Club Penguin Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Club Penguin Wiki
Club Penguin Wiki
10,487
pages
in: Votes

Club Penguin Wiki:Vote Page

Revision as of 05:14, 23 July 2014 by Kyfur (talk | contribs) ([ voting :D ])
View source

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 discuss with an administrator before creating a new vote!
Please create votes under this line:

To use Template:NewCharacterInfobox for character articles (+17)

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

For (17)

  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 New Emote (talk) 06:42, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Ecpg (talk · blog · contribs · block · logs · block log · rights log)
  7. OrangePuffleApr2014PengStyleCatPose I steal your cake! Problem? BirthdayCakewithCandles 07:08, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  8. --
    SugarPenguin12
    07:27, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  9. United States flag S h u r o w Water Balloon snowball 09:00, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Kallie Jo (talk) 17:46, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  11. Hey.youcp Surfboard Pin 18:48, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  12. --THE GREEN YOSHI IZ MAZTER 04:58, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
  13. -Record Pin Let's; Start; The; Music! Green Headphones icon 10:03, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
  14. Batreeqah (talk) 20:50, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
  15. TanCowboyHat
    Chriskim98
    TanCowboyHat 23:42, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
  16. BRICKLEBERRY! 01:22, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
  17. Rowboat PinDps04talk 03:03, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

Against (0)

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)
  • Nice idea. Marge, where are my doughnuts? (talk) 06:28, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah!!! :D ✓ Kyfur New Emote (talk) 06:42, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • I think its good idea :) OrangePuffleApr2014PengStyleCatPose I steal your cake! Problem? BirthdayCakewithCandles 07:08, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • It is much neater than the current infobox. --
    SugarPenguin12
    07:27, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • YOLO RIGHT?! --United States flag S h u r o w Water Balloon snowball 09:00, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks good! --Hey.youcp Surfboard Pin 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! :) -Record Pin Let's; Start; The; Music! Green Headphones icon 10:04, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed.Batreeqah (talk) 20:50, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Demotion Policy (+5)

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 (6)

  1. Wolf-gangs (talk) 14:36, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  2. --Roger6881 (talk) 15:10, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  3. TanCowboyHat
    Chriskim98
    TanCowboyHat 19:53, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Kallie Jo (talk) 20:20, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Zomg its homer simpson from CP Marge, where are my doughnuts?Zomg its homer simpson from CP 20:31, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Hey.youcp Surfboard Pin 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Against (1)

  1. ~ Perapin (Contact)
    05:10, July 23, 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger6881 (talk • contribs • edit count) 15:10, July 22, 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)
  • 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)
  • Good idea :P TanCowboyHat
    Chriskim98
    TanCowboyHat 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 Surfboard Pin 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
    • True
      ~ Perapin (Contact)
      05:12, 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)

Personal Images (-1)

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 Surfboard Pin 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Against (3)

  1. Zomg its homer simpson from CP Marge, where are my doughnuts?Zomg its homer simpson from CP 20:30, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  2. ~ Perapin (Contact)
    04:53, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  3. ✓ Kyfur New Emote (talk) 05:14, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • The idea it self is OK, but (this could be rare, but still) the user could be bullied for their appearance. Zomg its homer simpson from CP Marge, where are my doughnuts?Zomg its homer simpson from CP 20:34, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
    • In that case, the bully would be punished. --Hey.youcp Surfboard Pin 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  • 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 Surfboard Pin 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)

Relation Policy (+6)

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 (6)

  1. Wolf-gangs (talk) 20:00, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Zomg its homer simpson from CP Marge, where are my doughnuts?Zomg its homer simpson from CP 20:30, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Kallie Jo (talk) 20:35, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Hey.youcp Surfboard Pin 21:02, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
  5. ~ Perapin (Contact)
    04:56, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
  6. ✓ Kyfur New Emote (talk) 05:14, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Against (0)

Comments

  • I don't think it's needed either. The page at the Fanon should be deleted as well. --Hey.youcp Surfboard Pin 21:02, July 22, 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)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement