'm switching that for many reasons. Most of the wiki consists of bland pages, with some exceptions. It used to be filed with A LOT of political bias, the moderation is crap and websites are harder to criticize. In all honesty, delete the sites and move some pages to other wikis. Yes, I really mean closing them. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Close them. They were completely pointless wikis that were infested with unnecessary politics about "those damn SJWs" and full of shit bias articles. Also, a website can't receive reception the same way a movie or video game can. SkullcrawlerBuddyOfficial (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Even though I'm not very active on these websites wiki that much, it's arguably that these websites shouldn't exist as most of these sites treats popular opinions as facts and nearly any article except for some of them on any other wikis are quite biased, and the community has been going downhill since there are a ton of drama going on through these wikis. I always believe that this wiki tries it's best to improve over through the problem, but anything from these wikis barely improves or doesn't seen to have their guts against one thing or another. Hell, they even took one product that they hate to extreme by adding or editing either article which kinda makes my mind blow up in the seconds, and not to mention about that the entire sites is filled with nothing but politics, I know it's understandable that the community can be a bit harsh a times, but I don't want any drama coming through this wiki, and to top that all off, I think these websites are kinda pointless and shouldn't exist, I say I support this as everything through this wiki has been going downhill recently and there are barely any improvements on it. I was planning to make a logo or even a favicon for this site but I scrapped it. While I'm barely a contributer or an admin on this site, I would say close them. Quixolite (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) They were slowing down in terms of activity. I don't see much of a future for these two wikis due to the lack of activity. I think it's better if we did something like internet history & scams wiki. Some of the pages like internet scams, survey to download sites, and various tropes like network decay (which is the actual name for bad updates by the way) do make sense. We had to do so many purges on user-focused pages, and it's gotten too bloated to the point where it's likely better to put them out of their misery. Dorothy Nightingale (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The internet wikis while in good concept is just not feeling right for Qualitipedia at the moment, they are quite different from the network. The main wikis media (Films, games, books and shows) are easy and consistent, while website ones are too broad (It caters to the internet and apps in general) to maintain consistency and harder to review and write pages especially with Fresh websites. Maybe the wikis can be given by other community or they have to start fresh, independent of the network (probably like the character/gameplay wikis or slightly original wiki). Deletion is kinda likely, there are decent pages in those wikis but they can be moved to those proposed wiki. - Equal One 23 May 2022
 * 1) I highly agree, the users are atrocious, and are like the users from The Outcast Network, so I agree that they should be shut down immediately. The Dunkman 10:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to sign your comments with ~ .   10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I think wikis are flawed by creation and that nothing can fix them. However, deleting them entirely is… strange to me. I think cutting ties is the best option. MoistyPorky.jpeg Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 12:50:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) MoistyPorky.jpeg
 * 2) I'm sad to say this, but I think we should let them go. It's been too much of a hassle to keep around. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I don’t know about you, but I feel that wikis like these are encouraging the creation of more obscure reception wikis, like the Horrible Companies Wiki, the Crappy Software Wiki, and the Worst Networks Wiki, which, by the way, is ridiculous to have. Why can’t those networks just go on the Terrible TV Shows wiki? There are some good pages on these wikis that I do hope we can move to other wikis if this decision goes through, such as the pages about YouTube, which could probably go on Terrible TV Shows. DeadPixel (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, those wikis are necessary, and here's why:
 * Horrible Companies Wiki exists because of companies that make multiple pieces of media and therefore can't just go on one wiki.
 * While you may feel it is unnecessary, mh:crappysoftware:Crappy Software Wiki exists because of bad software besides games that do not belong on any other wiki.
 * Worst TV Networks Wiki exists because, in case you didn't know, TV networks and channels are forbidden on mh:terribletvshows:Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki, so no, they can't go there.
 * FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 04:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I think we should close them. There's limited activity compared to their sister sites. Also, the political bias is still there even though it's been toned down from last year. CrazySpruiker2001 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm going to have to agree with DarkMatterMan4500.    11:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Additional comments that I added later: The wikis are a waste of our time. We have tried to improve them but nothing has really happened.    13:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Given the current state of the wiki. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I have a point, in the time when DuchessTheSponge claimed to me that these wikis are out of trust, I disagreed to him because one of my pages of a website from 2012 was in Fresh Websites Wiki, after the restoration was done, things became normal again, but incase to talk about these wiki's problems, I understand it's premise:
 * 5) *Beyond the purpose of the wikis, it's intended to talk about not just websites, but any type of social interaction, since most of the world's population in the 2020s became unaware, I don't think these wikis caused the problem, despite thousands of people who relates criticism don't know or ever heard of these wikis due the search algorithm and target topic for browsers and communities. I have three reasons why these wikis should've failed in its lifetime:
 * 6) **For this reasoning, 75% of the wiki content are feeden from social communities, even the whole point of the website is focused on that objective, @TigerBlazer has a reason that contributing pages targeted at random people is not a good idea, because it counterfeits that critical people is not attempting to create drama, not a whole meaning of this argument is anti-free speech, but it begs the question of targeting a uncivil community and also being a uncivil group targeting the foe, there's no other workarounds to solve the Content Policy issue depending the writer's maturity and mindset.
