Requests for Comment/Getting rid of the literature wikis

I am proposing that we cut the literature wikis from the network. You should probably know why, since they unfortunately do not have much traffic and are very underdeveloped, with the users seemingly not wanting to even try to help the wikis out anyway. It is probably best that we cut them from the network and hand them off to another person, like what we did with the character wikis. I do like the wikis, but it unfortunately seems like they don't have much appeal from users. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Although they aren't flawed like the website wikis, I don't care about 'em.   01:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't as much traffic in those wikis as the other wikis in Qualitipedia, so I don't really see a point in keeping two wikis that barely anyone cares about. Marxo Grouch (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional note from me: I highly doubt that cutting them loose would be beneficial for the literature wikis since they aren't as popular as the character wikis. Therefore I propose just outright closing them since there's nothing to gain from cutting off. Marxo Grouch (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 01:06:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * : While they aren't problematic like the website wikis as ZeusDeeGoose said, they instead feel pointless. Activity and content are minimal on both wikis, and hardly anyone reads books anymore which leads to almost no interest in the wikis. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) These wikis have not found much activity and they may be safe to remove. They had the potential but community hasn't really caught on to this media. Tough decision but I accept that literature isn't that popular within the community even though there still are few who like, this would not affect much of the community honestly if they were deleted. Equal One (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only do I not care about the literature wikis at all, but I also find them pointless due to the fact they aren't very active compared to the main wikis, and literature isn't a really popular topic compared to video games, TV shows, and movies, hence the reason the activity there on the literature wikis are very minimal, although I do agree with others that they aren't problematic compared to the website wikis. Dragonite (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I barely use them, I wouldn't mind if their cut, though not closed. Unless improvements are made, I support they should not be affiliated with Qualitipedia. Reading books isn't as interesting as watching a show or a movie. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this wiki should be gotten rid of and close because there is not much activity of them and it is very hard to control with compared to other wikis. Even though and despite I cherish literature and books, this wiki does not have much pages related to literature and some pointers are weak. I pretty do not use other wikis much and most of these books do not have reception. Not to mention that, anyone can publish books and literary works whenever they want and everyone is proud create anything they want to do. Literature is all about knowledge, not about user's reception. Since not much of community is into books excluding me, I believed that it would be get rid of and close down. The FANDOM version of literature wiki is way much better than this version of this wiki. --PictureField55 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the Fandom book wikis are closed (they were book wikis, not literature wikis there). Dreadful Books Wiki (now known as Dreadful Literature Wiki) was migrated here back in 2019 and was finally closed in 2021, and the two positive book wikis (Greatest Books Wiki and Wonderful Books Wiki) were closed sometime this year. Plus, "they are better" is not an excuse, the Miraheze wikis are the original wikis, and therefore should not be duplicated anywhere. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for notifying me and why did the FANDOM version of this wiki closed? Can you explain? --PictureField55 (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * DBW closed for obvious reasons, but the positive ones I don't really know - inactivity I'm guessing. Regardless, it doesn't matter, the former has been migrated here (though unfortunately, the wiki didn't get closed around the time it was migrated, so some pages and edits have most likely been lost), and the latter two were pointless duplicates. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Same as others. Might as well have users focus on others types of media including videos. Literature is not popular much as by the Miraheze community and it is impossible to maintain and create page about all other books. --EncyclopediaFan2050 (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously create an account just to support this RFC? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 22:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I decided not to vote on AfD's after being reminded and notified and I shouldn't do it in the first place. EncyclopediaFan2050 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm going to buck the line here and say no to detachment for multiple reasons.
 * 2) *Activity is not a requirement for network membership. Hell, most people who are 'in the network' are not held to any network-level expectations and the only person who does certain network consistency work is me.
 * 3) *Related to 1, the network is primarily to keep reception wikis in order and under control and as the de facto only real executive of the network, the only person that membership helps or harms is me. It harms me because it gives me one less reason to help keep the wikis civilized and leaves us with yet another detached mess being strung along by random little edits. In theory other bureaucrats are affected as executives but lets be honest, our bureaucrats are more than happy to ignore fields they aren't interested in, let alone users and admins besides. Simply not being interested personally isn't enough.
 * 4) *The literature wikis are the only low-traffic option we have to test technical ideas and implementation before putting them into larger wikis. I know a lot of admins like to impulsively demo new things on the largest wikis but I don't, and trimming these wikis removes that option.
 * 5) *Hand them off to another person? You realize I've been asking this entire time for someone to volunteer? If we had another person who's remotely involved, competent and willing I'd have empowered them already. Do you really think detaching them + essentially removing their free advertising from the network list is going to get them the attention they need to get someone who cares?
 * --Raidarr (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per what Raidarr said above. It might be a good idea to test ideas for the main set of QP wikis due to the low activity rate. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Raidarr. Remely1000 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I say we should give the Literature wikis another chance. Just because the wiki's not getting a lot of attention and isn't quite as detailed as the others, doesn't mean you up and drop the site all together. A key reason you want to delete this wiki is because the genre as a whole isn't quite as beloved today as movies, television or video games... well what do think served as the ground roots for those genres and was basically the original form a entertainment? Literature, that's what! By deleting the wiki, you'd be deleting a huge chapter of our hertitage. Just try to find a way to attract some users or at least allow them to add new pages to the wiki. THAT'S your problem, too many users need to be auto-conformed. Maybe do something about that before anything else. SpaceProtagonist (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I find these QP wikis to be sites for critiquing art and things relating to that kind of art. Literature is art, so I still think the literature wikis do have some potential if we just give them more attention. DeadPixel (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Honestly, I feel that almost any necessary reception wiki about anything related to quality deserves a place on Qualitipedia. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) The Website wikis are fine, but why bother removing the Literature wikis? If they're removed, then we'll become the smallest wiki network in history.
