Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Council



The Club Penguin Fanon Wiki Council is a legislation of users that discuss and vote on current topics and proposals. Archived topics go here, no matter the outcome.

Modeled after the CPW and Shops' Councils.

Guidelines

 * Any users that qualify according to our Voting Policy may vote in all topics presented in the council. Users that don't qualify to vote may still give their opinion in the comments section.
 * Any user that qualifies to vote is allowed to open a council topic, though nonsense topics may be discarded without notification.
 * The amount of time a topic will stay open for voting will be at the admins' discretion. A typical vote is open for about two weeks.
 * Controversial topics which have a small vote differential (e.g. +1) may or may not pass. This will be discussed and decided among the administration.
 * Demotion votes for users do not belong here; they get their own demotion vote page.
 * We ask that all users who vote "neutral" state why they voted neutral, rather than choosing a side "For" or "Against". Neutral votes without an explanation will be removed.
 * Topics that have been closed (or failed) must be closed for four months before a similar topic can be introduced.
 * Votes regarding user rights and the Wall of Fame are not subject to this rule under the condition that the proposals are related to different users.
 * Comments on topics should be constructive and add to the discussion, otherwise they may be removed.
 * Think before you post a new topic: could a topic be achieved by asking the admins instead of a vote?
 * Topics intended as jokes or that otherwise provide nothing to the site may be removed by the administration.

The administration holds a special ability, called veto. When half of the present (active/partially active) administration votes against a proposal (if they have good reason for doing so), it can be discarded, or vetoed.

The Table
Please use this formatting when adding a new topic. Place your topic at the bottom of the section, below the line. Don't forget to sign it!

Topic name (+/- 0)

 * Topic added on .
 * Topic will be closed on .

Information about your topic goes here, including your arguments for your subject. (A more descriptive argument may convince people to join your side!)

Your signature (simply add ~), and maybe some final comments.

Bring Back the SCARY Puffles Template (-1)

 * Topic added on June 16 2021.
 * Topic will be closed on June 30.

Most of the Von Injoface Family had a template known as the "SCARY" Puffle template which was humorous and gave the website a touch of humanity. However they were inexplicably removed and deleted around 2-3 years ago, without any explanation. They were part of the Wiki for over a decade and had no reason to be deleted.

Mectrixctic  Talk to me! See the articles I worked on. . see my edits! 19:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

For (1)

 * 1) Radioactivechicken, Contact, OwO what's this? 13:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Against (2)

 * 1) Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 19:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) --Chill57181 (Talk • Contributions )  20:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutral (4)

 * 1) -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) --RealMax 21:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)RealMax
 * 3) --Quackerpingu (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Agent Isai  (Talk)(Contribs) 15:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * Never was a big fan of the scary template, and frankly those kind of templates made the articles look less presentable. I also do not find it all too fitting for Mabel's character, since from what I was able to see after updating her page recently, other characters seem to treat her as a pest more so than a puffle to be feared. This "scary" categorization makes even less sense when you factor in the rest of her family. Even so, I can see why you believe that they added some charm, but I think a compromise could be made instead of giving the template a comeback. Similar to what is on Scrubbypingu, perhaps Mabel, or any other appropriate von Injoface characters, could have their own unique quality template. This way the page is more presentable overall, while keeping the fun atmosphere that the scary template provided. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 19:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason the template was deleted in the first place was because it was ugly, outdated, and took up way too much space on the page. The code was never updated and still used the original style of templates from 2008 when the wiki began which looks very... not good. As for the space issue, see this old version of Mabel's page - barely any of the article's actual content is immediately visible. Admittedly this reasoning should've been more transparent, but what's done is done. I also take issue with how the template (jokingly) asks the reader to "please make immediate corrections", as if the character having character traits is a problem? Yeah it's obviously a joke, but it just feels awkward. If this proposal does pass then the template is going to need serious overhauling to look decent. Potential overhauling aside though, I really don't see a need for it to exist at all. Amboxes really only need to be used for important information about the article itself (i.e. quality rating, if it was featured, ownership information), anything else is what the article itself is for, which is also why I proposed removing similar amboxes like Evil and Walrus a while back. --Chill57181 (Talk • Contributions )  20:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am for on the condition that the template is given a decent redesign, to look like a normal, modern wiki template in terms of its design. And Mario's suggestion is nice as well - the Scrubbypingu article's unique quality template is a good thing to consider of the Mabel family article. -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My stance is pretty much what Penstubal is suggesting - I wouldn't mind the SCARY template making a comeback, so long as the article still looks "clean". I understand the want to preserve the more "fun" elements of the wiki and stay true to the wiki's roots, although it wouldn't hurt to bring the template up to modern standards with a little redesigning. --WP logo new.png Wikipen guino45  (Talk ) (Contribs ) ( Articles ) 14:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing Mario's stance, I sort of agree with him on using amboxes for the von Injoface. The old template does bring a touch of nostalgia but in the end, it is ugly and doesn't fit in with the other templates. -- Agent Isai  (Talk)(Contribs) 15:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Current System

 * Archive