Club Penguin Wiki:Vote Page

The Wiki's Vote Page is made to hold all kinds of votes.

---

When a vote is held, you will be allowed to sign your username, using four tildes ~~~~

---

Each vote will be published in this way:

==<Vote name> (0)==
:Suggested by <your name> and confirmed by <administrator name>
===For (0)===
===Against (0)===
===Comments===

Nominee Notice: After being nominated, you can enter reasons on why you should be nominated next to the "nomination sentence". A vote closes when 14 days is up. The vote difference is calculated by the number of votes "for" subtracted by the number "against". The user option with the most vote differences wins.

Voter Notice: You must vote in either "For" or "Against". If you vote in for, you have to sign underneath the "For" heading. To do this you have to type this in:
#~~~~

After you have signed it, you must change the number in the brackets up by 1. (e.g if it was at 3, it means 3 people have already signed it. Change it to 4 when you sign it.) This is also the same with the number by their name. If you vote for, you must also increase the number beside his or her name by 1.

Please remember to use "#" instead of the usual "*", because it numbers the votes making it easier to count them.

You can also remove your vote. If in any case you change your mind, do not remove your vote completely, just strike it out and move it to the back of the list.

---

Please create votes under this line:

---

To use Template:NewCharacterInfobox for character articles (+20)

Suggested by CPPerapin and confirmed by Penguin-Pal and Hey.youcp

For (20)

1. ~ Perapin (Contact)
   06:27, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
2. Marge, where are my doughnuts? (talk) 06:28, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
3. Penguin-Pal (talk) 06:32, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
4. Callum Fawsitt
5. ✓ Kyfur (talk) 06:42, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
6. Ecpg (talk · blog · contribs · block · logs · block log · rights log)
7. I steal your cake! Problem? 07:08, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
8. --
   SugarPenguin12

   • Talk
   • Blogs
   • Contributions
   07:27, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
9. S h u r o w 09:00, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
10. Kallie Jo (talk) 17:46, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
11. Hey.youcp 18:48, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
12. --THE GREEN YOSHI IZ MAZTER 04:58, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
13. - Let's; Start; The; Music! 10:03, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
14. Batreeqah (talk) 20:50, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
15. 
    Chriskim98

    • Talk Page
    • Contribs
    • Blogs
    23:42, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
16. BRICKLEBERRY! 01:22, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
17. Dps04^talk 03:03, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
18. 🎈 Let's go to Saturn! 🎈 12:36, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
19. --Roger6881 (talk) 12:43, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
20. Lava1789 the Scientist

Comments

• This reformed infobox will discontinue the redundant parameters and instead display only the key facts we need. There's no point in having really long infoboxes or infoboxes which give quick links to sections. That is the Table of Contents' job. Remember: a concise infobox is a good infobox. Simply large infoboxes like the one we have on Gary is drawing away from the purpose of an infobox. We have standards. I don't really have to explain any further. But if anyone wants to question it, I'll be happy to answer here.
  ~ Perapin (Contact)
  06:27, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. Penguin-Pal (talk) 06:32, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
• Nice idea. Marge, where are my doughnuts? (talk) 06:28, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah!!! :D ✓ Kyfur (talk) 06:42, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
• I think its good idea :) I steal your cake! Problem? 07:08, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
• It is much neater than the current infobox. --
  SugarPenguin12

  • Talk
  • Blogs
  • Contributions
  07:27, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
• YOLO RIGHT?! -- S h u r o w 09:00, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
• Looks good! --Hey.youcp 18:48, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
• Scratch the other one, That was a fail. but anyways, It's cool. --THE GREEN YOSHI IZ MAZTER 04:58, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
• Good Idea! :) - Let's; Start; The; Music! 10:04, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed.Batreeqah (talk) 20:50, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

• Why not? :P
  Chriskim98

  • Talk Page
  • Contribs
  • Blogs
  23:42, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
• There is a reason why there are no against votes :P BRICKLEBERRY! 01:22, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • ikr :P Penguin-Pal (talk) 04:32, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
• Not like my vote was needed, but I think this fits the new design perfectly and it has all the necessary features with no redundant ones found on the others. --Roger6881 (talk) 12:43, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• As long as it's a good one, I'm fine with it, like old and new versions of Mascots in slots, I'm fine. --Lava1789 the Scientist

Demotion Policy (+3)

Suggested by Wolf-gangs

I recently made a changes to the Demotion Policy. I think is quite strict, so I believe making it less strict is required. The changes won't be taken into consideration, until the community approves it.

