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)===

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:

Discontinue POTM (+1)

Suggested by -TwinkieReborn- and confirmed by CPW Community Admin. (Vote ends August 8)

Recently, a few users have suggested that we discontinue the POTM vote. The main reasons for this is due to the inactivity on the page and it becoming increasingly harder to find new users to nominate. However, some users disagree with this and believe we should continue to keep it. So, in order to reach a conclusion as to whether or not we should keep or discontinue POTM, we will have a vote to decide. If you believe we should discontinue it, vote For, if you believe we should keep it, vote Against. Feel free to discuss your thoughts on this subject in the comments section.

For (4)

  1. CPW Community Admin (talk) 14:37, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
  2. ¡uʍop ǝpᴉsdn ǝɥʇ uᴉ pǝddɐɹʇ ɯᴉ ʻdʅǝH 14:39, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Moderator badge Hypercane (talk) Moderator badge 15:45, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
  4. -тωιηкιεяεвσяη- 19:27, July 25, 2017 (UTC)

Against (3)

  1. Sucy4 Seth4564TI (Talk) (Blog) Sucy4
  2. --Welcome to Gravity Falls 03:59, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Blue Pom Pom Toque clothing icon ID 1104 AustinD-3 (Talk) (Blog) Blue Pom Pom Toque clothing icon ID 1104


