User:Yoshi K/Draft: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "This is what would happen if this proposal passes. ===Create article for Power-Up C=== We have articles for Power-Up A and Power-Up B, why not have one for Power-Up C? Power...") |
m (Glowsquid moved page User:Koopa K/Draft to User:Yoshi K/Draft: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Koopa K" to "Yoshi K") |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is | This is an example of a proposal that would be affected. | ||
===Create article for Power-Up C=== | ===Create article for Power-Up C=== | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
We have articles for Power-Up A and Power-Up B, why not have one for Power-Up C? Power-Up C's info is currently in Power-Up A. (User A puts reason here) | We have articles for Power-Up A and Power-Up B, why not have one for Power-Up C? Power-Up C's info is currently in Power-Up A. (User A puts reason here) | ||
'''Proposer:'''User A (talk) | '''Proposer:'''User A (talk)<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' | '''Deadline:'''MM, DD, YYYY | ||
===Create the article=== | ====Create the article==== | ||
#User A (talk) Per proposal | #User A (talk) Per proposal | ||
#User B (talk) Per User A | #User B (talk) Per User A | ||
#User D (talk) Why not create it? | #User D (talk) Why not create it? | ||
#User I (talk) Per all. | #User I (talk) Per all. | ||
===Split, and merge into Power-Up B=== | ====Split, and merge into Power-Up B==== | ||
#User E (talk) This is almost the same thing as Power-Up B. | #User E (talk) This is almost the same thing as Power-Up B. | ||
#User F (talk) Per User E | #User F (talk) Per User E | ||
===Do Nothing=== | ====Do Nothing==== | ||
#User C (talk) Power-Up C is not major enough to have its own article. | #User C (talk) Power-Up C is not major enough to have its own article. | ||
#User G (talk) Why? They both do very similar things. | #User G (talk) Why? They both do very similar things. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Under my rule, the proposal will be extended, but no options will be deleted. Which was the main reason the last proposal failed. It will be extended just like a normal proposal, and is treated as any proposal would be. | Under my rule, the proposal will be extended, but no options will be deleted. Which was the main reason the last proposal failed. It will be extended just like a normal proposal, and is treated as any proposal would be. | ||
I hope this wasn't too complicated for you to understand, I tried | I hope this wasn't too complicated for you to understand, I tried to make it as clear as possible. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:32, October 10, 2012
This is an example of a proposal that would be affected.
Create article for Power-Up C
We have articles for Power-Up A and Power-Up B, why not have one for Power-Up C? Power-Up C's info is currently in Power-Up A. (User A puts reason here)
Proposer:User A (talk)
Deadline:MM, DD, YYYY
Create the article
- User A (talk) Per proposal
- User B (talk) Per User A
- User D (talk) Why not create it?
- User I (talk) Per all.
Split, and merge into Power-Up B
- User E (talk) This is almost the same thing as Power-Up B.
- User F (talk) Per User E
Do Nothing
- User C (talk) Power-Up C is not major enough to have its own article.
- User G (talk) Why? They both do very similar things.
- User H (talk) Per User G
In our current system, User I's vote of Per all would make the proposal pass, (as this proposal has only 9 votes, and not affected by Proposals Rule 9) despite more than half of the users opposing it.
Under my rule, the proposal will be extended, but no options will be deleted. Which was the main reason the last proposal failed. It will be extended just like a normal proposal, and is treated as any proposal would be.
I hope this wasn't too complicated for you to understand, I tried to make it as clear as possible.