The time limit for...

• Chat Moderators - 3 week (including chat time) limit only.
• Rollbacks - 3 weeks limit only.
• Patrollers - 3 weeks limit only.
• Administrators - 1 month limit only.

Wolf-gangs (talk) 14:36, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

For (8)

1. Wolf-gangs (talk) 14:36, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
2. --Roger6881 (talk) 15:10, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
3. 
   Chriskim98

   • Talk Page
   • Contribs
   • Blogs
   19:53, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
4. Marge, where are my doughnuts? 20:31, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
5. Penguin-Pal (talk) 09:28, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
6. 🎈 Let's go to Saturn! 🎈 12:37, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
7. Let's; Start; The; Music! 13:16, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
8. TheNintendoKingTheNintendoKing (talk) 15:35, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Against (5)

1. ~ Perapin (Contact)
   05:10, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
2. Hey.youcp 17:46, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
3. Kallie Jo (talk) 18:08, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
4. ✓ Kyfur (talk) 19:25, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
5. FurryHamster03 00:42, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• The changes are quite justifiable. While this change basically helps everyone out really; there is little need to really change it. One question, do Bureaucrats get the same time as Administrators if the change goes through? --Roger6881 (talk) 12:44, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • Not justifiable. How can it "basically help everyone out really"? That makes no sense. Be prepared to explain your bold statements.
    ~ Perapin (Contact)
    05:12, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • Explanation I gave in chat matches this one I believe, additional time for everyone to have inactive reduces stress, therefor makes for a happier working environment on the wiki. Justifiable in my opinion. --Roger6881 (talk) 12:46, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• It's just my opinion that bureaucrats should have a time limit, so I'm staying neutral. :P Kallie Jo (talk) 19:48, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  • By admins and bureaucrats, sorry I forgot to add that xP. Wolf-gangs (talk) 20:05, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, I change my vote then. Kallie Jo (talk) 20:20, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
• Good idea :P
  Chriskim98