  • I agree with the idea of closing the POTM vote. Although previously it was popular and users were being nominated each month of the year, it has began to gradually decline and it is becoming harder to find new users to nominate for this award. The release of the CPI app has not increased the amount of active users on the wiki either. For these reasons, I believe it may be the time to close it. CPW Community Admin (talk) 14:36, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • Same reasons as CPWCA. ¡uʍop ǝpᴉsdn ǝɥʇ uᴉ pǝddɐɹʇ ɯᴉ ʻdʅǝH 14:40, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • Same reason as CPWCA as well, if we cannot find enough users to keep this going I see no point to be completely honest. Moderator badge Hypercane (talk) Moderator badge 15:45, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • Not having active users right now doesn't necessarily mean that in the next few months there couldn't be any good nominees. Is it time for POTM to be discontinued? Maybe. But a thing to remember: the whole point of this project is acknowledging those who have really improved the wiki in the last month, and- although i'm in no position of saying it- anyone who's voted "for" this vote has been on Santa's couch potato list this month, so it's kinda ironic to point out that "it's hard to find an active editor" :P After all, it's much easier to point out one's contributions than actually contributing (no offense lol :P). Furthermore, there have been months with no nominees/winners, so i guess for now we could just take it slow and wait a little while. In my opinion, the removal of projects like POTM is only worth discussing in the case this wiki has flawlessly collected all info related to CP that has ever been posted/released/confirmed, with every article perfectly-written and linked to. Might or might not be the case, but who am i to say, i'm a couch potato myself :P Penguin-Pal (talk) 16:19, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • I specifically said I wasn't gonna resort to a vote unless absolutely necessary. You had clearance to take down POTM. CPWCA, you didn't originally suggest this either. Given the fact I was the one who actually started all this, definite 'for'. -тωιηкιεяεвσяη- 19:27, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • So if Twinkie is quitting, then why is he suggesting us getting rid of POTM now? First he wanted to get rid of Shurow after PRAISING him before that with all this "alt hagel" stuff (Winning with a whopping 2 votes! Nice job on demoting him, wiki), and now he wants to get rid of POTM, which actually motivates and encourages more people to HELP our wiki, and we give them a prize of helping our wiki; Potm. Removing POTM will pretty much make even LESS users edit, and then noone will even be bothered to help the wiki since we're not giving them any prize for being so NICE to us. Twinkie had no reason to even let this vote be a thing, since he's quitting anyway, why does this even affect him at all? I wouldn't let him do what he wants with the wiki just so he can quit anyway, so basically this vote is being held for 0 reason at all. Also, yeah; what P-P said; you're all couch potatos. Sucy4 Seth4564TI (Talk) (Blog) Sucy4
    • It's completely irrelevant how many votes the Shurow demotion won by - a win is a win, and mind your tone. Furthermore, while I could not give less of a gosh darn heck about this POTM vote, I do think most people really don't care about it at this point. Additionally, I would point out that Twinkie's imminent leaving is irrelevant - I'm leaving in December, but I'm still a working (if you want to call it that) administrator. Surprised Emoticon You know it is CustardTheWikiBird Clothing Icons 5429 00:24, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
    • I mean, that's like asking why they added any items to Club Penguin if it was gonna close one day. I guess by your logic, it was completely useless for me to suggest new chat ban options in mid-late 2014 because I'm gonna quit at the end of the year? In fact, the picture and SWF work that Jes and Wata do are useless because they're gonna quit one day. They may as well stop contributing! Also, what's with bringing up a useless point about a demotion vote? The wiki voted as they wanted to, and it happened. You can't control what your own community wants. -тωιηкιεяεвσяη- 04:10, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
  • I was going to just ignore this, as I do with most wiki votes, but looking at the history of winners, the reasoning given here is just stupid. Like "the inactivity of the page:" in the past year, there have been 2 months without a winner. Compare this to 2010 and 2011, where there was literally a seven month gap of nobody being nominated, and combining the 2 years only gives 13 months of winners. "It becoming increasingly harder to find new users:" then nominate old users. Watatsuki, and Smallview are great candidates who do a lot in the editing department. Not good enough? You can find out who's made the most edits in the past week here, then you can check their contributions to see if the quality of their edits would make them a worthwhile candidate. There are also users who contribute in ways besides editing; Chat Moderators, Club Penguin Community Admin, people who respond to forum posts in meaningful ways, etc. (Also, in December 2014, a bot won the vote, so I guess CPChatBot is also a valid candidate.) People here are just too lazy, or just don't care enough, to actually look for someone to nominate. And there's obviously some interest in the page; there have been 4 different nominees, and four different nominators this year, and at least 2 people voted in 3 of the 4 votes. --Welcome to Gravity Falls 03:59, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
    • YES. 100% YES on this. Sucy4 Seth4564TI (Talk) (Blog) Sucy4
    • The fact that people are "too lazy"/don't care enough to vote is the entire reason this vote is being held. Surprised Emoticon You know it is CustardTheWikiBird Clothing Icons 5429 04:08, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
      • "People here are just too lazy, or just don't care enough, to actually look for someone to nominate," is mainly referring to people voting for this without putting in any effort to nominate someone, or to do any work on the wiki to potentially get nominated themselves; it's a reiterance of what Penguin-Pal said in his paragraph, about people voting "For" being on Santa's Couch Potato list. Also, if that is the main reason for this vote, then that should be the reason given for the vote being held, not these lies about the project being inactive, or it being too difficult to find someone to nominate. Honestly, it just feels like you're nitpicking what I had just wrote, and are ignoring every argument I just made, in favor of one misinterpreted sentence towards the end of my argument, which seemingly goes against everything else I had just said. --Welcome to Gravity Falls 04:48, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
        • But the people voting for presumably don't care about POTM either - they don't care about it enough to nominate, hence the vote - to see if others agree. I wasn't "ignoring" your other points, I was picking out one point because I found your others sound and valid. All I'm doing here is playing devil's advocate, as I'm not voting. Surprised Emoticon You know it is CustardTheWikiBird Clothing Icons 5429 04:51, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
          • In that case, you should've just put in the "Don't care enough" point, and left the part about being "too lazy" out of it. And even then, the sentence directly following the sentence stating that people don't care enough gives evidence to the contrary, which is why I accused you of ignoring my other points. Anyways, thanks for clarifying your argument, and sorry for accusing you of nitpicking. --Welcome to Gravity Falls 05:15, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
  • Both sides raised some interesting points. However, whilst I agree there aren't many active new users who deserve POTM at the moment, it would be a leap to suggest no new users will ever come and contribute. I remember when I joined the wiki a bit more than 5 years ago, the wiki was inactive as it is now, if not more inactive. I would still have joined the wiki if POTM didn't exist at that time, but I confess I would not have contributed as extensively as I had we're it not for POTM. Sure, POTM doesn't mean a lot to us, but it means a lot to new users who joined the wiki: it makes them feel welcome and realize their contributions are recognized. So, I would be sad to see POTM go forever just because we don't have enough active users for the time being. Rowboat PinDps04talk 09:23, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Add Tabbers to Party Galleries on Room Pages (+1)

Suggested by Seth4564TI and confirmed by CPW Community Admin. (Vote ends August 20)

Adding tabbers to the galleries for parties on room pages would basically make the page less laggy and shorter, making it less of a pain to scroll through all the images. With tabbers you can click on a year and see the decorations that room had during the party. Need examples of what it'd look like? Check here. Good idea or bad idea?

For (1)

  1. Sucy4 Seth4564TI (Talk) (Blog) Sucy4

Against (0)


Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.