 * 7) Did we already vote on this along with Music wikis, like a few months ago? But, my stand is now favored opposing it, then strongly opposing these two wikis. Because for now, it's wasting some users' time, including me, to keep re-adding these two literature wikis, so it needs to be deleted. Soley for others some users to see it as irrelevant, and nothing else. Chad The Gman (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Couple of things:
 * The previous RFC also proposed closing it, which can cause confusion.
 * Just because we've done this before doesn't mean we can't do it again - if it's believed that it deserves a second chance, it can be done again. Wikipedia also has a similar policy called WP:NOTAGAIN.
 * FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Honestly, I am getting fed up with these closures. I can kind of understand it is for the better, but quite honestly, I think this is a bad idea. What next? The game wikis being shut down? You shut down the website wikis, that Atrocious YouTubers wiki and now contemplating this? Maybe if there was actually some contributors this would never be a thing in the first place.  HonestOpinionator (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would we close them down?
 * The Website Wikis were fundamentally flawed, leading to their closure.
 * We (Qualitipedia) weren't affiliated with the Youtuber Wikis to begin with. It was closed for Content Policy violations.
 * Well, yes. 15:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have points that are actually flawless… can not argue with that. HonestOpinionator (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Now, I haven't visited the sites much, but I'd disagree with them closing. Not that them closing is like, the end of the world or some shit. Books have actual reception to them and have been an important thing to the entertainment industry. However, the actual book wikis themselves aren't particularly great, as they have a ton of mediocre pages. So, I would probably suggest keeping them, but rewriting most of the pages and adding more content to them; cuz the book wikis could be legit important wikis if it weren't for most of the pages being mediocre. SkullcrawlerBuddyOfficial (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Literature is a different type of media, they should really stay for the forseeable future. Itsrobloxhere908 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I just want to keep this wiki anyway, not closing this. I must want to look up for this wiki again. Unacceptable! DoratomBao (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) . First the music wikis. Then the website wikis. Now the literature wikis. Again. This reminds me of that RFC which was held back during December 2021 - January 2022. Even if the music wikis were shut down, i was glad we still had the literature wikis. I barely visit the wikis but i think that they are not bad wikis and i was glad we had reception wikis about books since they are one of my favourite forms of media. That's not the reason though. I believe that Qualitipedia would surely lose the charm and not be as good as it used to be until 2021, as the only wikis which are not closed would be the game/tv shows/movies wikis and we would surely end up as the smallest wiki hosting service website in history. And i am glad people are finally starting to agree with me. I prefer supporting the wikis instead of making them smaller every minute. John 127 (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, nobody agrees with you and whatever the point you presented is. You should note the very evident difference between people supporting a request and people supporting one vote in particular, and in this case your vote is irrelevant and invalid. If you continue with this apathetic, stubborn and at times even disruptive behavior of confirming anything you say without a defense (for example here, where you are not explaining your point of why Qualitipedia being a small network is a bad thing), nobody will ever genuinely support your opinion and your votes will be crossed out when deciding the outcome of a reqcom. Zangler (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I decided to opt for oppose instead, because if three or websites closes, it will cause the wiki to get smaller. Plus, I didn't know that books can have reception and they are the main types of media. So, I would agree with other users. The literature wikis are fine even though they have smaller activity. --PictureField55 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Why? CRAB-2 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the exact question you raise with your irrelevant and unexplained vote. Do people here ever bother listening to the staff's advice and observations? Zangler (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll elaborate. The wikis should not be closed because they deserve a second chance. CRAB-2 (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's still not a very good reason. We gave the website wikis a second chance, and they closed.   14:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) per w:WP:SNOW    16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I like the literature wikis, please do not close them. They are a great source of entertainment for me. CLGCreator Returns! (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if I'm also opposing, I think you should have a better argument for keeping them open other than "I like them". Marxo Grouch (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I don’t care tbh never looked at it nor heard about it until recently -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Never really visit those wikis more than five times. Remely1000 (or simply Rem69) (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Activty and content are minimal on both wikis, and hardly anyone reads books anymore which leads to almost no interest in the wikis. But while they feel pointless, there's also no point in getting rid of them for the same reasons in addition to not being problematic unlike the website wikis. In all honesty, I don't care what happens to them at this point. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't really care and wasn't really aware there was a literature wiki until before the closing of the website wikis. However, I don't see why we should close them, they aren't really problematic. There is reception, unlike the main reason the toy wikis were closed. -  04:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm kind of mixed on whether they should be closed or not, I don't personally care for the wikis and I won't really make that big of a deal if they do close. However, at the same time, I think they have potential, literature is another piece of entertainment, and unlike websites, they do have actual reception. --JigglypuffGuy04 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I previously supported, however, after reading the opposes, I'm now mixed about this decision, because while I get that literature isn't that much of a popular topic compared to games, movies, and TV shows, which is hence the reason why the activity seen on the Literature Wikis are very minimal, literature still has actual reception unlike websites, and most importantly, they're one of oldest forms of entertainment that still remains popular today, and this also makes me realize that deleting the Literature Wikis will make Qualitipedia even more smaller than it already is. Dragonite (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)