  • Talk Page
  • Contribs
  • Blogs
  19:53, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  • Bad idea...
    ~ Perapin (Contact)
    05:12, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of extending the time limits. However, what about other rights such as bots and interface editors? Shouldn't they have time limits as well? --Hey.youcp 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  • True
    ~ Perapin (Contact)
    05:12, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • About bots, the current limit is 2 months, which is really long actually. As for interface editor, Miron is currently the only user in the wiki with this privilege, and as he's also a patroller, as for now a discussion about an inactivity, if ever happened, could possibly also give us an idea of what criteria should be added to this group. Penguin-Pal (talk) 09:28, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• Have some users been paid to vote For lately? I can't believe how many people support this! NO NO NO NO! They are not justifiable AT ALL. It is CLEARLY OBVIOUS that we need to be stricter with the time limits. Chat moderators are supposed to be active as much as possible. Their role is to moderate the chat! They can't moderate the chat if they're not there. So, chat moderators should be demoted if they're inactive for over 1 week for an unjustified or unknown reason. We simply cannot allow users with user rights to feel "safer" with being more inactive. The same goes with rollbacks and patrollers. How are they supposed to catch up with patrolling the wiki to maintain the standards of our wiki's pages if they feel like it's okay to take a break for an extra week playing silly video games? They could be inactive for a whole week, do little edits in the week they're supposed to be active, and repeat this pattern so they don't get demoted. That's stupid! Also, why the 1 month limit on admins and bureaucrats? They are the most important users on our wiki and help keep this wiki in order. We cannot allow inactive admins who edit once in a month so they don't get demoted. In conclusion, in order to ensure that this wiki is running in good standard, we have to be strict with the time limits, otherwise users with these user rights will feel it's safe to just put off helping the wiki. We need users to stay active, and keeping the time limits strict helps to enforce their perpetuate a consistent activity.
  ~ Perapin (Contact)
  05:10, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • People voted for this because it is their opinions, Pin, just like how you voted against. However, the thing that does not impress me with your statement is the fact that no one wants the wiki to be strict. This wiki needs to be a happy and jolly place, a one week limit is way too short. Have you ever heard of the fact that some people cannot access the internet? Some people have exams? Some people just don't have time for a while? These things are things that users cannot control nor stop, so this is why the demotion policy needs to be less strict. TheNintendoKingTheNintendoKing (talk) 15:35, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
    • CPPerapin makes a good point. I don't know why I voted "for." The suggested time limits are way too lazy. (To put it into perspective, a chat moderator could only get on chat once in every 3 weeks and still keep his or her rights.) We're already having problems with there not being enough room for active users to be promoted. Lately, some users were arguing that we should not promote a user to rollback for the reason that we already have too many, despite the user being deserving of the right. While they may seem strict as they are, the time limits should be kept low to be fair to users who are more active and deserve those rights. The Demotion Policy is even lenient and allows exceptions for users who have schoolwork, exams, are sick, injured, etc. I think we should keep the current time limits. --Hey.youcp 17:46, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I agree with both of you. What is the use of someone having a user right if they're just going to be active every 3 weeks, and they are just manipulating the policy, without a valid excuse for their inactivity? Kallie Jo (talk) 18:08, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
        • YEAH!!! FurryHamster03 00:42, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
• Good Idea :) -- Let's; Start; The; Music! 13:16, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• I just saw your points, if you want we can put it as one week for chat moderators. But for other rights? Wolf-gangs (talk) 23:39, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the time limits for the other rights should change either. However, we should add the time limit for bots to the demotion page. I realize it's already on the bots page, but we should add it there as well. --Hey.youcp 02:51, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Personal Images (-9)

Suggested by Wolf-gangs

I think that we should allow users to upload images of themselves, if the user is not a COPPA. Since we are part of wikia, most other wiki allow that, which means we will have to punish users that simply just pass by from other wikis. I think that if the user is found to be COPPA, he/she will simply get blocked. Wolf-gangs (talk) 19:45, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

For (2)

1. Wolf-gangs (talk) 19:45, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
2. Hey.youcp 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Against (11)

1. Marge, where are my doughnuts? 20:30, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
2. ~ Perapin (Contact)
   04:53, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
3. ✓ Kyfur (talk) 05:14, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
4. Penguin-Pal (talk) 09:28, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
5. 🎈 Let's go to Saturn! 🎈 12:38, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
6. --Roger6881 (talk) 12:51, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
7. (Unknown's My Name Robbing's My Game 13:06, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
8. Let's; Start; The; Music! 13:12, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
9. TheNintendoKingTheNintendoKing (talk) 19:33, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
10. Mariocart25 (talk) 23:44, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
11. Lava1789 the Scientist

