Forum:Village pump

Village Pump This page is for community discussion (village pump). Official actions/requests should be made here. Here you can: Ask questions about the Constructed Worlds Wiki. Discuss topics with the Constructed Worlds Wiki community and staff Ask anything else that is not mentioned below Make proposals to wiki policy, conventions, or guidelines Please remember to: End all your requests and comments using four tides - ~~~~ Talk in a calm, and respectful manner (we're all here to help each other after all) Be descriptive of the problem To add your request, type in a concise title in the box below, then click "Add Topic".

Charter proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Charter did not pass. centrist16 | Talk | | 15:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Goldentrash has proposed a charter for adoption/ratification on the Constructed Worlds Wiki at-large for the purposes of codifying and formalizing wiki and server administration. He has proposed the creation of a presidency and a council, as well as a system of project administrators and moderators. A notice has been given on the official Discord server and on this site's wiki notice which will last until March 18, 2020. The purpose of this discussion at the Village pump is for transparency, documentation, and community input. NOTHING SAID HERE WILL BE TAKEN OR CONSIDERED A BINDING VOTE. Actual voting for the charter should be submitted at the actual link provided earlier. However, for organizational purposes, users may share what they have voted for and discuss their rationale, as well as their general thoughts on the matter. centrist16 | Talk | | 07:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Mythopoeia Goldentrash has actively sought to deprive editors of their hard work by seeking to forcibly seize users pages through community votes. Will he take your pages next?

Oppose Emalia (talk)

Discussion

• This is an absolute farce, we don't need a change of leadership on the wiki. Justin is still around and continues to update and edit the wiki on a daily basis. His leadership is indispensable and the need for a second bureaucrat (or just allowing Travis to be the sole bureaucrat) is very unnecessary. There is no need for a referendum and everyone can see the power jockeying at play here. If we actually wanted a president of impartiality it would be Centrist. If this vote is to go through it will most certainty mean the downfall of this wiki. VOTE NO on this dictatorial charter. Mythopoeia
  • Due to the technical limitations of Miraheze, Justin would retain his Bureaucrat status and would in essence act as a final check on both my authority and every subsequent president. This charter aims to formalize the status quo while providing a system for resolving disputes that arise within projects and with administration of the server and wiki. This current system of bickering back and forth with no agreed upon rules to look towards is highly inefficient and is unproductive. i ii ii i _ (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Then there is absolutely no point for you to be president and dictate who is moderator and who generates the rules. If anything, Centrist should generate those moderators/individuals to create the rules, or hell make the regulations himself. You are clearly not in a state of impartiality to be the at the helm of this site. Mythopoeia
• GoldenTrash should not be made the head of the site. Although I am a relatively new user I have experienced firsthand some of his decisions, and have learned much about the situation from fellow users. The general consensus across the community seems to be that GoldenTrash should have less authority not more, as his partial leadership thus far has divided the community greatly. On Discord he has been made head and in recent times many of Conworld's users have been banned or voluntarily quit as a result. At this time I have gathered that the "official" discord run by him only has a few active users, while splinter discords have upwards of 30 users, and are far more active if you seek Conworlding discussion. GoldenTrash has wrongfully and unfairly banned many users from his server, including myself, without a clear explanation or reason. He has banned many users who defended me or were opposed to unfair banning in general. I fear that if he is made head of the miraheze site he will have free range to ban me and others arbitrarily just as he has on discord. I fear that his leadership will spell a similar pattern here as it has on discord, with most of the users quitting or fleeing to other sites. I am content with the current situation in which Centrist is the head of the wiki, and if anything I feel like GoldenTrash should have less power (here and/or on discord). I am strongly against him being the "president" and having the power to appoint moderators and do as he sees fit. Emalia (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Server Reformation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolution failed and rendered moot. centrist16 | Talk | | 15:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Goldentrash as Discord bureaucrat and transfer of duties and server ownership to Centrist16.

