Requests for Comment/Removing the Music & Book Wikis from Qualitipedia

I had been discussing this with Raidarr over Discord and I beleive this is a proposal worth exploring. I beleive that we should cut out the music and/or book wikis from Qualitipedia entirely, either making them completely independent or closing them entirely. You can agree to the whole proposal, or parts of it.

This RFC is essentially two proposals in one, to keep things condensed and to take up less space by making two different RFCs.

Proposal
I beleive that the music and book wikis should be cut from Qualitipedia for the following:
 * 1) They are not used really much at all by Qualitipedia users, with some of the wikis going a whole entire day without getting any edits. It can also take a while before vandalism can be noticed or questions can be answered by other users or admins.
 * 2) As a side effect of the above, these wikis are usually under-kept when it comes to having the SiteNotices and the staff lists, with some notices being there for about 5 months before an admin comes to remove them, though this can easily be fixed.
 * 3) Mostly a case for the music wikis, it is incredibly hard to write unique pages for these wikis, as music and books really only have a few aspects about them that are mentioning, which would be lyrics/story and compossition, and that's pretty much it.
 * 4) Some songs (Such as songs on YouTube or TikTok songs) and books (Particulary fan-fictions) don't really have any reception to back up soe claims, and can also lead to some pages looking heavily opinionated as well.
 * 5) Mentioned by Raidarr below, some content from the music wikis is directly copied from the FANDOM versions of those wikis, and those wikis have a much higher userbase to boot.

Now, the options of what to do with these wikis if we do decide to cut them off are to either close them or hand them off to new users. I can say that both have their pros and cons, as handing them off can give someone who actually has interest build them up, while closing them won't really lose any of the userbase.

As I said, you can agree with parts of this proposal (Ex: Cut lose only one wiki set, cut both loose but close one, etc.) or the whole thing entirely if you agree with the points above. Otherwise feel free to oppose the idea. TigerBlazer 21:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing them

 * 1) As proposer, I view that these wikis conceptually don't really have anything going for them, and don't have many windows of opportunity to make pages look any better than they do now, and there is little interest in them anyway. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  21:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Despite my earlier attitudes I don't like to close wikis outright. However, the content is essentially copied from the Wikia ports of the music wikis, which have an actual active community and administration. We are competing with an already filled market and have enough to worry about with wikis in QP itself that have traffic and a future. Reception wise the music wikis have very little to go on. A vast majority of points are opinion based and incredibly weak. I attempted to introduce some quality control to Delightful Music Wiki; it failed for this reason. Finally, if I'm doing my job as a bureaucrat, they're included in QP wide changes that are made. With a little math, that's an extra 15% work for the current set of wikis that is wasted on pair with no real future. So yes, I support outright closure and recommending that people migrate to the actual living wikis. --Raidarr (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Nevermind actually, although I think music wikis should be in Qualitipedia because they're media, I think these ones should be closed and the original ones should have their subdomain/database name and sitename changed. FatBurn0000 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) The now-closed FANDOM versions of the wikis have a long history of bias, and adding pointers that don't have anything to do with the song's quality like "they're overplayed" for example, and while the Miraheze versions are a slight improvement to the FANDOM ones, it still has some problems carried over from the original ones, besides, these wikis aren't that very active compared to the mainstream wikis, and I don't have any interest in them. Dragonite (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dragonite: For your information, the original wikis on Fandom migrated to Miraheze before they even closed. The new music wikis aren't "successors" to them, they're rip-offs. Also, poor quality in pages can be improved, and the fact that they're rip-offs is most likely one of the reasons they're unpopular. FatBurn0000 (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) There's barely any point of creating a reception wiki for music. There are unholy songs that some people like, like Cardi B's Wild Analogous Proportion. Its lyrics are beyond vulgar, yet the song debuted atop the US Billboard Hot 100. And I have to admit, it's pretty damn catchy. The point is, music — unlike movies, games, TV shows — is not something that can be publicly hated/loved. I myself do not like (actually have no interest in) K-pop songs from BTS or Blackpink, but that doesn't mean that people should consider my opinion true. 🦖️  my Name is Katsumi (BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘)  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  03:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Katsumi a.k.a Upperdecker2562: I disagree with that. While I do agree that that the topic of bad and good music can be somewhat subjective, I don't really think they're always like that. There are songs that are off-key, have poor lyrics, and there are other things that make it easier for people to have the same or similar opinions about music. FatBurn0000 (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. There are songs that are off-key and/or have poor/bland lyrics but who cares anyway? As long as it's an Internet sensation, and there's somebody appreciating the artists behind it, opinions may still vary (there are a few exceptions though). 🦖️ my Name is Katsumi (BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘)</rp>  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  09:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I think we should shut down the lesser-used wikis in order to free up storage space for the more popular wikis. Especially the music wikis as music is probably the most subjective form of media in terms of quality. JimmethMM (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Handing them off