Comments

• The idea it self is OK, but (this could be rare, but still) the user could be bullied for their appearance. Marge, where are my doughnuts? 20:34, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case, the bully would be punished. --Hey.youcp 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
    • Honestly, i agree with YP, i don't think users should be uploading photos of themselves at all. (Unknown's My Name Robbing's My Game 13:06, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, because others might say BIG HEAD and stuff. They would say that to me... ;( --Lava1789 the Scientist
• There have been quite a few times in chat where a user has come from another wiki and had to be asked to change his or her avatar for this reason. While I strongly recommend users to never upload images of themselves, I don't think we should block them because of it. I agree that users should be allowed to do this. --Hey.youcp 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
• Don't come complaining to me when a user gets bullied for their appearance or if the avatar the user has gets plagiarized and used on a magazine article without the user's permission. It has happened before back in my day. Do you want it to happen to a friend, or you, that has a picture of him/herself as their avatar? No, we must simply not abide to this. CLUB PENGUIN ENFORCES PRIVACY FOR A REASON!
  ~ Perapin (Contact)
  04:53, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • Who the hell would come complaining to you??? Let's do the Time-Warp again! 00:28, July 25, 2014 (UTC)WikiaFrog
• An avatar is one thing, but allowing people to share and upload their images to the wiki itself is different. To be honsest, if people are willing to share their images, they can always link their account to their facebook/twitter page (available on their profile masthead). Penguin-Pal (talk) 09:28, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• As I said, we are part of Wikia, in which all wikis are allowed to add images of themselves, as part of their avatars. We have no right to stop them, since that means we have to punish most of Wikians who just pass by our wiki. If we were independent, it would have been a whole different story though. Wolf-gangs (talk) 12:33, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• I'll respect anyone by the appearance, and I am all for freedom - but having someone show their face - or their family members face is to much of a risk. The COPPA yes or COPPA no system is extremely unreliable - we do not know if someone is 13+ or they are not simply by their appearance. Like Penguin-Pal said, if they want to show their face, they have social media websites. --Roger6881 (talk) 12:51, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• It is not safe and its risky - Let's; Start; The; Music! 13:12, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• Although, by Club Penguin Wiki Policy, I do not meet the requirements to vote, I believe it should be the user's choice whether or not they upload a picture of themselves. It's a rule that is difficult to enforce, and by the policy, some Wikia staff members should be blocked from this wiki. I strongly suggest that the 8 against the policy change reconsider. --AnonymousDuckLink and Postman 14:33, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• Club Penguin, which is the game this wiki is based on, do not allow personal info. So I see no point of us allowing it either. TheNintendoKingTheNintendoKing (talk) 19:33, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Relation Policy (+11)

Suggested by Wolf-gangs

The Relation Treaty is simply not required anymore. The Fanon is simply dead now, and this treaty has been done way back during the old era. I believe this is no longer required and we must delete it. Wolf-gangs (talk) 20:00, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

For (11)

1. Wolf-gangs (talk) 20:00, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
2. Marge, where are my doughnuts? 20:30, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
3. Kallie Jo (talk) 20:35, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
4. Hey.youcp 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
5. ~ Perapin (Contact)
   04:56, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
6. ✓ Kyfur (talk) 05:14, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
7. Penguin-Pal (talk) 09:28, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
8. Miron [talk]
   12:39, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
9. 🎈 Let's go to Saturn! 🎈 12:40, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
10. --Roger6881 (talk) 12:52, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
11. (Unknown's My Name Robbing's My Game 13:09, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think it's needed either. The page at the Fanon should be deleted as well. --Hey.youcp 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Roger6881 (talk) 12:52, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• Inactive wikis are not tolerated and should not be a partner to us. We have higher expectations. Also, why the heck would we need a relation treaty? It's common sense!
  ~ Perapin (Contact)
  04:56, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• There are good relations between our communities, and we never quite attempt to kill each other, so i don't see a point in this either. Penguin-Pal (talk) 09:28, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• That's still a thing?
  Miron [talk]
  12:39, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• I agree, but I think we should have a relation policy for the CPPW. 🎈 Let's go to Saturn! 🎈 12:40, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• WE SHALL DELETE THIS (Unknown's My Name Robbing's My Game 13:09, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Ban/Block length (+2)

Suggested by Wolf-gangs

In some policy pages, we did set some ban/block length for every situation. I think that chat moderators and admins have the right to ban for length they believe is reasonable and suitable for that user. Though we can make it as a guide book for chat moderators or move it to any other page, but I believe it shouldn't really be in the policy pages. I believe the consequence must be explained briefly without specific ban/block lengths. Wolf-gangs (talk) 23:30, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

For (3)

1. Wolf-gangs (talk) 23:30, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
2. JWPengie; My Puffle and I! :D 23:42, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
3. Miron [talk]
   10:11, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Against (1)