 * 7) **I know you guys are internet nerds, but most pages lack any purpose to point out the state of the websites become or turned, to not talk about obscure content in the wikis, I had to look up the pages that are featured in the main page, many pages consider inconsistent due the different writing style of many users, you don't need to expand text length if you don't have much knowledge for a website or topic depending how many content needs to talk about, as it's just necessary filler like Allistayrian thought this is crucial for the reception wikis. Some pages have just 5 simple reasons while surrounded large chunks of information and source links.
 * 8) **Due to my contribution shiftness to tech sharing and internet freedom, I longer manage the wikis. These wikis really need a new direction for people that professionalize technical communication, majority of the userbase are young people between the early and mid 10s, based on the last-year's managing state, many people don't know to take care or understand what they're doing for, as why Qualitipedia downhill so heavily during early and mid 2021, every aspect needs to be balanced or controlled just like most Stewards do with their jobs.
 * 9) *That's what my point with the state of these wikis, I wouldn't consider myself a jerk who someone disagrees me, but these wikis died for its trust for a long time, as to say, kill it with imminent glory. - AlvaroNovaes-BR (talk • contribs • global • rights) 20:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) If the YouTube article, the first article that the website was founded on, gets to still both exist and be featured five years later when it's filled with both blatant anti-left political bias and unsourced claims, it can be reasonably deduced from that example that these issues within the wiki are both rooted in its very nature and too laborious to fix into something better. It'd be less effort to nuke the content and try again, but with intellectual honesty and at least an attempt at leaving personal bias out of the articles. MOPthestreets (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) We have so many useless wikis that it is better to merge all of them into a big media wiki. Joekido (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is about letting Dmehus close the RFC, not about closing the website wikis. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have him close the RFC anyway. Joekido (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't even remember the last time I visited one of the website wikis. I think it was around the time the whole "unsourced" drama began. Honestly, a majority of the wiki is just bland in my opinion. But I do have to say I feel it's too unnescary to get rid of the website wikis entirely. A better decision is to separate them from Qualitipedia and be less permissive with them, as with Loathsome Characters wiki. A long with that, I feel that MANY pages should be gone from the wiki, especially ones that focus on too little information or are just very much unneeded. So whilst I wouldn't fully say to close the wikis, I suggest to work them out better, because they should not be an official Qualitipedia wiki. -
 * Not to be judgemental about how you vote but for the record, if you don't think they should be closed then you should abstain, as support votes don't include "I think they should be handed off to elsewhere" arguments as far as I know. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not really what I'd call "mixed" at the moment. In fact, I update it: The website wikis probably should be closed, since I investigated more, and mnay pages there are mediocre, the activity there is limited, and once again, the whole "unsourced" drama did not put the website in a good stance. -
 * Some of the good pages will get moved when the wikis close. When that time comes, I may ask some admins to find some pages that are good enough for other wikis. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems good. In fact I'm pretty sure most of the pages will be moved to the company wikis, which even though I'm pretty sure are not official reception wikis, does seem like a place where we could put pages like "GoNoodle", "Netflix", "YouTube", etc. Reviweing97Shows (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This website wiki needs to die as its is causing drama to other users and I am moving on from this wiki after all of this. -
 * 2) I support this, because other people support the decision and that's why I say yes. No other reason. DrProffessorX (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I do no longer see a point for the website wikis. The wiki was always political despite the wiki have removed the political pages. We can go forward without the wiki..
 * In addition you may seem that I returned, but actually not. My retirement message is still valid.
 * 1) Like it says. The website wikis have a strong political bias and I don't see any point to keep the sites going seeing as how it's harder to criticize and distinguish what websites are good and which ones are bad whilst movies, shows and games are much less divisive by comparison. Zekeman1991 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I support closure, as I really do not see the point in these wikis. But, here is the thing. If the Fresh and Rotten Websites Wikis were to be closed, then I would not like them deleted. Deletion was my only problem in the closure of the Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms Wiki and the Atrocious YouTubers Wiki. Hiimjustin000 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't think we can do anything about that.
 * Why do you not want them deleted?
 * FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarifying note in reply to: Hiimjustin000, it's important to clarify here that Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms Wiki and Atrocious YouTubers Wiki were closed and deleted by Stewards in accordance with the global policy, Content Policy where wikis have Content Policy issues that go unremediated and/or lack the administrative experience to deal with any Content Policy issues. This is a local community discussion regarding the future of the wikis. Dmehus (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) From what I've seen, the Websites wikis are just fundamentally flawed. And worst of all, they're basically useless especially since most websites are user-based. Also as Dicey said, it's a political drama magnet, which probably no one likes at all. When it comes to page quality, the Websites wikis have significantly more misses than hits and a lot of the pages are just done in an Ed Wood-esque way. Anyways, looking at the state the wikis are in... yeah just close them down. Kodama (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) ; these are the only wikis on Qualitipedia that I feel are unsalvageable in any form. They are fundamentally broken, with a lot of the articles amounting to complaining rather than any genuine criticism directed at the sites. ThisWas (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In future, please sign your message with four tidles ( ~ ). FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) made an account for this (literally minute old fresh fish) after a good, long time of lurking without an account. after pages like the darksydephil page, the Mario party 10 page, Chris Chan page (what was a page like that doing here, anyway?) and I’d like to say a general wipe of pages that were seen as biased to just plain incorrect were all taken down this site got completely gutted and I can say I’m not against shutting these places down. You can just look up some random game title on google or YouTube, see what some reception looks like, and boom you do what half of these types of wikis are about with potentially a better “appearance” per se. Same goes for movies, characters, the whole shabang. If you like these wikis, good for you, but generally speaking people aren’t gonna lose anything in the long run due to the fact that about a thousand other outside media platforms exist out there, good or bad. I’m not gonna comment on the userbase, since I’ve only seen a glimpse of that and even if I commented on it it would be what I’ve read in these threads, but I am gonna say that what these wikis functions are can be done anywhere else on the internet and if they’re gonna go, they’re gonna go and I don’t see a problem with it. Thanks for reading. Beansandsauce (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This RFC is specifically about the website wikis. While you do seem somewhat aware of that, I think that your comments about the other wikis are far from necessary. Also, if you do have concerns about the other wikis' quality, you should improve them yourself or suggest some improvements to Qualitipedia staff. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 08:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After some time of thinking about it. I will say that this could be the time to close down the wikis, since websites in general lack real and reliable reception. Not to mention, the wikis almost feel like the once-existed Fandoms & Hatedoms wikis to me, since the wikis tend to talk a lot about toxic communities, and are sometimes listed as reasons on why the websites have a place on the Rotten Websites Wiki, while these pages do tend to also focus on bad business practices. The wikis also talk a lot about politics, as shown with mh:rottenwebsites:The New York Times, mh:rottenwebsites:The Verge, mh:rottenwebsites:HuffPost, and mh:rottenwebsites:InfoWars, in which these pages could cause a lot of political controversy and drama, especially from certain sides, which the same tends to also apply to the TS&E Wiki pages talking about news networks, such as mh:terribletvshows:Fox News and CNN. In fact, going to CJWorldGame32125's point about this, there is hypocrisy about the placement of Reddit in Fresh Websites Wiki, considering that it is not at all without toxicity, and it can get at the same level as several websites from Rotten Websites Wiki. Overall, those are my reasons for the idea of closing the wikis, and I hope that I explained this as clear as possible. AleXYZ-510 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support closing the Website wikis. I can't enjoy some of my favorite websites without seeing a lot of hate, especially Rule 34 (my 5th favorite website; before you ask me, I don't support illegal stuff)). Not only that, but another reason why is because I barely use the website. I mean, I see some good articles for the bad websites one, but the negatives really hurt my opinions and feelings for the website I use, like Twitter and YouTube. Finally, another reason is the drama I see on the comments and talk pages. MeeMeeCandy777 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support closing the Website wikis. I can't enjoy some of my favorite websites without seeing a lot of hate, especially Rule 34 (my 5th favorite website; before you ask me, I don't support illegal stuff)). Not only that, but another reason why is because I barely use the website. I mean, I see some good articles for the bad websites one, but the negatives really hurt my opinions and feelings for the website I use, like Twitter and YouTube. Finally, another reason is the drama I see on the comments and talk pages. MeeMeeCandy777 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Internet is another media, It is unfair to not have a wiki about it. PituckosTheCockatiel (talk) 17:00, May 23, 2022 (GMT+3)
 * Wikis are not needed for everything, especially if they can't come up with a clear and consistent way to decide reception. Which is exactly the problem here. The wiki is dead because when it was active it could only focus on things that brought it very close to closure. The current audience is incapable of making it active based on other media. 'internet' is a partisan and varied topic that cannot be shoehorned properly in the way other wikis manage to do. This is why it is a problem, and merits closure. This also applies to you DarkMatterMan (placing here as he edited while I was replying). --Raidarr (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While that can be argued, I've been seeing some form of activity from that wiki. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Some", minor activity which does not meaningfully develop content nor actually address the issues I raised in my own reply. Make no mistake, it's not just activity we're talking about - if it was this would be silly and we could just let it die. The problem is a problematic wiki scope (and you know full well of the problematic aspects, the fact Stewards have looked into its closure), its dwindling activity when removing the problematic aspects, and the repeated attempts to find a better future which have failed due to the wiki's issue in both scope and execution. --Raidarr (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by unfair?   15:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the point in doing that anyway? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Striking my vote and will put this on support instead. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the points for closing them are written on the RfC itself, just in case you didn't read them. Yonydesk (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They should not get deleted and if they do, I will make an RFC about reopening them. MarioBobFan (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You say you want them open, but you don't give any reason why. Please explain. Marxo Grouch (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I want then to not be closed, since we need wikis for websites, I visit them a lot, and edit a lot there (especially the Rotten Websites Wiki. MarioBobFan (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really satisfy my question because you still haven't given a real reason why Qualitipedia needs the wikis. Marxo Grouch (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * MarioBobFan, your habit of making edits purely to spoof your count to appear as a contributor (egregiously visible here) will be noted when supports and opposes are weighed in this RfC. Edit: I should also add that if the next RfC doesn't add any new points to merit a reopen, that RfC will simply be closed on the spot. --Raidarr (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Some of these websites are actually pretty bad over the years, and besides if you end up removing them then people will end up leaving the wikis and move back to other wiki platforms to bring back the wiki. The best option is to keep the wiki, or move the content somewhere else. --Nidoking (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to move it to another platform, I'll be happy to give them an XML dump of the last state of the wiki. --Raidarr (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I oppose that because we spend years/months creating/editing so much articles in these wikis and that would be a waste if we close them. FrankInHD2010 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nearly half of the content on RWW was deleted least year, while FWW barely ever had any content to begin with. A good portion of the content there is either not worth saving, or can be moved to one of the other wikis of it fits the respective theme (i.e.: moving a page about a gaming website to CGW). We won't be losing much. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe that the closure of these wikis will be a dark light in the history of the internet. Whenever a website has corrupt motives (i.e. Facebook & Google) or promotes disgusting content (i.e. 4chan, Jesus-is-savior, & Parler), they deserve to be called out for their practices. It can also be used to inform of paltry acts that have been done (i.e. the repeal of Net Neutrality), and potentially encourage users to fight for change. Having a website for good websites can also inspire change for the better and lay out what to strive for. However, what gives it weak support for my end is that these websites seriously need reform, as most of the articles are of poor quality, and should be reformed. The website hasn't evolved much and, for the most part, has been a relic of the Gamergate era. It needs to be reformed so that it can hold a candle to the wikis for video games, movies, TV shows, and (arguably) books. Awildderperappears (talk) 20:51 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * what relevancy in internet history is there in a barely known wiki? most of the internet doesn't know about qualitipedia in general. removing the website wikis will only affect its idk, 1000 people audience, while the massive rest of the internet will keep surfing. if the voice of these wikis is not heard, then having them gone will not affect the greater internet either. Yonydesk (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's where we come in. We can use this as a resource to educate users of different websites perhaps to start some sort of movement that will eventually corner the big tech oligarchies into respecting our privacy and not selling our lives. We can also hold them accountable for their many other sins on a larger level if we can spread the pages. Awildderperappears 23:45 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * except they have already failed to work as such, a reliable source. for years. the making of this RfC is a consequence of said failure. and besides we're not the only people in the internet that calls out companies anyway (not like most of them care more about user voices over money and power). there's no denying the concept could be started again in the future though; most of QP's failures are not only adminship-side, but community-side too. current community couldn't handle such responsibilities, and i hope the natural evolution in the future brings more capable people. Yonydesk (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 'we' have proven countless times that this is not the platform to distribute reliable information that will actually educate the internet. Such lofty goals are well beyond QP's design and it would be at worst pretentious to assume it would. I do invite everyone in the opposition to share ideas for how the wikis could be improved in scope and management, and I intend to solicit all relevant opposes for this especially should the vote fail to be successful. I believe at this point it depends on the ratio of core contributors vs non contributors. --Raidarr (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, there should be reliable sources proving claims. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be fine if the wiki rights were given to someone rather than closing. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) On one hand, these wikis do not have much traffic. On the other hand, they were included in the rebrand, and the last thing we need is to go back to the Triangle. Also, they do provide interesting facts, so even if we cut them from the network we should still leave them open. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Websites are a type of medium. The wikis are a source of information that interested users can read all in one network and even contribute if they have new information that they want to add. I don't see a reason why it should be shut down. The wikis can be a good source for documenting information that isn't well known or being obscured. Sofaking we todd it (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You sure you don't mean "media" and not "medium"? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree that there is little moderation, There is little vandalism. The wikis are a type of media and should stay. Bowserjrfire21742 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as I want these wikis to stay, having a lack of vandalism and being a piece of media are not really good enough arguments - having a lack of vandalism and being a piece of media does not make them a good idea nor necessary. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Although there are some problems with the website wikis, they aren't numerous enough or significant enough to warrant their closure. Tali64³ (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Although the Wikis are pretty much inactive, people have spent a lot of time and effort into making it look good and fill out the pages. I don't think it's a good idea to delete all that. Most people don't know about this place, but for people like me I really enjoy my time spent here. QuirkyInTheEdge 17:40, 24 May 2022 PT