 * 1) I believe that this wiki could be great, it just needs a lot of renovations. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And what "renovations", you ask? 🦖️ <span style="font-family:monospace;font-size:1em;background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,148,188,1) 35%, rgba(23,133,173,1) 100%);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">my Name is Katsumi (</rp><rt style="color:black;font-size:.95em;text-shadow:0 0 5pt #40bcff;">BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘</rt>)</rp>  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  14:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I would fix the front page. It looks super unfinished, and makes finding songs basically impossible without searching. I think it should look more like the CGW front page. Second, have more good/bad reasons required, and make them more creative. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing them

 * 1) The same thing for books. I have a ton of comic books in my house, with some of them being created by Vietnamese artists, like this one. It looks cheap and awful compared to other comics you've read, but the characters, the plots, the feel of these comics have already burned into the mind of every 20 to 40-something-year-old folks in Vietnam. We Vietnamese are very proud of whatever we can create. 🦖️  <span style="font-family:monospace;font-size:1em;background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,148,188,1) 35%, rgba(23,133,173,1) 100%);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">my Name is Katsumi (</rp><rt style="color:black;font-size:.95em;text-shadow:0 0 5pt #40bcff;">BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘</rt>)</rp>  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  03:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Handing them off

 * 1) While I do not see them as a useful part of Qualitipedia and do not add anything to the wikis themselves, they work better in concept and page quality than the music wikis, and I can see someone with the time and attention adopting them. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer  21:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) While the wikis are rarely acknowledged by QP staff, it would be rather unfair to close the, since the wikis still see a decent amount of activity (even if activity slows for a day or two). Therefore I suggest separating them from QP like we did with the character wikis. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch  (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree too Esaïe the man (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) While they have good concepts, they aren't handled as much in this community since not a whole lot of people are into books. But giving it to someone else may improve them since they could be interested in that type of media. I'm fine with giving it to someone or a community who knows this media better since a wiki based on literature like books, comics, manga, webcomics or novels has good potential although not as a huge as films. Techsupport Agent 05 (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Music wikis

