Below is a council meeting summary for July 6, 2013.
| 10.1: Close the Partnership Program
|
| Proposal: The failing "partnership board" and pages should be closed. We should keep the existing partnerships we have but disallow any new partnerships (unless negotiated by admins under special circumstances). (Seahorseruler)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
- No effort has been made to establish a new partnership for months.
- It is not necessary to have an official partnership board. Any new partnerships is up to the interest of the administration and therefore negotiating is up to them.
|
- The partnership program is one of the few possible ways we can promote ourselves to new readers and users.
- There was a lack of users assigned to run the program.
- It is too early to determine if this program would be successful or not.
|
| Vote outcome: Motion passed by a margin of +7 (7-0).
|
| Changes: Existing partnerships will be kept until contract is voided. Any new partnerships will be negotiated by the administration.
|
| 10.2: Create an appearance section for character articles
|
| Proposal: I was thinking of maybe having an appearances section for characters. What it would be is a list that lists all their appearances in the newspaper, appearances in books (on/offline), video games, the parties they visited, the PSA/EPF missions, all that stuff. (Chill57181)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
- It gives an overview of when characters have made notable appearances in game and in the media.
|
None
|
| Vote outcome: Motion passed by a margin of +7 (7-0).
|
| Changes: An appearance section will be created for most character articles to list all appearances they have made.
|
| 10.3: Create a monthly archive for all What's New Blog posts
|
| Proposal: Blog Posts from the What's New Blog had lots of information and such on Club Penguin history, and was a big part. I feel that we should make a page for the month with all the blog posts on there. (Brookelas)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
- Can be used in the information namespace, which is currently unused.
|
- If used in mainspace, it can clog up the main namespace.
|
| Vote outcome: Motion passed by a margin of +8 (8-0).
|
| Changes: Posts from the What's New Blog will be archived in its own namespace.
|
| 10.4: Create articles on popular Club Penguin culture.
|
| Proposal: I think that maybe we should have articles on Club Penguin culture (perhaps a separate namespace) that isn't necessarily created by CP. i.e. Pookies, igloo parties, Field Fridays, Moose Mondays, that kind of stuff. (Chill57181)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
- Readers may search up topics that may be fan based but these topics may be significant enough that Club Penguin recognizes.
- Articles will be limited to in-game culture only.
|
- This was the purpose of the CP Fandom Wiki. It failed.
- The amount of articles under this category can get out of hand easily.
- Our purpose is not to advertise bloggers/YouTubers.
|
| Vote outcome: Motion passed by a margin of +6 (7-1).
|
| Changes:
|
| 10.5.1: Close portals
|
| Proposal: Portals have failed miserably. I say we close them, categories are easier to use, and nobody that comes here is really looking for a featured image or article about the portal subject, or an activity about the portal. They come here to know specifically what they wanna know. Also, portals are too time consuming and too hard to keep maintained. (TheBroMaster)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
- Lack of effort towards the maintenance of portals. All portals are heavily outdated.
- This topic has been voted on before on the wiki. It was concluded that the pages would be fixed up but never did.
- We only have 6000 articles compared to Wikipedia's millions.
|
- The portals never had a shot. They were never promoted.
- Wikipedia has millions of portals. Most are outdated as well.
- Portals are more reader friendly than category pages.
|
| Vote outcome: Motion rejected by a margin of -6 (0-6).
|
| Changes: None
|
| 10.5.2: Should portals be renovated?
|
| Proposal: As the last motion failed, we should make an effort in order to keep Portals in good shape. (LordMaster96)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
|
None
|
None
|
| Vote outcome: Motion passed by a margin of +8 (8-0).
|
| Changes: All Portals will be updated to be up to date with Club Penguin.
|
| 10.6: Blogs and opinions on Club Penguin.
|
| Proposal: My idea is quite similar to one posted above but different. In these blog posts it would be about the blog posters opinion on the current status of CP ect. For example, there would be a "talking point" on Old CP or something. (Boidoh)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
|
None
|
None
|
| Vote outcome: Motion dismissed.
|
| Changes: None
|
| 10.7: Stop giving pages odd names because they're called that in a few files.
|
| Proposal: So, recently, Wboys moved the Everyday Phoning Facility to Agent Lobby Solo, because it's called that in the .swf and a few of the .json files. But, most of the official blog post, other rooms, and loading screens call it the Everyday Phoning Facility, so why shouldn't we? I mean, it's good to have the .json and .swf files for the items and things, but if something is called one thing in most places, and another in a few files, we should call it the first name, and maybe mention the filename on the page? (Snowstormer)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
|
None
|
None
|
| Vote outcome: Motion dismissed. Issue was resolved.
|
| Changes: None
|
| 10.8: Only make disambiguation pages for topics with three or more items
|
| Proposal: Basically, I've been looking at the disambiguation pages lately. With that, i've seen 30+ disambiguation pages that only have 2 items in it (such as 1 Coin Bag stamp, Blue Toque, Brown Puffle House, Dance Floor, etc.). Rather than making disambiguation pages for those, I think it would be much easier to just link the plain article to the first released item (for example, Blue Toque would be redirected to the 2006 version). In addition, each article with only 1 other topic would have the "Were you looking for the _____?". Sorry if it sounds confusing. (Cp kid)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
- A second article can be linked to by using the "Were you looking for" prompt.
|
- Disambiguation pages make navigation easier.