 * Judging by your global account info, did you seriously create an account here on Miraheze just to oppose this RfC? The same thing can also be applied to the previous two opposes as well as they're also two completely unknown users who arrived seemingly out of nowhere solely to oppose this one RfC. In my eyes, these three opposes are invalid. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Tali64³ is far from an unknown user, maybe to you, but they have been around since September 24, 2019, and according to their CentralAuth, they have made 102 edits to TSEW. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) While the website wikis do need a huge cleanup and therefore they probably don't belong in Qualitipedia (or at least, for now), there are a lot of websites that have been criticised for bad quality or praised for good quality. Examples of places where you can find criticism (and possibly praise) for a website include YouTube, which can often have videos criticising websites and Sitejabber, which has reviews for websites. Examples in a limited number of cases can also include websites that are partially from a different type of media, such as news magazines and newspapers (which can be criticised and exposed by others), apps intended to be a website (which have reviews on the App Store, and yes that can be unreliable, but we don't always have to use them) and streaming services (which are even more likely to have videos related to them than regular websites). A website can also qualify to be on these wikis if it is bad for less subjective reasons (ex. it being biased, it ripping off another website, it being a provable scam). FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) This would be completely unnecessary. BookFandumb1 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why it's "unnecessary"? --Blazikeye535 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Maybe I'm just active contributing to RWW and less active on the others, which are one of my personal reasons of keeping it. However, there are things that I really think we should continue to cover like mh:rottenwebsites:YouTube, mh:rottenwebsites:Common Sense Media, mh:rottenwebsites:Non-fungible token, etc. As for verifiability, we could start requiring sources like on CGW, but with some leniency on what's acceptable (maybe a Reddit post with lots of upvotes and comments can be considered as enough evidence to be true). If we want to cut ties with RWW, I think we should hand off ownership to someone interested in keeping it. Put it up for adoption.  -  03:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) They're fine. So why do that? User:Kramirez0113 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof that they're "fine" as you put it? Marxo Grouch (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a lot of effort put in to those wikis, and internet is a mainstream thing along with games, shows, and movies. Also, I think the political bias has been toned down in the past year or so. The media is excessively biased towards liberals, I don't want Qualtipedia to become that. User:TehGamerOne18 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Except removing the political bias is what caused activity on the website wikis to deteriorate to the point where the wikis are now shells of what they used to be, so there isn't really a middle ground here, and how exactly would closing the wikis be pandering towards liberals? Marxo Grouch (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikis exist for people to read them, not to edit them. NoNameNoFace (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you got that wrong pal. See, wikis can't be read if they aren't edited first. Still though, how does that qualify as an oppose to the request? Can you defend your statement? 10:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If wikis exist to be read rather than edited, then that would mean everyone here is wasting their time doing something that they supposedly shouldn't be doing. Also, that is probably the stupidest opposition argument I have ever heard. Next time, think of an actual reason that is relevant to your point. Marxo Grouch (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some wikis don't deserve to be read. 13:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel like the website wikis need to be open because it will just shrink our coverage. Also, internet is a large thing to focus on. JrStudios (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, Qualitipedia does not need to cover every single form of media in existence. Having a small amount of wikis, each with much clearer standards for placement than websites, is just fine. Secondly, while the internet is large, we now only cover websites and events. The larger whole of the internet like the people on it (ie 70% of the wikis) have been removed from the wikis. Without them, the wikis have essentially lost a good chunk of their userbase and become a shell of their former selves. Marxo Grouch (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It is easy to moderate a wiki, look at the "recent changes" section, see the comments log and ban those users who do bad things, also there are good pages in those wikis, those wikis should not close since they have good pages, everyone can add sources to the pages and the moderators can spent more time into moderating those pages and revert malicious edits. HeavenSmile (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Barely anything you said excuses the larger scale issues behind the wiki. There is a problematic scope for what kind of content can go on there, and removing problematic content has caused activity to deteriorate significantly. Attempts at giving these wikis a better future have been futile, with recent changes not really showing anything meaningful towards improvement, and even the stewards have looked into closing it in the past. Marxo Grouch (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you moderated a wiki before? It's still a decent amount of work even without lots of activity on it. 08:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "It is easy to moderate a wiki" Moderation isn't easy. I'd presume that.
