Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Council/Archive/2018

From Club Penguin Fanon Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit]

This is an archive of every Council topic introduced in 2018, in chronological order. The result of each vote can be seen in bold at the top of each section (e.g. "MOTION PASSED").


Approve admin cleansing of Special:UnusedFiles (+6)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

I noticed about a day ago that Special:UnusedFiles displays as much as the cache will allow it to, 1000 images, meaning there are at least 1,000 of the wiki's 10,879 files that aren't being displayed on any pages. While I was skimming, I saw a lot of outdated images that were replaced with newer images (e.g. original flag of Furshire and older map of Snowiny), were OOC or of OOC content (e.g. different Antarctica maps and images from "Middle West"), didn't seem related to the wiki (transformer "robot" images, Skylanders icons, etc), and other images that were very poorly made.

While administrators have the right to delete images, notably if they're breaking the policy, I'd like to get the community's feedback on allowing admins to delete images indiscriminately and without restriction of those that are on the UnusedFiles page. I may never get around to actually doing it, but if I did I would leave most of the user-made artwork and drawings if they pertain to the wiki whatsoever. I would instead focus on the types of image I mentioned previously. Just asking for the community's approval so it would be official. Feel free to ask any questions in the comments. CKSysop 16:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

For (6)[edit]

  1. --User:EDFan12345 16:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. --do re mi fa so done with summer ARB logo.png pending declassification 00:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 00:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 02:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 15:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • If nobody responds I'll just go through with it anyway, eventually when I feel like it. I also wanted to bring this up here because it's been a while since there was anything on the Council. Like I said, good artwork would be kept, along with other pictures if they have historical importance. A good alternative to deleting these pictures or leaving them to rot on the unusedfiles page is to find appropriate uses for them on our wiki pages if possible. CKSysop 16:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There are also some images that have links to them on pages (like this: [[:File:Nuke.png|A NUKE :D]]), but aren't included as images on any pages. Those links aren't included in the "pages that link to this image" list on the image page, so they possibly aren't counted in this list, as well. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 15:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's true, but there's really no way to know in that case. CKSysop 09:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


Put Kermit in the logo for May 9th, Kermit's birthday (+10)[edit]

PRAISE KERMIT

no explanation needed let's do this --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 00:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For (11)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 00:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. --User:EDFan12345 00:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. --do re mi fa so done with summer ARB logo.png don't talk to me about infinity war 00:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 00:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. CKSysop 00:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. genius --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 02:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 05:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  8. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  9. --some nerd or something i guess 17:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  10. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  11. --cats (TC) 22:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. orange juice --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 17:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]


Splitting Eastshield (-1)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

I currently desire to create my own city in the United States of Antarctica and I am considering creating in Eastshield. However, it bothers me that Eastshield is so large, and what also bothers me is that I fear my work will be solely reduced to one city, so I want a slightly wider area. I wanted to have my city be somewhere near the coast in southeastern Eastshield. The reasons stated are why I would like to split Eastshield into two states, possibly Northshield and Southshield.

For (4)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 18:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. --SlenderXP Talk to me 21:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 21:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Against (5)[edit]

  1. --User:EDFan12345 17:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. CKSysop 21:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 21:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstain (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • This was proposed in the past (I think by Slender) and it was voted against, my opinion on it hasn't changed. --User:EDFan12345 17:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current state articles are still being neglected, so I don't think any new states should be considered right now. I'd work on expanding those first and making them better. CKSysop 21:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As EDFan stated, my own opinion (despite not having voted), has not changed; a state should not be split up purely because you deem it too large and wish to create a city. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What would you consider a valid reason for a state to be split up? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


Counties (DISCUSSION)[edit]

I believe that all US states should be split into counties, just like real US states are. The number of counties in a state would depend on size of said state. For example, Eastshield could have as many as 20 or 25 counties. This could be useful for perhaps giving certain counties to some users so they can work on that land and build whatever they want in it.

Comments[edit]

  • I'm not sure if I'm allowed to have counties but I have been expanding on a county I called Snow Clara County, after the Santa Clara County, which is the county that Snow Jose is in. And for it's size Eastshield should have more than 20 or 25 counties. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 21:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would think it would be a country per country basis. The purpose of counties are more of a census and representative information tally than anything bureaucratic, and while yes there are county-level government positions, they only contain commissioners, sheriffs, and deputies to act as master planners for the entirety of the county. In addition, what of cities that span more than one county? What of cities that are a county? What would define certain counties? -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


Delete non-English articles (-1)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

The presence of these articles has always confused me. The fact that they're so few and far between means that someone who can only read in that language won't be able to read most of the wiki, so I don't think they're really helping. Even the alternate language versions of the main page are severely outdated, and they both just link straight to English articles, making them pointless. The Spanish version even uses the English versions of the featured article and user template, while the templates that have been translated are severely outdated. Template:ArtlFr would be deleted along with these, as it wouldn't be needed anymore. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 21:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

For (5)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 21:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Mario Rk 21:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Radioactivechicken
  5. --cats (TC) 20:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Against (6)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 19:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's almost the summer holidays! 01:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. --SlenderXP Talk to me 13:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 15:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (4)[edit]