1. ~ Perapin (Contact)
   08:41, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Yeah I think that would be easier :) JWPengie; My Puffle and I! :D 23:42, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
• Not a good idea at all. Chat moderators have always had the right to ban for the reason they believe is reasonable, hence the note, "The block/ban timing may vary according to the administrator/chat moderator decision, but these are the just the most suitable block/ban times to use". Though removing the suitable block/ban times on the Chat Policy will result in bias in moderators. There have been times where moderators take things far too strictly, such as Super Miron trying to ban me for 2 weeks, Jackninja5 trying to ban someone for 6 months, and moderators making the common mistake of not giving proof that their ban is justified, which eventually causes in another moderator unbanning the user banned unfairly. Removing this from the Policy page would result in more freedom for the moderators. We don't want moderators to be biased. If you went to a restaurant, would you want to have your meal served with less than you wanted because a particular chef tending to undervalue the portion, while other chefs value the portion reasonably on the plate? The same thing applies for moderators, we want standardization, and no bias. We're not going to have one moderator banning for 2 weeks for constant disruption while another moderator bans for 1 hour for the same thing, when they both know the user well. That's just unfair. What I do find chat moderators handle well is kicking. A user who spams deliberately when they know the Policy can be kicked straight away, no warning needed. I like chat moderators that actually know the users on the chat. The ban/block times, however, I feel is not what mods/admins handle to a great extent, and removing the suggested ban/block times from the Chat Policy would ruin this further. And moving to my last point... bollocks to guide books if we don't get to read it before we vote for it. I vote against.
  ~ Perapin (Contact)
  08:41, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Dude your whole point talk about chat moderators. What about other policies? Don't you think an admin is independent to decide what is reasonable? Users use those consequences to cause conflicts even among admins! --Wolf-gangs ^(Talk) 00:41, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
    • Please do not call me "dude". And the whole point of the talk is chat moderators because this vote is about chat moderators. There was nothing in your request that talked about other policies. You should always be clear in the section heading what is the voting proposal.
      ~ Perapin (Contact)
      05:45, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think we need to have a vote about this. If the policy says X but your intuition and some good logic say Y, why would you let some *quote quote "brainiac"* get away with no punishment, and already the policy has always been more of a guideline: like in many problematic cases (usually has to do with very problematic users or mass vandals), we have to pick a proper punishment for the given offense. I mean, if some guy came to chat and started flooding like hell and swearing, would you really go for the first swearing offense punishment + first flooding punishment = seems strict enough to me. here's your short ban and have a good day sir tactic? Penguin-Pal (talk) 10:26, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Perapin would.
    Miron [talk]
    10:35, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
    EDIT: (only if he'd be banning himself)
    • Not true comrade. I agree with P-P that we should not have a vote about this. It's quite obvious that if someone banned a user for 1 day for a user who flooded and swore like hell, I'd be like "Who do you think you are?" to the moderator/admin.
      ~ Perapin (Contact)
      11:09, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
• Perapin I suggested this for many reasons. First of all, I said what the moderator believes is suitable and reasonable. Plus, we admins are here, so we can solve any situation that is wrong. I didn't suggest removing it fully from the wiki, only from the policy page as it is not its location and many users who get frequently get banned use it as a way to complaint and starting problems. And, as I said, we must move it to somewhere for chat moderators and admins only. Other than that, moderators are promoted as they are trust worthy and we are here to guide them. Wolf-gangs (talk) 13:28, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • "Other than that, moderators are promoted as they are trust worthy" - uhh, I have my doubts.
    Miron [talk]
    13:36, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
    • Miron, I know some moderators are still not capable, but let us forget about the chat policy. We will keep the consequences in the chat policy, but what about other pages? I don't think the admins need that, plus users use that to start problems and even conflict among the admins. Wolf-gangs (talk) 13:46, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
• As CPPerapin said, blocks/bans should be standardized and be as free of bias as possible. I don't think the lengths should be completely removed from the wiki. Tell me the page(s) they will be moved to, and I will give my vote. --Hey.youcp 02:46, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Decreasing the amount of edits needed to be qualified for POTM (+2)