 * "those wikis should not close since they have good pages" Ah yes, since the pages are decent, the wiki shouldn't be closed.
 * "everyone can add sources to the pages" And that helps your argument how?
 * Reviweing97Shows (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , and  As much as I am not a moderator on RWW, I used to look at the recent changes every single day and make sure nothing has gone wrong, and it was hell. So in other words, it is not easy to check the recent changes page daily. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) even if i don't like the wikis, i can't let them shut down like this . yeah, the wikis may be the least popular, but i think closing them takes away the charm of qualitipedia. if we keep closing them like this, soon, there will be no wikis except the game, tv show, and movies wikis and qualitipedia won't be as good as it used to be before IMO. I already said this reason a few months ago when we were deciding whether we should close the book and music wikis. John 127 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it takes away the charm of Quadpedia?   17:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Seriously, don't shut down a great wiki! SpongeBob and Video Game Fan 2008 (sandbox) 17:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we? These wikis have been very problematic in the past year, and user activity has declined since the problematic aspects of the content were removed. In short, they are now a shell of what they used to be. Marxo Grouch (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why we shouldn't? Otherwise, when it's time to close this RfC, your oppose will likely be ignored.   17:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This oppose just boils down to opposing just because you like the wikis (something that most of the other opposes do as well). This obviously isn’t going to count as a valid vote. —Blazikeye535 (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as I want these wikis to stay too, this is indeed quite a weak argument. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 00:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, this isn't what'd I call the "strongest" reason. In fact it's literally someone's short opinion, and has no justification to it, and it's very much a week argument, as the other says. If you add on more to your reason on why we shouldn't close the wikis, then your argument gets stronger. But right now you have a very weak argument compared to the other opposes. And as Blazieye said, it's likely the final results will ignore this anyways since it, well, is a weak argument.
 * 1) *P.S. Not helping your case was your infamous "Opposers, GO!" comment, which did not help how this went. - Reviweing97Shows (talk) 9:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I just want to know what's the bad and good qualities for the websites. KENNY STEWART 6284 (talk) 8:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming the wikis are closed, you still will. You just won't be able to edit them. And plus, someone may adopt them down the line. Who knows? 13:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm sorry but getting rid off the wiki's is a bad idea. I get there is gonna be toxic people online everywhere. I get it But there is nice people out there who really like this wiki. Also some of these wiki's are a source of material for many people including me. So it wouldn't be a very good idea. Trust me it's a bad idea. Another idea is instead of closing down the wiki's give the ownership to somebody else. That way you won't have to worry about the wiki anymore. Since somebody else would now own it. Eddsworl (talk) 13:30 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And who on earth are you? As with a bunch of other opposers, you’re a completely unknown user to our wikis who just shows up out of nowhere solely to oppose this RfC. And judging from your global account info, especially since you’ve never been on RWW, you have no idea what exactly you’re talking about, just making baseless assumptions and hoping they’re correct. To me, this oppose is invalid. —Blazikeye535 (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The wikis are OK, I guess? It probably should stay but there could be more moderators. I also agree with Bowserjrfire21742, they have little vandalism so they should keep the record and stay living. According to me, the wikis are a good place to research websites that are horrible in case you have an assignment or just looking. IsntEasytoBeEggdog (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You "guess"? So basically you’re just guessing that the wiki is alright without even taking a good look at it. The same thing I’ve said above about completely random/unknown users also applies to you BTW. —Blazikeye535 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 100% Oppose: don’t close it! I love these sites! They really help with my writing
 * Can't you learn to write somewhere else? Marxo Grouch (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a bit rude. MoistyPorky.jpeg Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 21:05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC) MoistyPorky.jpeg
 * Can you really blame Marxo though? About half of the opposes are just users saying "bUt i lIkE dEeZ wIkI, Do nO ClOs!!!!!!!!!", and not putting out any valid argument whatsoever. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 opposes within the span of 3 hours? Totally not sockpuppets... 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * will be taking note of the timely arrival and brand new nature of many oppositions along with some of the supports. --Raidarr (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As Marxo said, "DONT CLOSE THE WIKI I LIKE EM BAD IDEA WAHA!!!!!!!" is NOT an oppose. It's just an immature and rotten excuse to toy with feelings, and it's not working. I mean, look at some of the previous opposes. See mainly stronger ones that don't wine about how the wiki shouldn't be closed? Those are GOOD opposes. Sadly, it appears 75% of the opposers are like "BOOHOO NO CLOSE", which clogs the opposes up and is just immature. Take an example from the supporters, we manage to provide good ideas and sources to our argument. And with the many immature opposes here, lots have to be ignored, weakening the argument. Also, how do they help with writing? I haven't gained any knowledge on writing from the wiki. In fact something you should learn about writing is debate, and how not to write terrible opposes. - Reviweing97Shows (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 100%, I agree. These entries are low quality. And honestly, I just realized this, but the nature of these entries and the people who make them shows me that they don’t listen to us anyway, which by proxy means that the majority of people who want the wikis to stay are either sock puppets or users who need help with English. So no, I guess I don’t blame you for responding so rudely. MoistyPorky.jpeg Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 22:36:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC) MoistyPorky.jpeg