  1. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. ish --User:EDFan12345 21:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --get on the tightrope ARB logo.png anyAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 10:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. CKSysop 13:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Fanon is as an Anglo-dominated wiki but not to the point that all non-Anglo people controlled by that part of the community. Fanon should celebrate the linguistical and cultural diversity of its users. Regardless, perhaps what should be done is ban non-English articles that don't have English translations, or at the very least move those translations to userspace or something of that sort. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree let's keep maintaining the language articles for the users we don't even have! Mario Rk 21:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • We have quite a lot of users that don't use English as their first language and even among those that do use it, there are many who don't speak just English (like Brant, even you Mario if I'm correct). Additionally, those language translations are part of our heritage and history in some ways too, though I do admit there's no space to improve them if there are no users anymore that speak that language. Portuguese had a lot of speakers here, but they all eventually vanished. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 08:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't mind just sending all the translated pages to the userspace, where users could continue to work on them as fun projects if they felt like it. It's just them being in the mainspace that bothers me, especially with realistically how few articles end up getting translated, (the language warning template is only linked on a whopping 8 pages) which would give non-English speakers a very incomplete experience. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 21:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • If you think about it, 8 pages actually isn't that many. There are far more pages written (or translated) in English than these foreign languages. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's almost the summer holidays! 01:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • The scarcity is exactly why I want them deleted. If there were a lot of translated articles that foreign speakers could read, it would make sense to have them here, but as it stands there's barely anything for foreign speakers to read anyway. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 14:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Which is why they should be updated and there should be more of them. You can do that yourself - so can Mario from what I know, he is fluent in Spanish right? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand, I understand and appreciate our foreign language articles as a sign of diversity on the wiki, but I also understand the scarcity and unlikeliness that we'll have many (if any) users that speak those languages. CKSysop 06:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, I would like to remind everybody something they don't know - English is not the official language of this wiki, and it has no official language. We are not "Club Penguin Fanon Wiki English", we are just "Club Penguin Fanon Wiki" and there has never been anything designated as an official language. Non-English articles should continue to be allowed, and while not necessarily encouraged, they should be protected. They are not only a richness even though they are in a different language, they also show the richness another language that isn't English has. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow, I knew that! CKSysop 00:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I, personally, would like to see more of these foreign articles so that people who come here and do not speak English can at least have something. I think we also should have something like original Club Penguin did where you can select your language and the wiki is automatically translated. This is just my wishful thinking, though. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While I absolutely love the diversity of the wiki, I feel that keeping the articles without a sound commitment to improving and expanding the quality and amount of articles in that language only serves to harm the wiki through showcasing a stagnate project. I would be in favor if there was a project going forward to attempt to translate and write articles in a chosen language. It is important to note that the multi-language wiki movement was primarily spearheaded by Swiss, who wanted Spanish, Portuguese(?), and other languages. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I do agree. That is why imo we should work on improving the quality of current foreign-language articles rather than deleting them. And those that do not have any speakers here anymore but used to - we can still retain them in case a new speaker of that language joins the wiki. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Very few articles are actually in foreign languages, which gives me the idea that we should translate even more to those languages - and perhaps even make articles that are only in those languages? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why? People should be allowed to write whatever they want as long as it fits the policy - we can verify whether the article is in violation of the policy with the help of a native speaker and also Google Translate (it isn't that inaccurate anymore). Also, come on IRC --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A Spanish-speaking person isn't going to find the wiki just because there's a Spanish article on it. That's not how it works. If the entire site was in Spanish, it might, but it's not going to work if most of the site is in English. --cats (TC) 20:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Quackerpingu.Radioactivechicken (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Radioactivechicken
  • On one hand, I can 99% guarantee none of the foreign language articles will be touched again like 90% of the wiki. On the other, I don't think deleting them is the right option and that they could be moved to a wikispace article. --User:EDFan12345 21:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Dunno what to feel about deleting it when we can just move it to a separate space --get on the tightrope ARB logo.png anyAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 01:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A related historical blog post from 2012: User blog:Swiss Ninja/Portuguese Pages. Also, an unrelated question for those on both sides- would you be willing to compromise and have them moved to some sort of separate space instead? If so, what sort of space would that be? CKSysop 13:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Since this proposal is probably going down the toilet, my next attempt will be to have them all moved into some sort of Project portal that groups all the translated articles, i.e. Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Foreign Languages/French/Francterre or something similar. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 16:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • They are not "foreign languages". There is no foreign language on the wiki, and it is an incorrect term - we have no official language. As for that, I disagree - once again I reiterate users should be allowed to make articles in any language they want as long as we are able to verify the content and able to properly enforce the policy on that page. It shouldn't be hard with the cooperation of that user and also the use of Google Translate, which is getting increasingly more accurate (even with little languages like Serbian, which I checked out on Google Translate, so you can only imagine how accurate it is with say French). --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Once upon a time there was a Fanon PT on TropicalWikis, but it was all lost when TW shut down and nothing was moved here despite discussions to do so. None of the other languages have had any sort of activity since they were first set up in 2012. That was 6!!! years ago, it's time to get rid of them once and for all. If Fanon ever has a large foreign community again for whatever reason, sure, they can be reinstated at any time, but right now they serve no use. I mean for Christ's sake, we have trouble maintaining an English userbase, these projects just aren't viable and have never been. --cats (TC) 20:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


Repeal retconning High Penguin immortality (-8)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

--QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 17:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For (2)[edit]

  1. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 17:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 23:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Against (10)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 17:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Mario Rk 20:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --User:EDFan12345 21:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. CKSysop 04:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. --get on the tightrope ARB logo.png anyAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 10:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 01:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  8. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  9. --cats (TC) 20:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  10. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • For the record, this would be a repeal, not a retcon. You can't retcon real life. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly, High Penguins being immortal isn't OP because they still have a low and possibly even declining population despite supposedly being able to live forever and they still got ethnic cleansing committed on them during Khanzem so if you argue that having immortality makes them OP, then let me ask you; besides being able to live forever, what added benefit doesn't being immortal give them? --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 23:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You didn't even include a reason quacker smh. But, no repeal for scrubby characters. CKSysop 04:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think that there are other, more creative ways to make your character immortal, but currently I'm indifferent. Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • You can't make your character immortal at all because the last vote on this that occurred last year was a blanket ban on all immortality in any form I believe, but somewhat hypocritically none of Swiss's characters who live like 4000+ years weren't affected. Yes, however, immortality as a thing on Fanon has been banned since last year's vote so there is no way your character can be immortal. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 03:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The archives don't say that all immortality is banned though...? I mean, the entire schtick of What Tambourine is that you can be creative with making your characters immortal. Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 04:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm pretty sure I tried making an immortal character once and the admins said I couldn't do it so either I've been duped this entire time and that immortality was completely legal or you haven't heard about the slippery slope that the vote used to make any and all forms of immortality completely illegal on Fanon. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 05:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I think in that case you could debate the case, then. Either you get to create your immortal character or What Tambourine is eliminated or something. Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: REEEEEEEEEEE (TCY) 13:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with you Star, I think that was the whole point of last year's vote to reduce average HP lifespan. Instead of instant op immortality, if people were dead set on making their characters immortal, and thus op, they could at least come up with a creative way to do so (preferably with drawbacks/weaknesses too to make it so it's not completely overpowered). CKSysop 13:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Nullify the Country Policy until September 1st (-13)[edit]

MOTION FAILED
  • Allow every user to make up to 2 one new countries country without needing to make 5 HQAs and admin permission
  • Allow every user to adopt any LQA or AQA countries that they have significantly improved without needing admin permission
  • Every country that isn't at least an AQA by the end of 2018 will be deleted or annexed available for adoption by other users.

--QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 18:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For (1)[edit]

  1. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 18:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Against (14)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 18:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Mario Rk 20:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --User:EDFan12345 21:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 23:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. --get on the tightrope ARB logo.png anyAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 00:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. CKSysop 04:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  8. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  9. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  10. Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 23:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  11. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  12. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 01:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  13. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's almost the summer holidays! 03:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  14. --cats (TC) 20:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I still think the first time this happened was a disaster. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 18:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What’s the reasoning behind suspending this policy until the proposed date? --SlenderXP Talk to me 18:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • See look, I kinda want a country/territory of my own but this invites nothing but disaster. --Mario Rk 20:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This isn't happening without admin approval and general admin consensus is that the current policy is fine and doesn't need to be nullified. --User:EDFan12345 21:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this really necessary? --Mr Cow2 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll rethink it if it's one country, because two countries is a little excessive in my opinion and it can be abused if people try to make two ultra powerful countries to try to control everything. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 23:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't vote "for" in any case, but the current terms are absolutely unacceptable. We'd have a bunch of new countries overnight that stay bad and never serve a purpose on the wiki. CKSysop 04:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This would get very messy very quickly. Two countries? And similar to what CK said, they'd likely never serve a purpose. Would these countries actually be used? Given those terms, any random person could show up, register an account, create a country and leave forever with the country simply there just collecting dust. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • HECC no, this place is filled with politics already and we don't need to triple that Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 23:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I do believe everyone summed up my concerns perfectly. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 01:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
And I believe that I don’t even need to cast my vote. --SlenderXP Talk to me 02:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I admit I want my own island to exist, but two countries until September? Even for a user that's been on the wiki for more than a year but hasn't got a country, that's over the top. Come on. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's almost the summer holidays! 03:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Has there even been such an opposed topic here? --Mr Cow2 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Nope, this is the record for most oppose votes in council history. The previous record was 9. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 00:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Let's call this "Quacker vs. The CPFW." --Mr Cow2 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Kermit Respect Act (+2)[edit]

I have noticed some disturbing behavior towards Kermit the Frog by certain users who will go unnamed. Therefore I think any and all disrespectful actions committed toward Kermit should be punished severely, including slandering him by calling him a Naughtzee. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 18:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

For (5)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 18:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Mario Rk 18:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. --User:EDFan12345 23:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. --cats (TC) 20:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Against (3)[edit]

  1. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 19:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --SlenderXP Talk to me 05:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Permaban most likely, it's the only fitting punishment in my opinion --User:EDFan12345 23:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on this - while I do respect Kermit for saving the wiki, banning somebody simply because they don't is simply Pride and Prejudice. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's almost the summer holidays! 00:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would’ve supported in any normal situation, but go ahead and permaban me. In fact, why don’t y’all block my IP address from ever viewing this site again? That’s even better. --SlenderXP Talk to me 02:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Reinforce the "Admin Decision" on Featured Article Nomination until end of October (+8)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

Once upon a time, there was a small database of users on a Wiki. They typed out articles, until the numbers of both increased to what we are today. In that period, space of time, there were countless articles made. The problem is that hardly anyone checks them. Ok, we're all familiar with veterans Explorer and Hat Pop, right? But when was the last time you heard of Ghin? What's Dog Pop? Where's Newton Town International Airport? Is Napoley Bonapart an emperor or not?

I think that the Admin Decision on Featured Articles is a good idea, and I also think it is a good idea to extend it to one more month so that users can, as it is put on the page, appreciate the database instead of wanting their own articles to be Featured.


Why not give the forgotten articles a better chance? Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's almost the summer holidays! 01:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarification & Summary in 3 Points

  • The main part for this is that nobody can vote for their own articles (for example, I can't submit my article for featuring but somebody else can).
  • Articles older than a year should be encouraged to be given more recognition, and if somebody finds a good one the user in question has never heard of before it should be submitted for featuring.
  • Originally, this was running from May to September, but then this is extended for one more month (October). Just to reassure Quacker, a "normal" member (for lack of better words) proposed this.

Feel free to ask for more clarification and summarizing.

For (8)[edit]

  1. --get on the tightrope ARB logo.png wants snuggles, receives struggles 02:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: REEEEEEEEEEE (TCY) 13:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. CKSysop 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 16:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. --cats (TC) 20:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  8. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 10:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

#--QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 12:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • No. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 12:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • i'm not quite sure how this would work but i'm casting my vote as thanks for showing me that Napoley Bonapart is an actual article Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: REEEEEEEEEEE (TCY) 13:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting...I'm kinda wondering how we determine some of these things (older, lesser known articles, for example. Does an article have to be a certain age? Also if it's lesser known it could possibly be orphaned in which case it's possible the quality might not be great). But yeah sure, why not --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you proposing that nominations have to be a certain age as well, or just to extend the rule that users can't nominate their own articles? It seems like a couple people aren't quite sure, if you could clarify PPD that'd be great! CKSysop 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really get involved in these things. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This will force the users to think outside of the box and nominate the article of another person which they truly feel deserves this title instead of constantly nominating their own article rather than considering the works other people have made (and there is a plethora of good ones out there). --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename article quality categories (+9)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

I think that the categories for article quality should be renamed to something more appropriate that match the actual ratings.

  • Wretched Articles -> Low Quality Articles
  • Average Articles -> Average Quality Articles
  • Glorious Articles -> High Quality Articles
  • Superlative Articles -> Ultra Quality Articles

Alternatively, they could be renamed to LQAs, AQAs, HQAs, and UQAs instead. Discussion about which one you'd prefer is welcome.

And for anyone worried about the work this would take, the quality templates place these automatically, so any maintenance afterwards should be minimal. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 22:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

For (9)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 22:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 15:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Radioactivechicken (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Radioactivechicken
  4. CKSysop 15:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. --cats (TC) 20:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's almost the summer holidays! 00:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  7. --get on the tightrope ARB logo.png wants snuggles, receives struggles 01:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  8. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  9. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • A while ago I actually made the categories you suggested and redirected them to the current categories, but I don't have any problem fixing another TS-era weird naming convention. CKSysop 15:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Wall of Fame requirements[edit]

So, I've had a table in my Sandbox for a few years to try and recreate the WoF in a more professional look, also including the year someone was inducted- visible here. It may be done soon, but working on it reminded me that we still have no nomination page for the WOF.