 * 1)  These wikis are necessary as we need to explain the bad and good qualities of music. I have interest in them personally, the only thing that I think needs to be fixed is that they should somehow be merged with the original wikis. FatBurn0000 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Ehhh, no. Music is technically still part of media either way. Not a snowball's chance in hell that would even work. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @DarkMatterMan4500: While I agree that music is media and wikis about music should be in Qualitipedia, the problem is that the original wikis still exist, and they should be used. They just need their domain/database name and sitename changed and also needs to move poorly-made pages to sandbox pages. FatBurn0000 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that being media does not necessarily mean usable reception, to reiterate one of several reasons why the music wikis are uniquely a problem. They simply don't bring anything to the network. This rationale is thus rather weak. --Raidarr (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Raidarr: Still, I disagree that they bring nothing to the network, or at least, they never will bring anything to the network. FatBurn0000 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we must agree to disagree. In any case, I think it was you who pointed out they were topically redundant clones with the far more active wikia ports. QP having its own take done badly that's just a drag on management when another take is doing just fine makes no logical sense. --Raidarr (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) No way. I agree with other opposes. NJPet (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @NJPet: Could you please see my comment about DarkMatterMan's oppose? The only "other oppose" that wasn't crossed out is DarkMatterMan's, and I have left a comment there about why closing them may still be a good idea. FatBurn0000 (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) DmitriLeon2000 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reason, please? <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) NO. This just goes against Qualitipedia's name. The Dunkman (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @The Dunkman: I think you should explain why it goes against their name. FatBurn0000 (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @FatBurn0000 The reason why it goes against the name is because Qualitipedia is supposed to be about wikis of pretty much anything, like electronics and furnitures, so if we remove them, then it feels rather incomplete, and it would also be a repeat of closing down the Characters and Websites wikis. The Dunkman (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are several key flaws to this argument. 1, Qualitipedia is about what it wants to be. It has no requirement to be about everything and I guarantee some of what you suggested would be unpopular. 2, the character and website wikis have demonstrated far better activity and were closed by a rogue admin. Consider instead the toy wikis, more representative of the issue and handled better, also demonstrating that wikis about everything are not practical and can often become a waste of server space if the topic is uninteresting or lacks properly defined reception. My two cents, despite the current probable failure of the RfC. --Raidarr (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Dunkman: While I agree with your points, as I have said before, the reason why I still support the closure is because good ideas or not, the wikis are rip-offs of the original wikis. If the userbase agrees that we should have music wikis in Qualitipedia, then we could change their sitename and database name and do a cleanup. FatBurn0000 (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I generally don't care about both wikis but both the music and book are a part of entertainment, and like other media, can be reviewed as well. Considering the low popularity compared to gaming, TV shows and movie wikis, I am not surprised why you want to request about them being independent or entirely closed, although in my opinion better to promote the wikis and hire more admins. —A llistayrian  (💬) 11:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Allistayrian: While I agree with your points, it isn't just whether or not they're a bad idea and should be closed; another problem is that they are rip-offs of the original wikis, which may have problems, but these problems can be fixed. I disagree with most of the points about the music and literature wikis but I still support the music wikis' closure because they are rip-offs. FatBurn0000 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is that not all entertainment has credible let alone objective reception to refer to and judge from, and the quality of pages both by interest and the higher subjectivity of the material will always lag behind reception for things that are better defined, in the vein of games and films. They're second only to the website wikis in this being a problem. That said, I would consider it less of a problem for the book wikis and would rather not strike them down. I'd rather reconsider the network's involvement of Cancelled Movies Wiki, which is frankly an even more egregious sap of a far better community (lost media archives) and is wholly abandoned in ways even the music wikis are not (at least in the music wikis I found one respectable quality control admin, a useful contingent since this RfC is unlikely to make it). In fact... --Raidarr (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Music is a category of creative works, and Qualitipedia is about the wuality quality of creative works, so how would it not make sense for there to be such a wiki about music? Sure, the music wikis have a history of ups and downs, but that does no excuse this action here that I am opposing now. CarlFilip19 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I oppose that because is it for people to understand if a song is good, average, or bad. FrankInHD2010 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And even if a song is bad, how come people (including you) are still listening to it? It's like people already know EA is greedy and bad yet people are still giving them money. 🦖️ <span style="font-family:monospace;font-size:1em;background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,148,188,1) 35%, rgba(23,133,173,1) 100%);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">my Name is Katsumi (</rp><rt style="color:black;font-size:.95em;text-shadow:0 0 5pt #40bcff;">BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘</rt>)</rp>  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  14:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The principle applies to any wiki up to Crappy Games Wiki itself tbh. QP marking as crappy is no measure if people enjoy the material anyway or not. The 'importance' of making pages or entire wikis about it is somewhat moot so long as there is a market and a clear source to pull from. Yet Games wikis have considerably more sources, discussion and variables to pull from in making arguments, where the Music wikis would not. --Raidarr (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Book wikis

