Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Council

From Club Penguin Fanon Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
FanonCouncil.png

The Club Penguin Fanon Wiki Council is a legislation of users that discuss and vote on current topics and proposals. Archived topics go here, no matter the outcome.

Modeled after the CPW and Shops' Councils.

Guidelines[edit]

  • Any users that qualify according to our Voting Policy may vote in all topics presented in the council. Users that don't qualify to vote may still give their opinion in the comments section.
  • Any user that qualifies to vote is allowed to open a council topic, though nonsense topics may be discarded without notification.
  • The amount of time a topic will stay open for voting will be at the admins' discretion. A typical vote is open for about two weeks.
  • Controversial topics which have a small vote differential (e.g. +1) may or may not pass. This will be discussed and decided among the administration.
  • Demotion votes for users do not belong here; they get their own demotion vote page.
  • We ask that all users who vote "neutral" state why they voted neutral, rather than choosing a side "For" or "Against". Neutral votes without an explanation will be removed.
  • Topics that have been closed (or failed) must be closed for four months before a similar topic can be introduced.
    • Votes regarding user rights and the Wall of Fame are not subject to this rule under the condition that the proposals are related to different users.
  • Comments on topics should be constructive and add to the discussion, otherwise they may be removed.

The administration holds a special ability, called veto. When half of the present (active/partially active) administration votes against a proposal (if they have good reason for doing so), it can be discarded, or vetoed.

The Table[edit]

Please use this formatting when adding a new topic. Place your topic at the bottom of the section, below the line. Don't forget to sign it!

===Topic name (+/- 0)===
:''Topic added on <current date; e.g. September 3, 2008>.''
:''Topic will be closed on <two weeks later>.''

Information about your topic goes here, including your arguments for. A more descriptive argument may convince people to join your side! ~~~~
====For (0)====
====Against (0)====
====Neutral (0)====
====Comments====

Topics[edit]

Adding Info about Adoption on the Country Policy (-2)[edit]

Topic added on Saturday 13th October
Topic closed on Saturday 27th October

Hello.


Firstly, I don't mind if this gets cleared petty. To tell the truth, I'm only making this to clear up the dust in the council. However, I think that this should be added. By the look of it, since this sort of discussion isn't petty, I would like to point out this major mistake in the Country Policy, and perhaps change it.

I was looking at Ghostlia and I am about to adopt it, but then, when I checked the Country Policy, I noticed this odd thing. There is nothing on the Country policy about adopting articles whatsoever. Not a single word. Thus, I decided that, due to it being a somewhat touchy and important subject, it should be suggested as a council topic. Going back on topic, I propose that we add to the policy a block of text like -

  • A user can adopt a country if they have either adopted more than 2 articles and made them into HQAs, or are a Wiki Wizard (a user who has adopted 10+ articles; before I get opposition let me say adopting isn't as easy as it sounds).
  • The user should be aware that the country that they are adopting should either exceed 30,000 bytes or become a High Quality Article, or otherwise it will be released as Fair Game. This is to make sure that there aren't any average adopted countries floating around the place.
  • The user will still be able to make their own country afterwards (this statement itself needs a council topic tbh).
  • If this policy goes ahead, then articles adopted before the adding of the text will be safe from being released to Fair Game (meaning that the Square Islands are still Star's, for one example). I mean, there must still be undeleted countries that were made before the policy, so ynaut?

Suggestions and corrections accepted.


So, what do you think? Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 07:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


For (1)[edit]

Against (3)[edit]

  1. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 09:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (2)[edit]

  1. gonna declare neutral on this one Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: reaching levels of REEEEEEEEEEEEEE that shouldn't even be possible (TCY) 14:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. :( --Mr Cow2 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • politics can be part of law but law is not part of politics, for example lawyers, attorneys, judges, they are not politicians --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • doesn't matter dood we made this whole comment section about whether politics = law and vice versa --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I do not believe that this policy is necessary and especially not at this time. It is up to administrators regardless to approve who can adopt what article, and I don't believe extra rules are necessary. Furthermore, adopting an article is not the same as actually creating it as you have to stick to the general idea of the article you're adopting and cannot just completely rewrite it, and regardless one already has to expand an article significantly in order to have the permission to adopt it, meaning having it exceed 30,000 bytes or become a high quality article is redundant. Furthermore, adopted countries count as your own (as far as I know), so it is unlikely that, exempli gratia, I would be able to adopt or create another country when I already have three (two of mine, the United Provinces and Candvia, and one adopted, the Emperorlands) - with all this in mind I am against the proposal. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would be easier to just have admins approve country adoptions instead of making a whole system for it. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Simplify the Article Quality Templates (0)[edit]

