Requests for Comment/Reallow pages of real-life people on the positive Reception Wikis

I know the Requests for Comment for shutting down Qualitipedia is pretty active at the moment, but there was a couple RfCs I originally had planned, and since I probably don't have a lot of time to make 'em all, I figured I'd make at least one of them, and that is to re-allow pages of real-life people on the positive Reception Wikis like Awesome Games Wiki, Greatest Movies Wiki, and Best TV Shows Wiki.

The reason why I think these pages should be brought back was because of how flawed some of QP's global rules are due to the fact that these pages are banned from all Reception Wikis, including positive ones. Negative wikis, I can understand due to potentially violating Miraheze's Content Policy, but the positives? That just doesn't make any sense, because the people pages on the latter wikis had little-to-no chance of violating Miraheze's policies because they did nothing but praise the people who had pages there, and saying positive aspects shouldn't even contravene the Content Policy since it doesn't even say anything slanderous about these people.

Some users say that the people pages are banned because they're not really specific to any form of media. I don't really find that to be true, because the individuals who had pages on the positive wikis are related to one type of media, like Shigeru Miyamoto is exclusively part of gaming, Alex Hirsch is related to television, and Christopher Nolan is strictly part of cinema, so this whole argument of celebrities not being media-related isn't really relevant.

I'd like to see the votes and your thoughts on this matter. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Support
FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 08:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why the hell not? SuperStreetKombat (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see why not. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Removing the positive pages of good celebrities from the positive wikis was not a good idea, I support the return of them in the positive wikis. MariaJúlia1718 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are bigger fish to fry right now, but I don't see why they were deleted in the first place. If QP doesn't close, I don't see the harm in re-allowing them. 23:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It should only be allowed if they are involved in one piece of media only (social media doesn't necessarily count). This is to avoid the problem of deciding which wiki they go on if they work in more than one piece of media. If they don't fall under this category, they belong on Fabulous Celebrities Wiki. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 05:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This disagreement is just one point that I don't expect to be adequately addressed if implemented. On top of it, you'll need to draw the line for what exactly warrants presence on which wiki. Given the inability to make these decisions demonstrated time and again, this support is where critical thinkers should see a red flag. --Raidarr (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I hope this doesn't go haywire like what happened last time. The Dunkman (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a big controversy could be caused just by having good people allowed onto the positive Reception Wikis. Inka Dinka Doo (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I like the idea but there is going to be some rules. Like are their good person in real life and treating fans with respect. Otherwise you ended up causing the reason why real life people pages are removed in the first place.  11:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous rule, they should be on the wiki depending on how good their works are, not on being a good person. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course though this could depend on some rules and whatnot like evidence.  7:35, 6 September 2022
 * 2) Since Qualitipedia will probably die sooner or later in these couple of months I have no problem with people writing whatever article they want during this time period.  20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) There are definitely some bad celebrities out there.  16:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of things:
 * This RFC is not about allowing bad celebrities to be on negative wikis, it is about good celebrities being on positive wikis.
 * Overall that's not a very good argument, you should address the issues with/benefits to having pages about celebrities on these wikis.
 * FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 10:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) because there are plenty of celebrities that are actually good people and care about their fans, also there are people that are only dedicated to only one form of media or had very little involvement in other forms of media, plus the pages had valid criticisms towards them. HeavenSmile (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a pretty good idea so we can rant and praise actors lol. DrRottenstein (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of things:
 * Please sign your non-flow messages with four tildes ( ~ ).
 * Negative pages on celebrities will not be coming back, only positive ones will.

Oppose

 * 1) I'm afraid I just cannot agree with you. A celebrity being "good" is subjective to say the least. GyrineZ (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) We have a wiki that the pages can go onto instead called Fabulous Celebrities Wiki. Why don’t we put the pages there instead of Greatest Movies Wiki and putting that wiki to waste. NoNameNoFace (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH with you, FCW still wouldn't go to waste because even if we did restore all pages and everyone just gave full support, I still would've created an RFC stating that only ones that make one piece of media should stay here, but on second thought, I think they should go on FCW. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) You know what, on second thought, they can go on FCW anyway. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) In short, I think as many examples that you can dig up where people are completely relevant to a given wiki can be matched by cases where they're not as relevant or tangentially related, but people will want to shoehorn individuals onto a given wiki anyway just as they do with cases with ambiguity regarding games, movies etc. I think the formula the wikis encourage is a polar opposite to a useful and relevant page on people, which you can get from Wikipedia or by doing your own research on the person. People have far less to go on for accurately determining  person's 'reception' and 'quality' in context of a wiki's topic. The wikis do a bad enough job with the content they're made to assess. While the points above preclude my support of reception wikis for people anyway (at least the way this community does it), there's the simple fact wikis already exist to cover them. As a wider point they do little to contribute to what the wikis should actually be about. So even if the wikis were just fine and could do a decent job they wouldn't fit in to what the wikis are supposed to do. I don't buy it when people in support say 'oh it's fine just make rules', either we have 'rule creep' where nonsense is added in because administrators don't know how to handle things properly or the rules just aren't enforced and the mess is bigger. Before introducing points of controversy back in the system, the administration of these wikis should get their shit together for the first time in years (good luck) and figure out how to enforce changes and practice properly before trying to add rules and flip flopping on decisions because they weren't thought out. "Why the hell not?" Because I know you'll screw it up. I probably won't be there to say I told you so, but I hope you feel it the moment this decision (if enacted) results in confusion. People who don't remember the problems appear to suffer short term memory. Believe this or not, it's up to you. Be glad if this is enacted and I am wrong. That's my 2c. Good luck. I won't argue semantics in a reply chain for this one. --Raidarr (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) per above  20:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Per this comment by proposer.  23:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) Maybe we should put them on another wiki. I don’t think we should cast them on mainline Qualitipedia, as it’d cause more drama and would probably get these wikis more likely to shut down than ever, but creating a satellite wiki for them might be a good idea.. SquirtSquirtle (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that's a good idea, then mh:fabulouscelebrities:Fabulous Celebrities Wiki is the answer. Also, please sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ). FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 08:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me 🙂 ( If Emoji’s are against the rules to put in RFC’s, then sorry. Also, if so, remove it. )SquirtSquirtle (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they are allowed, but FTR, don't put the tags in the signature, just write it like this (ignore how it appears in the source editor): ~ FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Yeah I don't know about this, people are going to end up stirring drama if this happens... YouKonade (talk) 20:39PM, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I'm also opposing for different reasons, why would it start drama? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because for all I can tell, there's going to be a lot of people questioning if they're allowed which will lead to confusion for those that aren't familliar with the rule YouKonade (talk) 16:37PM, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not "causing drama" and an overall ridiculous reason to abstain. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. What else do you think is going to happen then YouKonade (talk) 19:03PM, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not sure if we're going to bring it back anytime soon, since it's going to shut down in couple of days anyway. Obi-Wan Skywalker86 (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) The closure of Qualitipedia seems inevitable at this point, so it’s not like this is gonna matter anyway. DeadPixel (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I have a small feeling that this might cause a bit of drama. But then again, Fabulous Celebrities Wiki does exist. Inka Dinka Doo (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)