So, in preparation for possibly rolling out the new design in the near future, I wanted to ask the community what requirements do you think there should be for being nominated for the WoF, and why? When I set up an actual page I'll try to use the ideas from here that people agree on. CKSysop 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Another topic, as for being voting onto the WoF, there has to be some sort of vote requirement. I was thinking +6 or +8, or 75% of the active community, whichever is less. What do you think about this as well? CKSysop 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • At least one UQA. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Doesn't mean that can't start being a requirement. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything here wouldn't have to be retroactive (apply to past WoF inductees), just for future nominees. CKSysop 22:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • UQA is a high standard, only a few dozen on the wiki, and articles aren't necessarily everything. I think maybe there should be an alternative, or not a requirement for users who edited prior to a few years ago (maybe 2015), since UQAs were even harder to come by back then. CKSysop 22:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that another requirement, in order to prevent spamming, is that you must be nominated by another user (so self-gloryfying scrubs can't sign themselves up), and that nomination must be endorsed by an Admin as well. I don't want it to be spammed with nominations, but I think everyone who might deserve a spot should have a fair chance. CKSysop 22:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This sounds vague but how about someone who's left a distinct mark on the wiki, something trademark and consistent that if you show it to someone within the wiki they'd go "yeah, that's x alright"? --get on the tightrope ARB logo.png wants snuggles, receives struggles 14:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • But that could be subjective as well. Not to mention that some users don't care about anyone else's works. CKSysop 12:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


OOC Policy: Article Seizure Section Amendment (+1)[edit]

MOTION FAILED; Insufficient feedback

On the OOC policy page here, it says "The Masses may call for seizure of intellectual property from any user for any reason they so desire, and to proceed to give it to whomever wants it (or release it), if six or more users all demand such and provide a valid, just reason". What I want done is very simple - change that number to a percentage of the wiki's users instead (in my opinion, over 70% should be required to do that) more than 66% of all users with more than 15 edits in the last 30 days can in a vote decide to seize an article away from another user. If you have an opinion for how many should be required instead, or if this clause should exist at all, do comment and propose and I am ready to amend. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

For (1)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 20:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • My question is how would this be determined? With how often users come and go, you'd probably have to check the entire userbase every time one of these came up. Would it be done manually or just from checking Special:ActiveUsers? What about users like Bro who float in from time to time but don't actually edit much? --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Most likely Special:ActiveUsers, yes. That's the best way imo. 6 is just too little if we have too many users, and too much if we have too little users. That being said, the fact that some active users edit only once or a few times more monthly is a problem too, so I guess I'd be open to lowering the percentage. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Maybe there could be a minimum to how many edits, i.e. only users on Special:ActiveUsers with 15+ edits count toward the total amount of users. Obviously the exact number would have to be figured out later. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 19:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I might be okay with this if it's something like "6 users or <whatever>%, whichever is lower", as in if 6 users is less than certain percentage then it would be six, or if 6 users is less than whatever percentage of the community it would default to that (e.g. the community is only six people, it would default to whatever percentage instead). That's similar to what I was thinking of introducing for the potential WoF nominations. CKSysop 18:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Retcon Latin Antarctica (+6)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

Latin Antarctica consists of a bunch of unoriginal parody countries that have barely ever been used on Fanon. Some of these countries showed up at the UGFA world cups, but that's about it from what I understand. Additionally, they are not represented on the "Land of Antarctica map" that Ninjinian made, nor do we have a convenient place where to put them. I believe those countries should either be completely removed from history as if they never existed - or a major event be created in which Latin Antarctica is completely obliterated, such as via a flood, meteor, hurricane, earthquake etc. and that would cause many of the Latin Antarcticans to die, and the rest perhaps to move to the countries which they originate from ethnically (Nutzilians to Lisboagal, Parhentinans to Castilla etc).

This will, in my opinion, free more space, get rid of countries that haven't been involved in almost anything at all and also get rid of many parody countries without many creativity involved. Alternatively, instead of removing the nations, we could preserve them in some page in order to show some respect towards Swiss Ninja's legacy. This will also free up space to create original countries, and therefore encourage originality and creativity. Please do give me your ideas and I will be ready to amend the proposal to suit them. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

For (6)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. less country parodies ahoy --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 16:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, What I did 19:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 20:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. --get on the tightrope ARB logo.png wants snuggles, receives struggles 11:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 11:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (2)[edit]

  1. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. CKSysop 21:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

#--QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 09:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • No more country parodies. They aren't good any more, they're just lazy, Latin Antarctica is proof of this.Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, What I did 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be removing mostly unoriginal country parodies and freeing up space in the ocean. However, these countries are still tied and integrated into continuity (Maverick, Bow Tie Land and Nutzil especially). I don't really like the sound of wiping them off the map via a mass devastation event either, and plus, these countries still exist until 2030. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I wasn't even aware Bow Tieland and Maverick were in Latin Antarctica. We could keep those, the rest probably remove. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd rather creatively change the idea of Latin Antarctica than completely remove hours of a users' work, such as maybe transforming all of the bad 1:1 parodies into a semi-original thing. CKSysop 21:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Rename the Clubb Phengin Weekee (+5)[edit]

MOTION PASSED
Topic added on August 1, 2018.
Topic will be closed on August 15, 2018.

This is one of those parody names that doesn't really make sense, and was clearly only made for the sake of having a different name for a parody. The difference here is Club Penguin already exists in-universe. Why would the creators of the Weekee deliberately misspell the name of the island? Therefore, I propose that the Clubb Phengin Weekee and Unnderground Clubb Phengin Weekee are renamed to the Club Penguin Weekee and Underground Club Penguin Weekee respectively. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 18:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

For (5)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contributions My Articles 18:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 04:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. CKSysop 04:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 08:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. --ded sun child ARB logo.png respawns every now and then 09:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Tale (Story) of the Month (+2)[edit]

MOTION FAILED; INSUFFICIENT SUPPORT
Topic added on August 9, 2018.
Topic will be closed on August 23, 2018.

Stories are underappreciated on this wiki in terms of how they are rewarded - barely any stories on Fanon have ever been nominated Featured Article and there are no quality ratings at all whatsoever for stories. I believe that we should create Tale of the Month (TotM), also known as Story of the Month (SotM), where people will be able to nominate specifically stories instead of any ordinary articles, and stories will be banned from being nominated for Featured Article. A story nominated can be any story at all, not just one that was made this month or during the last few months, which means you can nominate from any time period even if the story was finished years ago.