Suggested by Chriskim98 and confirmed by Kallie Jo

I've noticed that the same people get nominated for POTM due to the fact that you must have 100 edits to qualify in the POTM vote. I was thinking of lowering the amount of edits to 50-80 edits depending on administration. Reasons why? 1. There are not a lot of things to edit anymore. 2. Shouldn't POTM also be about people helping the community of this wiki instead of the wiki? There could be someone that helps the community, is nice, etc but doesn't meet the 100 edits qualification. 3. I also once saw and experienced that a couple of users were on the POTM list. They were all removed due to not having 100 edits. At one point they might be so glad that they're nominated. Until the next couple minutes they're removed for not having enough edits.

For (3)

1. 
   Chriskim98

   • Talk Page
   • Contribs
   • Blogs
   00:16, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
2. FurryHamster03 00:30, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
3. Ain't nobody got time fo' dat! 00:46, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Against (1)

1. ~ Perapin (Contact)
   05:41, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Dis is true. FurryHamster03 00:30, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't even think we had a POTM for June. 50 mainspace edits in the last 30 days sounds reasonable. --Hey.youcp 02:46, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
• That's really pathetic. POTM is about making a lot of qualitative and quantitative edits AND helping the community. Simply decreasing the amount of edits needed to be POTM is going to lower our standards. There are PLENTY of articles to edit. There are heaps of pages not having images, heaps of pages needing sources, heaps of pages being stubs, and soon there will be heaps of character articles to reformat with the new infoboxes. How is there not much to edit? Simply lowering the amount of mainspace edits needed to be qualified for POTM is lowering our standards. We don't allow that. Also, all POTM nominees are EXPECTED to have helped out the community. Helping out the community takes initiative and is common sense, and serves simply as supplementary criteria to be awarded as POTM. Being awarded for POTM for mostly "helping out the community" is just pathetic because that gives the sense that you're giving rewards for "following the Policy". POTM is about making IMPROVEMENTS to the wiki. Improvements in behavior is one thing, but not sufficient to meet the criteria for POTM, because we all expect people to have good behavior. Like I said, I don't want any lowering of standards here. This is a wiki and its central purpose is to provide information, and therefore users that add a sufficient number of improvements to articles (100 in a month) should only deserve to become POTM. We can not have our users that worked hard to edit pages who became a POTM, and now users who worked less and became a POTM. That is obviously unfair. This wiki is a wiki for information about Club Penguin. We need people to provide that information. And only the ones that have significantly provided that information can meet the standard.
  ~ Perapin (Contact)
  05:41, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm with you on the editing part. "There are not a lot of things to edit" isn't really a valid excuse. Just take a look at how many pages are stubs and need expanding. However, while you make some valid points there, the POTM vote is "to decide which user has made the most significant improvements that month." It doesn't state that the improvements have to be in terms of editing mainspace articles. For example, a user could replace many low quality images with high quality images, and that would improve the visuals of articles. However, that would count towards edits made in the file namespace. --Hey.youcp 06:05, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
    • You make another fantastic point Hey.youcp! I forgot to mention about that. :)
      ~ Perapin (Contact)
      06:08, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
      • That's fine. I can understand why you're against this vote. I think the POTM is a bit biased anyway. It currently says that users have to have "100 or more mainspace edits in the last 30 days" to be nominated, which implies that only mainspace edits count as improvements. However, take a look at the new character infobox you suggested for character articles. That should be considered an improvement, but it would only count towards edits made in the template, Club Penguin Wiki/project (this vote page), and user (since you first created it in a user subpage) namespaces. That's why I think the best option would be to decrease the amount of mainspace edits needed, or remove the requirement entirely and leave it up for the users to decide who has made the most improvements for the month. --Hey.youcp 06:49, July 25, 2014 (UTC)