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.
Spoiler tag amelioration (+3)
- Suggested and confirmed by Roger6881
In articles - specifically PSA Missions (click for example) we often employ spoiler tab sliders to show the reader that the content here contains spoilers. While I think the idea of warning them that spoilers is good, I do not support the style in which they are incorporated. I propose a new system when, instead of using spoiler tab sliders we, in substitution, use Template:Spoilers and put that on top of the page. The benefits of this is that it does not break the flow of reading by forcing the viewer to click on the slide and the fact that it removes the white layered background that can my reading disruptive.
In addition, it seems redundant to have multiple sections specifying spoilers when these articles are composed of spoilers about the topic. Thank you.
For (3)
- --Roger6881 (talk) 22:45, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
Callum Fawsitt 
22:47, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
you know it is Apj 
Against (0)
Comments
- Here's the issue I have: in the situation where a reader wishes to read pieces of information in the article (such as trivia) but does not want to see the spoilers, removing the slider tabs would allow the reader to easily see the spoilers, even though they did not want to. However, I do see your point in some cases, especially with PSA Mission 5: Secret of the Fur (since just about the entire page is made up of the walkthrough sections). But with more composed pages such as PSA Mission 11: The Veggie Villain, only using the Spoilers template as a warning may not work, since there is a decent amount of other info on the page besides the walkthrough. --Jeserator HTTR! 23:12, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
- In those situations, it might be best to in addition to using the template at the beginning of the article, use the template spoilers to identify when the spoilers begin and close. In that case, the reader can clearly see "safe zones."--Roger6881 (talk) 23:14, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Then perhaps a more suitable solution would be storing spoilers in hidden blocks around the article (for instance, as for trivia or other lists, spoilers could be stored in the end of those lists), with toggle buttons to reveal the hidden content, while a spoiler ambox could still be placed at the top of the article to notify the player that spoilers are found there. Penguin-Pal (talk) 11:03, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
- In those situations, it might be best to in addition to using the template at the beginning of the article, use the template spoilers to identify when the spoilers begin and close. In that case, the reader can clearly see "safe zones."--Roger6881 (talk) 23:14, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
Changing the demotion policy's criteria (+3)
- Suggested by Super Miron and confirmed by Penguin-Pal
According to our current demotion system, users are demoted in case they haven't edited for a particular period of time. According to this suggestion, instead of the current system, users will now be demoted in the case of a continuous lack of usage of the tools they have access to as part of their user groups.
For (5)
- --Roger6881 (talk) 15:11, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
- -- 15:15, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
- -- Callum Fawsitt 15:16, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
- --Llove Kuwait (Meow!) (Meow?) 07:11, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
- Yellow, k 16:19, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
Against (2)
- Hey.youcp 04:36, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
- --Wolf-gangs (Talk) 15:23, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- It is important for users to use their rights in a way that is beneficial to everyone but I have concerns regarding how we will measure them "utilising" their rights. Visual viewing of their contributions? Or a ratio system? --Roger6881 (talk) 15:11, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
- I am unsure whether this is a good idea or not. Certain user rights and tools are used only in special occasions. Take rollback as an example. It is meant to be a tool used only when combating against unequivocal cases of vandalism. Does it mean that we should demote all rollbackers for a lack of usage of the rollback tool if we do not encounter any forms of vandalism in two weeks? --Dps04talk 17:18, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
- No, the point is that some people only used the rollback tool 1-10 times since they were promoted. 18:20, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
- This vote gives a suggestion, but doesn't give specifics. I agree that the demotion policy could use improvements, how will the "lack of usage" be measured, especially for situational rights such as rollback? The vote description is currently too vague for me to confidently vote "for". --Hey.youcp 04:36, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