In addition to recognizing stories specifically, we also encourage users who might not typically read stories to actually read them and to find which one they would like to nominate and therefore encourage other users to see as well. Stories aren't typically nominated for Featured Article, so I think this could be a great idea to encourage users to read what many people on this wiki have written.

For (2)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. ok --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • The idea of rating stories was actually thrown around, but not done for a few reasons. The first was that a story's quality is subjective, and a major factor when using LQA/AQA/HQA/UQA is the amount of content on a page. However, a story can simply just be short, and rating it LQA would be unfair. The templates also imply that there would be room for improving an already finished story just by adding filler. There was also the idea of a rating system for stories similar to the party reviews on CPW, but the small userbase and user bias were concerns that prevented it from being implemented. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's why I didn't propose that, I just proposed Tale of the Month as I think that would be the best thing we could do regarding stories. I understand that quality rating stories can be very subjective so that would be a problem. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete some unneeded templates (+2)[edit]

MOTION PASSED
Topic added on August 9, 2018.
Topic will be closed on August 23, 2018.

There's a few templates used on Fanon that I think are completely pointless and should be deleted. These fall into two categories, amboxes and navboxes, and I will explain why I personally think they should be deleted.

Amboxes:

  • Walrus - Why do we need an article to tell us it involves walruses? Shouldn't that immediately be apparent from reading the article? This comes from an outdated time in the wiki's history when all walruses were related to a hacker group that plagued the wiki, but now there's good walrus characters like Iron Walrus, it doesn't seem relevant anymore.
  • Evil - Similar to Walrus, if your character needs an ambox to tell you that they're evil, you're probably not writing them very well.
  • OddPenguin and OddItem - Whether something is odd or not is subjective and should be up for the reader to decide. If after reading an article, the only reason you know the subject is supposed to be odd is because an ambox told you so, that's not a well written article.

Navboxes:

  • Warfare - This navbox is a strange one. The purpose of navboxes is to group together related subjects, like all the members of Darktan's Army for example. This on the other hand is literally everything violent thrown into one navbox. Guns, swords, bombs, tanks, nukes, wars, they're all here on this one template, but most have no real relation to each other.
  • Humans - As far as I'm aware, humans are the only species on Fanon to have their own navbox (unless you count X-Antibodies as their own species) and yet are one of the least represented species on Fanon. This could easily be replaced with the already existing Humans category.

If you think only some of these should be deleted, please feel free to discuss it in the comments. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

For (3)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Mario Rk 08:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. CKSysop 08:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 07:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • I think Fanon has scores of templates that could be deleted or need to be completely remade to be aesthetically pleasing. An additional note for the Human template, in addition to the category, they could further be split into a list with their current "status" of beanhood on a list on the humans page, which wouldn't be too hard to keep track of since luckily there aren't many humans on the wiki. CKSysop 23:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Walrus and Evil are too dank to be deleted. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 07:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Why yes, they are disagreeably damp, musty, and typically cold. Perfect reasons to delet them. CKSysop 08:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


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

MOTION FAILED
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]

UNDECIDED
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]

MOTION PASSED
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)
  • I think if people made their articles more involved with the community in a friendly manner they would be noticed. CKSysop 17:00, 3 November 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]

MOTION FAILED
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)

Article of the Year Self-Nomination Act (-2)[edit]

MOTION FAILED
Topic added on 6th November.
Topic will be closed on 20th November.

Amended on 11-11-2018

Resisting the current here...

Since nobody has nominated any articles yet, I'd like to make a tiny amendment to the recent "No More 'Featured Article' Self-Gratification Act". Since the end of the year brings Christmas, presents and celebrations galore, it would be a nice touch to allow users to be able to nominate their own High/Ultra Quality Articles. I mean, if it's High or Ultra Quality, then it's going to be worth reading. It isn't a small joke. Not only that, they aren't usually superfluous (by "superfluous", think the hundreds of stubs, LQAs, and AQAs almost nobody has ever heard of) - a lot of effort has been put into them. It would also feel like you're rewarding yourself with a small gift if it ever wins - think of the last time you felt gratified that users liked your article so much they voted for it to become Featured.

Another reason I think this should happen, is because hardly anybody votes anymore. It would also feel less stuffy too, because you would know that your best article might win. Your best article, which you spent hours on, also might have been overlooked for a very long time. You might hope each month that somebody, just somebody, might nominate it, but "too bad, nobody cares, Swiss Ninja/Turtleshroom/Explorer/idk anybody else is better lololol". It's about time the "modern" classics get recognised.


Amendments accepted. What do you think? Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 09:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

For (4)[edit]