A second is required for community ballots to be collected.

Votes

Aye

• Emalia (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Mythopoeia (Talk) 08:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Dev27 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Candiesrgood (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Promotion of Andy Irons to adminship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus is clear, which includes administrative support. The promotion of Andy Irons as an administrator is approved. Centrist16 | Talk |

Hello everyone,

User:Andy Irons has been with us for quite some time now and has demonstrated a long-standing commitment to our community. He is an author of much importance in our community's longest-lasting active project Altverse II and a major driver of that project's longevity. He is highly communicative, exceptionally positive, and a friendly member of our community well liked by all who have the pleasure to engage with him. He is an upstanding member of this community and is well suited to become the next member of our admin team.

In moving forward with a revitalized commitment to our core values of cooperation and consensus, Andy Irons' potential promotion is being put on the Pump for feedback from the community. Please keep your comments respectful and civil. Please keep any and all discussion SOLELY related to the promotion of Andy Irons. Disrespectful or off-topic comments will be removed without notice. Please sign any comments with four tildes, as per usual (i.e., ~~~~). Thank you for your understanding.

Support

• Fizzyflapjack (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• T0oxi22 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Screwhorn (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Mythopoeia (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support From day one, Andrew has been one of our strongest and most dedicated writers. He has my fullest resounding support and I am confident he will be an excellent part of the administration team. Centrist16 | Talk | 03:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Demotion of Mythopoeia from adminship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The demotion was an uncontested matter and done in compliance with the petitioner's request. Centrist16 | Talk |

Support

• Mythopoeia (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Out of respect for the petitioner's request, I would consider this a formal resignation and an uncontestable act. Centrist16 | Talk | 03:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Promotion of T0oxi22 to adminship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus is clear, which includes administrative support. The promotion of T0oxi22 as an administrator is approved.

Hello everyone,

T0oxi22 has been one of the finest writers we have ever had. Her creativity, dedication, and versatility has allowed her to produce some of the longest and highest-quality pages this community has ever seen. Since her time here on Conworlds, she has become an indispensable member of the community whose reach spans across several of our wiki's projects including Altverse II, Merveilles des Morte, and Project Exodus. She has demonstrated herself to be a capable, fair, and knowledgeable person whose interests align strongly with the rest of the administration team. She has been extremely helpful as a rollbacker and already has de facto administrative powers on the Discord server. With her most recent creation at the time of this writing, I have kept my word as a promise to her that I would happily nominate and endorse her promotion as administrator. I have absolute confidence that she will help our community grow and succeed with her as a fellow member of the administration team. Disrespectful or off-topic comments will be removed without notice. Please sign any comments with four tildes, as per usual (i.e., ~~~~). Thank you for your understanding.

Support

• Support Centrist16 | Talk | 07:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Javants (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Starsense

• Andy Irons

• Screwhorn (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Fizzyflapjack (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Solaris2019Solaris2019 (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Promoting Yuker language to Featured article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus has not been reached. The proposal as it stands has been defeated and will not move forward. Centrist16 | Talk | 21:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I’ve written the article Yuker language and I believe that it should be promoted to a Featured article. Centrist16 has closely followed my development of this article from the beginning, and has already determined it to be worthy of A-class. As the Featured status is supposed to showcase the best articles in the community, I am of the opinion that we are in need of promoting other articles than just national articles. I believe that the article is perhaps the most complete (as in covering all relevant information about the language, not just phonology and grammar) example of an article about a conlang at this moment, at least for a language its size. Erik (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

• I believe that the article is written well and exemplifies originality. I believe that starting with this page, we can begin the process of nominating even more articles for featured status, a process which have neglected for years now. There definitely needs to be more featured articles and this one, in my opinion, should be among them. Centrist16 | Talk | 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• The article has all the hallmarks of an A-class, and tackles an interesting topic to boot. I would not mind it being on the Featured list. Screwhorn (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Fizzyflapjack (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Like most works made by the author, this article is beautifully written and deserves to be featured on our site. Andy Irons (talk) 6:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• --Mythopoeia (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Emalia (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