Topic added on October 13, 2018
Topic to be removed on October 27, 2018

Ever since Project:Delet this started, every single article on the wiki is being assigned a quality rating. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I think it's messy and intrusive to have a massive ambox saying whether or not it's a good article on EVERY. SINGLE. PAGE.

What I'm suggesting is a much simpler quality template, which would just be an icon in the top right of the page, which when hovered over would convey the same information as the current template. For an example, see Wikipedia's good article and featured article templates. The main CPW already does this, so why shouldn't we?

--CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 15:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

For (0)[edit]

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (4)[edit]

  1. .--Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, °w° what's this? 17:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. To be honest, they'd get mixed up with the Fanon Awards, locked articles and Featured Article of the Year, so neutral. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Not sure about the idea of being reduced to a small icon...I kinda prefer the current template over that. --WP logo halloween.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • My problem with the idea is the that this will result in article quality ratings becoming far less noticeable and could potentially diminish the importance of article quality ratings. As for the featured article part, that's what the Club Penguin Wiki does not present in a different way to us (they have an ambox on top of the page as well). Also, we are not Wikipedia. If we wanted to be exactly like Wikipedia, there is most likely a couple dozen other things that could be changed to match Wikipedia as well, but there is no reason to do so. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I'd rather see the amboxes made smaller than turned into a small icon. Mario's been working on a concept for this, if he'd ever get around to finishing it so he can propose it smh --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I like this or not. In one hand the article quality templates are too big but on the other hand we do need a way of displaying a page's quality. Mario's idea that Chill mentioned sound OK.--Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, °w° what's this? 17:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No More "Featured Article" Self-Gratification Act (+6)[edit]

Topic added on October 14, 2018.
Topic will be closed on October 28, 2018.

An "Admin decision" was made and executed in May that prevented users from nominating their own articles for the Featured Article vote. Although that decision was unanimously extended by the community, it is set to expire at the end of this month. I believe we should now vote to establish it as a permanent change to the Featured Article vote.

There's nothing wrong with being proud of your work, but prior to the temporary rule being made, many users nominated their own articles in a self-gratifying way, no matter how small the articles were or how little involvement they had on the wiki, instead of fostering an appreciation of the community and everyone's work. I believe that articles we feature should be because they have a lasting effect on the wiki, or something the community as a whole enjoys and wants to celebrate, rather than something nominated by it's creator to try to get recognition. From May to this point has shown how the rule would look in effect if it were permanent, as it would simply be an extension of the rule, chosen by the community to become official.

I hope and believe this would help keep our community more selfless and looking to other articles, old and new, to recognize and maybe find inspiration in. CKSysop 22:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

For (9)[edit]

  1. yes --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 22:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. -- Mario Rk 22:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. --User:EDFan12345💀🎺♪♪ 23:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 11:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  6. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  7. --Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, °w° what's this? 16:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  8. --spoopy rogue ARB logo.png looks like death most likely 03:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  9. Sure, I guess so --WP logo halloween.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Against (3)[edit]