#--SlenderXP Talk to me 12:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  1. --Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, °w° what's this? 15:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 09:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 02:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. honestly idk that you can vote for your own topics Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Against (6)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 01:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Mario Rk 02:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. --in desperate need of a nap ARB logo.png bob do something 09:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. CKSysop 05:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • The Featured Article of the Year is made to award the best of the best of the best of articles. It is unnecessary to have users nominate their own articles - if others refuse to nominate their articles, does it not mean their articles aren't as good enough as those users might believe they are? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If they didn't like it, wouldn't they not vote for it either? CKSysop 19:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Featuring an article, other than awarding a person for their work, also means recommending it to others. If The Great Darktonian Pie War is featured as the article of the year, that means users are recommended to read it because it is considered to be one of the wiki's classics, one of the greatest articles. I don't think it's that easy to overlook a story, stories can be overlooked purely because people don't care about it or they don't like the idea of it. And even then, people reading your story does not mean they are going to like it. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For once I agree with Stubal. This is supposed to award the best articles on the wiki and their authors, and if your articles aren't getting nominated for it, then it probably just means nobody who's seen it thinks it's deserving. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • He did not say they are undeserving, he said that nobody who has seen them, so far at least, thought it was deserving. People have different tastes and a story could not be in their taste, so they refuse to nominate it for that reason. People thinking a story isn't "good enough" isn't the only reason imo. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Gotta side with Stubal on this one; the best articles will be rewarded based on general consensus. Voting for this policy only shows that you know your articles aren't good enough to be rewarded on their own merit, but must instead be promoted by their creators because nobody else will do it. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 01:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a phrase meaning nobody's ever completely wrong. In this case, Bro doesn't usually agree with Stubal, but feels that he brought up good points here. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 23:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I was gonna go with a neutral stance since I wasn't so sure about this, but the arguments presented were sufficient enough to sway me, I guess. --in desperate need of a nap ARB logo.png bob do something 09:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m sufficiently persuaded to change my opinion to that of neutrality. --SlenderXP Talk to me 10:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because no one cares enough to nominate your article doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad article. There are many HQAs and probably some UQAs that have never been nominated as featured article. It doesn't mean they're bad articles, and the author probably spent a lot of time and energy working on it. Think about it this way, just because the quiet kid sitting in the back of the classroom never gets picked by the teacher doesn't mean they're not a smart individual, it just means no one has noticed them yet. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 02:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The teacher grades based on quality. Voting for featured articles is like voting for class president - of course the lesser-known "shy" articles won't win. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 03:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Which is why the "shy articles" should be explored, checked out - maybe they're in reality something wonderful nobody's ever seen before on this Wiki? Not implying I know any such example, but I still think "shy articles" could be articles that hide some sort of great work. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And what if the creator of one of these "shy" articles wants to give theirs a go, because nobody else cares? Also, these "shy" articles can also become Featured monthly, because of the latest amendment. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 01:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If nobody wants to nominate it because nobody wants it to be featured article, does it not mean that it will fail if you nominate it? You would most likely be the only vote for it then? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, if it's "Featured Article of the Year", then it's going to be HQAs, which will then mean more users will check it out and decide it's worth nominating. Also, I think you misunderstood the second point - I meant other users can nominate & vote for the "shy" articles when they find them, not change it back to the old way (totally unpopular, so can't happen). Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at the opening explanation, it looks like this might have changed from something for FAOTY to exceptions for normal Featured Article? CKSysop 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you're trying to ask, but it's an act so users can nominate their own articles for FAOTY. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 11:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "I'd like to make a tiny amendment to the recent "No More 'Featured Article' Self-Gratification Act". Since the end of the year brings Christmas, presents and celebrations galore, it would be a nice touch to allow users to be able to nominate their own High/Ultra Quality Articles." Since you said amendment, I wasn't sure if you meant change it so High and UQAs could be nominated for monthly votes too. But I'm voting against for the same reasons I stated for people nominating their own articles for potential awards. CKSysop 05:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove Article Quality Ratings (-14)[edit]

Topic added on 17:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC).
Topic will be closed on 26 November 2018
MOTION FAILED

Users should be able to create what they want without having to expand it to at least AQA (when they aren't very creative) or having it deleted for not being AQA. Article quality ratings should be removed. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 17:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

For (1)[edit]

  1. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 17:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Against (15)[edit]

  1. --User:EDFan12345 18:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Just because you're a terrible writer doesn't mean we should lower our standards so you can pass under what's already a low bar. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 18:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 18:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Terrible idea. We need quality ratings so we know what articles need improving. --Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, °w° what's this? 18:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  7. --Mario Rk 21:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  8. --SlenderXP Talk to me 23:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  9. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  10. CKSysop 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  11. --in desperate need of a nap ARB logo.png bob do something 10:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  12. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  13. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  14. --cats (TC) 15:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  15. --RealMax 00:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)RealMax

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • If you can't put in the bare minimum amount of work to make an AQA, I think that says more about you than the policy. --User:EDFan12345 18:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, no, no. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If you're not creative enough to even make a simple AQA, why the heck would you be on this wiki? --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 18:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Any sources for your claims? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Kowalski, analysis. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 18:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • All you were doing was copying and pasting the same basic page over and over and changing small details, so no, there was no creativity there whatsoever. There was no "admin power abuse", a loophole for bad writing was closed and you're just mad because you were called out on it. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not usually one to get involved in things like these, but this is absolutely pathetic, even for you, Quacker. When will you get it through your thick skull that you are the problem, not us? You're a horrible writer and we're not going to "fix" our "unfair" policies just so you can keep spamming the wiki with your awful duck articles. The fact that you have the nerve to take this into the council has made me lose all hope for you. Saying that the topic isn't good either would be an understatement. If we removed the quality ratings, we'd get more spammers and extremely low-quality articles and there would be no incentive for people to be creative. There would be almost no quality control. Then again, you can't produce anything that has a modicum of a chance of getting past quality control, so that's probably what you want. Just watch all of you, I bet he'll just insult me or call me stupid or something instead of doing something like putting in effort to become a better person on the wiki. We do not owe you anything, the admins have not been abusing their power against you, it's that you're a self-absorbed idiot who can't take the slightest amount of criticism. I'm done with you, and I'm fairly certain everyone else is too. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Whatever scrubby ideas Quackerpingu might have are no reason to insult him and try to chase him away from the wiki. He has his own opinions, however wrong they might be in my opinion, and while I strongly disagree with them, it is his right to believe whatever he wants. He is not forcing this vote on anybody - you have the right to reject what he has proposed through a fully democratic vote. I have expressed my opinions in this comment section and have privately expressed to Quackerpingu grievances with the mentality that Chill mentioned in a comment below, and I do not see any reason for anybody to go off against anybody. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry. Please disregard my earlier message. You're right, I shouldn't be acting like this to anyone. Sorry, Quacker. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Calm down, Mr Cow2/Bigwig (not an insult; look it up to see who it is)! I do see what your saying, but Pwnstubal is right - no matter how annoyed you might be (as Bigwig is with Fiver, in the relevant passage in Watership Down), it's better netiquette not to insult Quacker. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This mentality is awful and harmful to the wiki itself. All articles can and should be improved, even UQAs. This proposal is just you wanting to flood the wiki with mediocre articles so you can say Pascar racer #72 exists and pat yourself on the back. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 18:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a problem only one user has. The bigger problem is people thinking that you are supposed to write articles on this wiki solely for power over others, which is a bad mentality indeed because we are all here to have fun and actually contribute good content, not to humiliate others. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know what Quacker intended to happen to the country policy if this passed and HQAs ceased to exist. --User:EDFan12345 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • While it is my belief that users should ideally face no restrictions on what they are allowed to create, there’s no way that I’ll accept mediocrity. --SlenderXP Talk to me 23:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. CKSysop 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On a related note, I think adding a writing section on the (New) Manuel of Style could help users like Quackerpingu improve their writing and actually write good content, or alternatively make a separate page that could help users write good. People can't just become good writers all of a sudden, it takes practice and it takes learning. Quackerpingu and users who aren't good writers could learn from such a guide. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Here's something inspired by two postcards I have - "Why remove Article Quality Templates?"
    The less templates for Quality Ratings there are, the less the quality grows,
    The less the quality grows, the less order reigns,
    The less order reigns, the less articles worth to read,
    The less articles worth to read, then THE WIKI IS DEAD (a bit harsh, but possible).