 * 1) Despite that I don't have a huge interest in these wikis, they are still necessary as we need to explain the bad and good qualities of books. FatBurn0000 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) For two reasons: Books are creative works, and Dreadful Literature Wiki and Magnificent Literature Wiki are not bad wikis. CarlFilip19 (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm opposing this, as this would potentially damage Qualitipedia, and we need to prevent damage here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Same with music wikis. NJPet (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I think the book wikis have potential to stay. Plus, I'm still working on my sandbox on MLW and I even plan on adding another to it there. User:SuperStreetKombat (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Same with music wikis. The Dunkman (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) It doesn't have enough attention to stand out from the other wikis, sadly, but the wiki is important because books is a large media and thus, it needs a hub to manage its reception. As for cutting the wiki off, I believe cutting it out of Qualitipedia will not help as it will only deter more users from using it. As for shutting it down entirely, I generally oppose the idea but I think it does have its perks. I think we only need to up our maintenance and it'll be fine. The7Guy (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Same with music wikis. —A llistayrian  (💬) 11:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) I oppose that because is it for people to understand if a book is good, average, or bad. FrankInHD2010 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) I go occasionally the Dreadful Literature Wikis to sometimes practice my writing skills, for the past 4-6 months (maybe) and see it go. It's really disappointing for me. For the Music Wikis, however... Chad The Gman (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) I understand that the book wikis probably aren't that interesting, but they still have necessity and they let people know more about which books are good and which ones aren't and they give fair to good amount of information.<span style="text-shadow: 0 0 2px blue; color: #00bbff; font-family:Trebuchet !important;">Mr. Jay 641  (📄) 23:25, 4 January  2022 (UTC)

Music wikis

 * 1) I genuinely don't know what to say here. On one hand quality control is a problem and there isn't much to talk about regarding this subject. On the other hand, activity there is still semi-frequent (disregarding a day or two without edits). <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch  (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd find a compromise of simply removing from QP acceptable, and that's all it would be if closure does not get an overwhelming majority. --Raidarr (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The music wiki has much more problems than the book wikis, and although like I said earlier, cutting them off isn't too much of a good idea, I seriously do not know what to choose here. The7Guy (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) As for music wikis, I have not much say on them as I'm not as interested on that type of media. Though I will say music is somewhat subjective and slightly less quality to write on than other media types. Though they can be removed if the community agrees. Techsupport Agent 05 (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Similar beliefs, like the examples above (I don't visit there at all, thus I don't know at all, why it could be removed or not). Chad The Gman (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Book wikis

 * 1) ; I don't have great love for these wikis, but I think they would be useful to keep for technical testing of QP changes and because unlike other wikis, even the website wikis, these actually have a better shot at offering proper reception and content. Thus I am uneasy with kicking them out in the same proposal, even if they are only matched by Cancelled Movies Wiki and WM&SW in lacking content. --Raidarr (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't know what to say about the book wikis, but I don't care about them either. Dragonite (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments
Using this header for obvious reasons. It seems to me that this proposal is on the path to fail on both counts, to be called in a few days. While the vote is relatively close, even if it becomes equal or slightly in favor it would not be grounds for action. In that case I encourage the various users who opposed, particularly so strongly to consider taking a look at the wikis they are supporting. For quality control, for minor technical edits, for content production as a side gig, anything really they can spare to make the wikis actually mean something. If this support for them was reflected on the wikis themselves, the issue would surely be solved. --Raidarr (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I know I've already said this multiple times, but users wanting music wikis to exist is not a reason to oppose the closure due to the existence of the original wikis. FatBurn0000 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I archived two pages from the "positive" literature and music wikis on TigerBlazer's wiki just in case the wikis were closed. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Marxo Grouch: You could have asked TigerBlazer to import them rather than copypasting them. FatBurn0000 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fine, the point is for anyone's archival purposes and he did not need to ask for permission. Importing isn't really necessary for the wiki anyway. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer 00:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @TigerBlazer: It isn't about asking for permission, it's about keeping the history. FatBurn0000 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)