  1. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 23:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. I probably sound like a hypocrite now since I was the one who proposed the extension, but... Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 04:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 10:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: reaching levels of REEEEEEEEEEEEEE that shouldn't even be possible (TCY) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Why did you vote against, Brant? No, there's no rule making you answer for no votes, I'm just curious is all, and maybe reasoning behind your vote could give users another side to think about. Spooky Scary CK 23:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I just think that we shouldn't deprive people of the opportunity to nominate an article that they worked hard on that other people might not have noticed if they hadn't nominate it. Only one of my many articles has ever been featured and it was only featured because I decided to nominate it myself so I think if I hadn't nominated them, nobody would've have ever noticed anyways. I'm sure there are some people here who can relate to that as well. I hope all of you realize that while this proposal has good intentions, it's disadvantageous to the people who write good and high quality articles that never get noticed. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • just in case the "explain why you're against" topic gets enforced, here's my opinion - I've noticed that, since the "Admin Decision", it was quite busy and popular at first (see July), but this and last month is pretty much dead. Last month only had two nominations and one vote. Two nominations. One vote. The months when we could vote for our own articles were nice and checking who voted for what was a kind of pleasure, but the fun's been killed off now, rendering Featured Article pointless. okie done *steps off soap box* Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You can vote for your own article if it's nominated, just can't nominate it yourself. Also, what does the featured article vote being dead have to do with not allowing people to nominate their own articles? I don't think it being dead has anything to do with this rule, but the FA vote being "active" because two or three users go there just to nominate one of their own articles each month doesn't seem very good to me either. Spooky Scary CK 01:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If you can vote for your own article but not be able to nominate it sounds like a loophole in the act to me - what's the point if you can't nominate your own but you can vote for you own? About the second point - the FA vote almost always had 3-4 articles on nomination with 2-5 votes each, doesn't that define "active"? Now it's just one or two articles with one or two users voting for it. Do you get my point now? Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 08:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
update - hey look there are more articles on nomination, talk about hyper-sensitivity Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 09:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oof, looks like I accidentally caused a ruckus. I think that the topic is a good idea on paper, but I'm not sure how it'd work out fundamentally. Someone writing an exceptionally good article that never gets attention or a friend group repeatedly nominating each other's stuff are just two things I think could go wrong. I'd like to propose that an article that has been an HQA for at least, oh I don't know, six months can be self-nominated or something like that. Not sure, I'm not a good debater so I might change my mind. Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: reaching levels of REEEEEEEEEEEEEE that shouldn't even be possible (TCY) 07:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's fine - you didn't mean to mess things up. We all make mistakes sometimes. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 08:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the friend group loophole is the one problem here, but unfortunately there's no rule that could possibly be made to prevent it without being completely ridiculous. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How about preventing users from nominating a specific somebody's article twice in a year or something like that? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Like I said, we can't make a rule about it without it being ridiculous. Any rule that prevents users from nominating a certain user's articles feels too authoritarian and dictator-y for my tastes. We COULD encourage users to nominate different content creators every month, but I don't think there should be a rule about it. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 20:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Since this seems to be going through, we could do something like - "Users should not nominate one user's article twice in a row" or something like that, so you get User 1's article one month, then User 2's article the next, and then maybe User 1 again but then somebody nominates User 4, and so on. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 01:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Requiring an Explanation for Against Votes (-2)[edit]

Topic added on October 15, 2018.
Topic will be closed on October 29, 2018.

It has come to my attention, and you might be surprised it has only come just now, that most users who vote against on Council proposals do not state any reason why they have voted that way. I believe that an explanation should be a requirement in order to vote against, with for being the exception because the reason is (most likely) stated in the actual proposal. This proposal also means users have to give actual explanations and not "I vote against because I said so" like some users could give. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

For (3)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, °w° what's this? 20:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. everybody is for it so Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Against (5)[edit]

  1. --Mario Rk 20:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 08:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. I'm not sure so it's gonna be neutral - --max 01:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)RealMax

Comments[edit]

  • For the record, not explaining a neutral vote is already not allowed: "We ask that all users who vote "neutral" state why they voted neutral, rather than choosing a side "For" or "Against". Neutral votes without an explanation will be removed." As for having to explain against votes, I'm a little iffy on that at the moment. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 19:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that's unnecessary. It would be nice if everyone who voted against stated why, as it would give those undecided users something else to consider, but if you do it for Against votes then it should be required on For votes as well, and if users have to give "actual explanations" then that means somebody (the admins) has to decide the validity of against votes, based on individual judgement, which could lead to votes being wrongly suppressed. The reason this rule exists for neutral votes is, as Ed said on Star's talk page, "Voting neutral on the council isn't really meant to be an "I don't know" option", it's meant for those who don't care if a vote passes or fails, but can still show their stance and share any thoughts they have. Spooky Scary CK 20:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Half the time when I vote against something, someone else has already explained why it's a terrible idea. It applies here too. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a terrible idea. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 08:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • hey see the irony all the users voting against are explaining why they've voted like that Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 08:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

Old System[edit]

# Dates Summary Transcript
1 December 22, 2012 - January 8, 2013 Read Read

Current System[edit]