    So why remove Article Quality Templates? Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 12:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Article ratings are used to determine whether a users mean contribution to a created article meets specific criteria for policy-bound processes. Knowing this users history, I’d argue this is a vendetta-borne proposal. Not worth it. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This seems more like an excuse to be less creative than something that would actually benefit the wiki. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete Template:Soloarticle (+10)[edit]

Proposed on November 12th
To close on November 26th
MOTION PASSED

Back when I joined the wiki, Template:Soloarticle was used sparingly and responsibly by users who were working on niche pet projects (like my recent Shops Island Bureau of Transportation article). These users put this template up, in most cases, with a legitimate reason, and it was used with restraint and only for articles that were very important to them.

Nowadays, however, many users automatically slap this template on many of their articles to say "IT'S MINE!" and to revert even well-intentioned, constructive edits as "ZOMG OOC!". Chill just summed it up best on IRC:

[21:49] <+Chill57181> "dont touch my article!!!": the template

What once was a template users could be trusted to use with caution on important projects has simply become a crutch for bad writers to cling onto in a pathetic attempt to prevent any improvement of their articles by anyone, at all.

--CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 02:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

For (10)[edit]

  1. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 02:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Mario Rk 03:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)~
  3. delet this --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 03:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. --SlenderXP Talk to me 03:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. --in desperate need of a nap ARB logo.png bob do something 10:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  7. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 04:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  8. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  9. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  10. --RealMax 00:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)RealMax

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • I don't disagree with you, but I don't see why a single template needed a council topic considering we've already removed it from pages due to misuse and would continue to do so had certain users not gotten the message. CKSysop 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The Soloarticle template is completely redundant imo, especially since when you create an article the OOC over it is already completely yours to begin with. Not to mention what Bro brought up about it being used for selfish reasons. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Long over-due. Doesn't do anything productive beyond allowing for selfish article creating. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 04:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Revive the Fanon Awards (+4)[edit]

MOTION PASSED
Topic added on 13th November.
Topic will be closed on 27th November.

The Fanon Awards were apparently a thing until like 2015 when everybody seems to have forgot about it. The 2014 Awards, with the vote here, are a good example of Fanon Awards - there are three categories - For Fun, For Glory and For Attention, and all of them have awards an article, picture, story or user can win - such as Best Hero, Best New Story, Best User, Best Admin, Best Drawing and so on. I think it would be a great idea to revive these awards. Previous awards started in October as far as I know, but perhaps we can fit the awards to take place sometime within the next 1 and a half month - perhaps nominations could start on 1 December, voting begins on 21 December and the winners are announced on 1 January 2019. Of course, this is just an idea - this proposal does not make it strictly within that time frame and all that.

The idea with this is also that the same rules that apply to Featured Articles would apply here - no nominating yourself, and (if we resolved that loophole Chill57181 mentioned here, that is) no voting for yourself. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

For (4)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 09:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

#Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Thinking over it has decided why I chose neutral - if we're going to restart this, then I think it would be wiser to allow users to nominate and vote for their own (HQA+) articles. Since voting against it for one tiny detail is a bit persnickety, going neutral is better for me. As I said, if there's a good argument for/against, I'll change my vote. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 11:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No offense, but in addition to my point below, I think letting people nominate their own articles would be even worse, because it would just be four people putting their own articles up. Trying to get their own articles awards instead of being in the spirit of awarding the best on the wiki for that year in each category. CKSysop 12:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem with large Award events is a lot of work goes into it, with pretty limited involvement. In 2014, when we had seven admins, only about seven people seem to have participated, with less than five votes on most of the awards. 2015 also had awards, only because Fooly offered to coordinate them. We've of course kept our staple awards that have survived longer than any larger award ceremonies, FAOTY, FQOTY, etc, but I feel like organizing a larger Award ceremony is a waste of time unless a lot of users like the idea and would actually participate, that is if someone would even be willing to set it up and organize/maintain it as well. Not worth it in my opinion if each category only has 3 or 4 votes. CKSysop 12:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is my main problem here. You can pass a council topic to hold Fanon Awards, but no topic can make people participate in it. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In which case, I could do private awards and the wiki could possibly give awards to the people that win. This can serve as an experiment in that way, and I can also hold it privately even if this proposal doesn't pass. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If this passes, then I'll try and co-ordinate it (with Penstubal, if he agrees to). I am a tidiness/putting things in order nerd. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, I wouldn't have a problem with official Fanon Awards and helping to set up/guide them, but only if a bunch of people wanted to participate. If only the four people voting on this proposal would participate, is there any point? CKSysop 05:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Writing Guide inside the New Manual of Style[edit]

Topic added on 18th November.
Topic will be closed on 2nd December.

I believe we could help our users, especially inexperienced ones, write better by adding a writing guide inside the New Manual of Style. We could add tips on how to make good sentences, how to better describe characters, how to take cues from other articles without plagiarizing and other things that might be harder for a totally new person or totally inexperienced-with-writing person to do. My idea for this proposal is a solely discussion proposal in an effort to reach a consensus on how the guide should look like and if it should be added at all in the first place. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Sounds good to me. If it passes, can I be one of the writers (given that I parody things all the time without plagarising)? Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's definitely a good idea (I would know, I helped draft it!). Although I think that we should base any new MOS guides off of existing articles as opposed to letting users input what they think is best. It's probably a good idea to use the wiki's best articles to create guidelines for more good articles in the future. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would be great. Another good idea would be to base the MOS guides based on category as well, like make a specific guide if you're making a music article, a specific guide for character etc. with, of course as you mentioned, the best articles on the wiki. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Like Ed added to the council guidelines, I don't see why this needs a council vote. It's surely not going to motivate any of the admins to write it. You could have written some if you wanted and asked the admins afterwards to add it to the MoS without the need of a section here. On another note, I don't know how much good a "writing guide" would help people to become better writers, but maybe it could. CKSysop 05:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete portals (+7)[edit]

Topic added on November 29, 2018.
Topic will be closed on December 13, 2018.