 * 1) I do not think it is nescessary to close it down. We should give it another chance and maybe it can be improved. BTNF1998 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I would decide to oppose the request, Because for me is the wikis are worth it enough, I guess? They could had to need more moderators. I don't blame you or anyone for responding that, but the people who makes them shows that they don't listen to us. So, I oppose that idea. And no, I don't blame you or anyone. I decide to oppose the idea of closing the Websites Wikis (like for example: CGW, AGW, TS&EW, BS&EW, etc.) rather than supporting it. - YellowMagicOrchestra&HatsuneMikuFan2006 (talk) 15:51, 8 June, 2022. CET
 * Firstly, learn how to use grammar. "I don't blame you or anyone for responding that, but the people who makes them shows that they don't listen to us". That makes no sense. Also, "Because for me is the wikis are worth it enough, I guess?", indicates you THINK the wiki should stay. So you gotta work on your oppose. Reviweing97Shows (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) While I do think the issues are justifiable, that’s no reason to close the website. While the reasons are justifiable, I love both Rotten Websites Wiki  & Fresh Websites Wiki and must be preserved at all costs. Reddit, DeviantArt, Discord, Twitter and Facebook could just be disallowed instead. Pike Dyson (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See the similar arguments and their responses above. 12:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should set up a warning telling people to make a better argument than "I like the wikis", but that's just a suggestion. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah. Just let people know that just because you oppose does not mean it will be counted. 19:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It can be a way for telling people what websites to avoid. Power476 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that there's plenty of other sites and people that are likely more helpful in suggesting what websites to go to, not to mention that these wikis are barely capable of functioning properly without violating Miraheze's policies. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Wow, what an amazingly heartless and gluttonously extreme idea this truly is! It's even worse than the idea of censoring custom headers! Now you want to strip us out of our freedoms to criticize any website that deserves all the hate it gets for justifiably good reasons and to hold them responsible because of them?! I love Rotten Websites Wiki as much as the other Qualitipedia wikis and I see it as an equally useful resource! No wiki should be catapulted to the moon because of mistakes with a fair solution that guarantees it's quality,  EVER ! Beautifulsky (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Real mature opposition. This is just another "don't close because I like them" argument, and it's quite possibly the most immature one yet (even above the one posted on my talk page on Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki by Memegod). Calling the proposal heartless is a stretch since you can likely complain elsewhere other than some wiki. The wikis shouldn't dictate the things you should like, and all our attempts to repair the damage done to the wikis have damaged editor interest. Also you have zero edits on Rotten Websites Wiki and your account isn't even attached to Fresh Websites Wiki, which makes your stake in this even weaker than your argument. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with what Marxo said. Can you possibly be any more overly-dramatic? You, along with all of the other randos who appeared out of nowhere, should stay out of this RfC. You guys don't know what's going on, and make very little to no contributions to the wikis, so therefore, this is none of your business. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this exactly "heartless"? They're just wikis and are nothing special to human life, besides, everyone should develop their own opinions on certain stuff including websites, and not rely on wikis as a whole. Just as what Marxo said, this is perhaps one of the most immature I've read, and given by the fact you lack activity on both the website wikis, this just makes it weaker. Dragonite (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging by your CentralAuth, you barely even looked at the wikis, and you didn't even visit the Fresh Websites Wiki. And no offense to Reviewing97Shows, but you put his FatBurn0000 blog to shame with your writing style. 00:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion on how "gluttonusly" (????) this idea is! Now go make a better oppose that doesn't sound as immature or ridiculous, cuz your not helping the opposer's case, as 90% of these are "bUt meEE lIke WiKi!! nO clooOSEE!". Reviweing97Shows (talk) 15:54, June 15 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't close we need to keep them! They're all friendly! Akandkur (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This RfC is none of your business, rando, so stay out of this. You also never even went on FWW, making your argument practically worthless. —Blazikeye535 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) While I can fully acknowledge that there are some fair-share of issues with the these qualitipedias, we should instead improvise them, and add new rules against tarring the userbases with the same brush, because it is not only unfair, but also just plain wrong, because there are likely members who are indeed good people. BUT, and this is a big but, we should also need these wikis to validly hold bad websites to account, and we need them for documenting opinions on why the good sites have been praised. - ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What you said about not tarring the userbase has already been done… and it has resulted in a majority of the wiki being gutted of what drew people in in the first place. What I mean is that our attempts at improvement have only drove people away, thus they have started to become a waste of space. As for your last point, there is such a thing as having opinions. The wikis aren't a bible for quality (especially since websites don't have as much as a clear reception as video games, movies, and shows), and you can find other resources outside of the wikis to help you develop your opinion. "Enjoy what you enjoy" they say. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ToxicHolyGrenade made a response to my reply, but on my talk page rather than here. You can view it here if you want to add your two cents or just want to see the situation (though I will close the topic when this RfC closes to prevent dead horse beating). <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this argument sounds like it'd fit more in the Abstain category. Secondly, oh right, the infamous talk page on the other wiki. Gosh, I hate the fact I was the first to discover that. Reviweing97Shows (talk) 21:38, June 15 2022 (UTC)
 * Cut loose, yes. Close, no. Why? Two words: data loss. I haven't been here for six months, but I have been reading lately, and here's what I have to say, and it's probably going to be biased as fuck: There is way too much content for it to be closed. They don't have to be closed, meaning uneditable for months, then deleted, then dropped from the database. I mean, who's gonna do the effort to put this shit on the Wayback Machine? But that's my personal opinion. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See oppose #4. 00:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) As Nidoking said, there are a handful good and bad websites worthy of their pages. There may be a slim chance to improve them. Also, these wikis don't violate the mh:meta:Content Policy, so again, they should simply be cut loose, not closed. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "They don't violate the content policy" is a ridiculous argument. There are many things that don't violate the content policy that still don't deserve to exist. It is most likely that for a wiki to violate the content policy, it would be a very bad, if not outright horrible wiki. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that the website wikis are a bit messy, I believe they can be fixed with a massive overhaul, (i.e having admins approve pages before they can see the light of day, keeping political content to a minimum, etc) DarthMaul570 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The massive overhaul happened a while ago, and it did not fix the fundemental flaws of the wiki, which is that it's hard to judge a product's quality when there's no real way to tell if some site is bad or not. Also, sign your comments with ~ . 20:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I am a new user at freshwebsiteswiki and indeed, this wiki is not that active but at the same time it have a lot of handful of pages. I am ready to contribute there more too. Matttest (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain why we should keep it. Want to keeep the pages? Start putting them on the WayBack Machine.   15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) as this is just plain asinine. All you really need to do is fix the articles. Fix what's noteworthy enough to keep, and delete or completely revamp articles that critique sites in an nonconstructive manner.  d rake! (t/c) 20:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You literally just created your account today. You've made only one edit on Rotten Websites Wiki and your account isn't even attached to Fresh Websites Wiki, so your stake and credibility in this is minimal. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Don’t close them. There have been edits to the wiki for many years now and nothing wrong happend. TheBambiBasics30 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You created your account just to oppose this RfC, didn't you? This just goes to show that this RfC desperately needs to close. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Having many edits over the years doesn't disguise the many problems of it throughout the years. It housed several political and off topic pages when the Outcast Network closed, there was an attempted hostile takeover last year when these problems were addressed, and when the issue was finally resolved the wikis became a shell of their former selves and there were generally less edits as a result. I also see through your global account information that not only have you just made your account, but your account isn't even attached to the website wikis at all so you aren't one to talk in this situation. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I read the website wikis, but if they should be removed. Please put them on the way back machine and/or a document Bowserjrfire21742 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they should be handed off to another person, but not closed entirely. 22:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Same here, I guess. YTF43 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I genuinely enjoy reading and editing the website wikis and their articles. Something like User:Bowserjrfire21742 has mentioned above; if the wikis and the articles seriously need to be closed down, they should at least have the data saved somewhere that can be restored without needing to pain-stackingly recreate the pages if there are users who oppose this. ExploringEditor (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If done, any closure will come with the site still being readable for quite some time, with an XML backup openly available and with any archive.org/database backup aside from that. --Raidarr (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)