- Using a prompt shows favoritism over one article.
|
| Vote outcome: Motion rejected by a margin of -4 (0-4).
|
| Changes: None
|
| 10.9: Discuss ways to get new users
|
| Proposal: No offense, but even though our page view count is high, I have a bad feeling the wiki is dying. It seems like there are only 10 or so truly active users on the wiki, which makes it hard for pages to stay updated and also hard for any progress to be made. With that, I think we honestly need to weigh out our options and decide what we need to try to get new users. (Cp kid)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
|
None
|
None
|
| Vote outcome: Motion dismissed.
|
| Changes: None
|
| 10.10: Create "Available" categories
|
| Proposal: I have noticed somewhat of a problem with our clothes and furniture articles. There are a bunch that were never updated when they were removed for a catalog. For example, one clothing page I saw a few weeks ago said it was still available in the series 6 treasure book or something. The only way to fix those is to find them individually and fix them. However, to prevent it from happening in the future, I had an idea. If we create "Available Clothes" and "Available Furniture" categories and add/remove them from pages when they are updated, it might help to keep us on track (for example: If somebody looks on the "Category:Available Clothes" page, they might see an item and be like "Oh, that was removed from the catalog when it updated yesterday!" and fix the article). I'd be willing to do as much of the beginning work as possible (adding the first round of categories onto pages). (Cp kid)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
- It keeps the wiki organized when updating articles.
|
None
|
| Vote outcome: Motion passed by a margin of +1 (1-0).
|
| Changes: "Available Items" and "Available Furniture" categories will be created for ease of article organization.
|
| 10.11: New favicon vote
|
| Proposal: Last time the favicon vote failed because all the images were too big. A few users have told me that they'd like to try to make a favicon too, and I made three new possible favicons. What I want to know is would YOU guys like a favicon vote? I'm hoping we can vote on this at the council. (Chill57181)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
- The winning favicon did not win by preferential ballot rules and was ruled as the winner because of an issue in quality.
- A resized version of the "winning" favicon shows little or no issues.
- The vote was unfair.
|
None
|
| Vote outcome: Motion passed by a margin of +5 (5-0).
|
| Changes: A "re-vote" for a new favicon will be held.
|
| 10.12: Revisiting one of my old ideas
|
Proposal: This got rejected at the last meeting, but I want to bring it up again. I'd like to do some stuff that would place us in a better position overall:
- We need a universal CPWN "feel and look". I want something akin to Brickimedia's Deep Sea skin. I honestly think this would help us get more hesitant visitors to join.
- We need to consider a scale-down of functionality network-wide to make the atmosphere more noob-friendly. I'm not talking about a total scale down of everything, but rather a reduction of complexity. I'm sure old users will not like this, and I accept that. I still think it would help us long-term.
- Again, I want some backend changes happen. This would make a better base extension collection, and allow for minimal per-wiki configuration.
This time, I want things voted separately. I of course accept comments on this. More may be added as well. (Tux)
|
| Arguments For
|
Arguments Against
|
|
None
|
None
|
| Vote outcome: Motion dismissed.
|
| Changes: None
|
Re-open Partnership program
Dismissed per vote #1
Plan 2013 Awards
Vote: Should we host a 2013 Awards?
| For |
Abstain |
Against
|
| 5 |
0 |
0
|
Recognition Program
Dismissed
Twinkle
Vote: Should we have Twinkle?
| For |
Abstain |
Against
|
| 0 |
0 |
4
|
CSS updates
Vote:
| For |
Abstain |
Against
|
| 3 |
0 |
0
|
Fanon PT to Join Network?
Vote: Should Fanon PT be a part of CPWNetwork? (In our opinion, as staff makes the final decision)
| For |
Abstain |
Against
|
| 4 |
0 |
0
|
Future Meeting Requirements
Vote: Should future meetings have a requirement so that there must be 6 votes 'for' representing 2/3 of all present users at the meeting for a topic to pass?
| For |
Abstain |
Against
|
| 3 |
0 |
0
|