Long ago, the wiki had portals as a way to group interesting information about certain topics. Unfortunately, these have become very outdated and haven't been updated in years, and the users who would care about keeping up with most of them are long gone. The first three portals are for the X-Virus, Time, and the Ninja Archipelago, which list Zone and Speeddasher, Project X Mark 1, and Swiss Ninja respectively as their User Representatives. When was the last time you saw any of those guys around?

Now I won't be surprised if some users oppose this topic because "well maybe we can start working on them again", but that's what happened when I proposed deleting articles in foreign languages, and look how much those have been worked on since then. Let's be honest with ourselves, nobody's going to work on the portals again. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 00:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

For (8)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 00:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 03:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. --SlenderXP Talk to me 14:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. --Radioactivechicken, Hello world!, °w° what's this? 14:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  7. --User:EDFan12345 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  8. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 06:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 08:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • Foreign articles do have potential, given the amount of multilingual users here (I'm guessing that, including me, it's about 4-5?), but portals are long-forgotten and long-outdated. We've also got templates for them too, and that adds to their pointlessness. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 03:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You only made this to get rid of the United Provinces and Duck Island portals. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 08:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's obviously a false accusation. I'm sure he dislikes those portals as much as he dislikes all of the others, since they're all equally abandoned and unused. The UP portal is a perfect example to Chill's point, as it's been outdated for about three years, still referring to Snowiny when it's been the UP since 2015. I for one didn't even know there was a Duck Island portal, but rightfully so as it's disgusting and hasn't been improved despite being made two years ago. CKSysop 09:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't know Chill said that when the deletion began Duck Island would be first. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Did he say that? Either way, still doesn't detract from his point. CKSysop 06:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge all of the Maps Island pages (+3)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

The pages are:

It's strange to have separate pages for all the former countries that have existed on the island, and the island page should also be merged because the countries didn't own any other islands. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 05:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

For (4)[edit]

  1. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 05:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 10:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. --SlenderXP Talk to me 11:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. --User:EDFan12345Christmas Bell Pin.PNG 11:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • Annexing other countries is not a valid argument for the legitimacy of a country on this site and isn't a very good way of looking at things. --User:EDFan12345Christmas Bell Pin.PNG 11:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • While I probably don't agree with Quacker on this because he seems to have a different reason, there's no reason to have multiple different low quality articles for periods in the country's history. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) Season's greetings! 14:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't necessarily agree with Quacker's logic, but it would be better to have one HQA than multiple LQAs regarding the same topic. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 10:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Prohibit candidates from voting in the Requests for Adminship (+5)[edit]

MOTION PASSED
Topic added on December 23, 2018.
Topic will be closed on January 6, 2019.

During our recent RfA, I noticed a glaring problem, and that's the fact that the candidates themselves can also participate, which creates a big conflict of interest. I propose that candidates voting at all should be banned, and have written down every scenario and why it would be bad.

  • Candidates can vote against other candidates, which pushes them ahead of the competition.
  • On the other hand, candidates could support another candidate, which effectively gives them a second choice if they feel they're about to lose. If simply voting against other candidates was banned, this could also be used as sort of a "reverse against" by voting for certain candidates, pushing them ahead of the others anyway.
  • There's technically no rule against candidates voting for themselves. I don't think I need to explain what the problem here is.

If you're not allowed to nominate or vote for your own articles to be featured, then I think that same standard should apply to the RfA, which is much more important than an article being on the main page for a month. Of course, this doesn't apply to commenting, since that doesn't affect the votes directly. --Chill57181 GingerbreadManPin.PNG (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 19:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

For (5)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 GingerbreadManPin.PNG (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 19:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 21:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. --time to set myself on fire phoenix style ARB logo.png new year new me you know what I'm saying 03:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • wow synchronicity at work here; i was thinking of adding a topic about stating why you voted "for" or "against" but you came up with a better topic first lol Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: Chill's comment at the bottom - are you sure comments won't drastically weigh opinions? Somebody might speak ill about another user ("he/she's a no-good inactive lazybones, etc. etc.") and hope that they get more negative votes. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Banning certain users from commenting is attempting to control speech, which won't work because people will always find loopholes when you do that. They could make a subpage in their userspace with their opinions instead, for example. Either way, banning certain users from commenting on certain topics, or banning commenting at all, is a bad precedent to set. This would also block legitimate opinions and concerns that they may have about a user becoming admin. Besides, if someone attempts to sway opinion against another candidate by lying, other users who know it's false could reply with the truth, and then the candidate who made that comment would just look bad. --Chill57181 GingerbreadManPin.PNG (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 00:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point. That's what comes of eating buttered toast with no jam - I'd forgotten about the alternative to that, and that would just make the entire competition worse. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 01:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This should only apply in instances where the applicants are competing for a/multiple spots, not if they could both be promoted if amount of admins isn't an issue, as was common in the past. --CKAdmin 21:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Explain why you voted in the Requests for Adminship (0)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

Topic added on Boxing Day 2018
Topic removed on 9th January 2019

Okay, so in addition to Chill's proposal above, here's another one.

You can't vote "Neutral" in the council for no reason, right? There's an unwritten law for this because the topic for it didn't pass but everybody's doing it anyway, but it's advisable not to vote "Against" in the council for no reason, right?

In the RfA, you can just vote with no explanation needed, and it will be accepted.

Whatt?!?

As Chill similarly wrote above, this can lead to friends voting for a friend to let them become the victor in the competition - whilst topics in the council can get rekt and re-nominated, one has to wait for a long time until the RfA opens again. Also, the RfA deals with positions of power - imagine if somebody with a lot of friends but with no particularly redeeming qualities wins the position, and the other "loser", who's got a good knowledge in, say, advanced wikicode and maintenance, doesn't get it.

Remember that the RfA is no joke, for the above reasons.

It's obviously going to go wrong at some point.

If this policy passes, then we won't have the "he/she's my friend so dewit" mindset, and instead the "he/she's a pwnsome wikicoder, writer and is super-helpful so he/she deserves it" mindset. It's obvious which is better. Even if this kind of thing doesn't happen, it's a good precaution for future events. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

For (1)[edit]

  1. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. --Merry Walrus.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) HO HO HO! 10:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]