• I don't mean any offense by this as it's a good article, but in my opinion it's not worthy of featured status. The article as a whole is fairly short compared to example language pages. The grammar section, one of the most important aspects, is very bare and doesn't thoroughly explain how to construct things in the language. Education and culture are also very bare, just a paragraph each, and the article could use sections on orthography, and maybe use in media. T0oxi22 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I am very glad that there is more interest in writing conlangs here–especially creole languages, which are among the most fascinating phenomena in terms of historical linguistics. I think the history and explanation of dialectal differences are fairly fleshed out, but so far the grammar is kinda bare! Creoles arise from specific sociohistoric situations and it'll be cool to see how that'll play out in the evolution/development and eventual grammar of Yuker Creole! Candiesrgood (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• I'm no expert in conlanguage articles, but I feel like Yuker language is A-class because it's generally complete and coherent, but comparatively speaking it seems pretty short and surface-level among existing, non-featured language articles. So among featured articles of Conworlds as a whole, I don't think that's where you want to set the bar Nathan1123 (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Doesn't feel "featured"; multiple sections still need additional elaboration and explanation, though it's current state itself is good and has potential in the future for the coveted featured status. Solace II (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• I second what's been said above - this is a really good article and has some great ideas, but it would be awesome to see it more fleshed out. Most of the featured articles are more than 150,000 bytes in length, while the Yuker language article is only around 30,000 bytes long so far. Don't be disheartened though, this is still a great article and would love to see what you continue to come up with! Javants (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Nathanadrian (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

• Solaris2019 (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Candidate for Featured Article: Oasisamerica

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus has been reached. The article will be featured and a featured blurb will be created and added into the featured articles pool for the main page in due time. Congratulations to @Vandenhoek:! Centrist16 | Talk | 16:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

It is with great pleasure that I would like to propose a vote on the elevation of Oasisamerica (Merveilles des Morte) to the status of Featured Article. This project has an intriguing history on our website, having made its way away and back to our community. This article in particular is written to the highest standard, utilizing a fully encyclopedic tone while also proving an entertaining read. User:Vandenhoek is more than deserving of this distinction. Alongside the writing itself, the article is well-illustrated with both found images and original cartography, something which our community should proudly highlight as a centrepiece of engaging worldbuilding. For too long this work has gone unrecognized and even unrated--I believe it is high time we change this and let the article take it rightful place alongside the other great works of our community. With recently renewed interest in the Merveilles des Morte project, for me this nomination is a no-brainer.

Support

• Support Fizzyflapjack (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Emalia (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is a no-brainer. The article is one of the best articles we've ever had and sets the bar very high for other articles like it. Centrist16 | Talk | 21:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• T0oxi22 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• User:Starsense
• Renereve (talk)
• Support Javants (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Solace II (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Nathan1123 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Andy Irons (talk) 10:57 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Nathanadrian (talk)

Candidate for Featured Article: Mák’ai language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus is clear: the nomination passes unopposed. The article will be featured and added to the front page pool of featured articles. Congrats User:Javants! Fizzyflapjack (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I would like to propose a vote on the elevation of Mák’ai language to the status of Featured Article. There has been a recent general desire among the community to grant more non-nation articles the status of Featured Article to better showcase the breadth of projects undertaken on the wiki, and I believe that the Mák’ai language article is a good candidate for this. The article is the most extensive language article that I know of and is augmented with extensive audio recordings, images, and maps. Additionally, the article also includes three associated pages - Mák’ai language/Lexicon, a dictionary; Mák’ai language/Poetry and songs, a corpus of poetry written in the Mák’ai language); and Book:Mk'anbu mruk'í Mák’ai-wawá!, a textbook for learning the language. I believe nominating this article for Featured Status may be the first step in increasing the breadth of Featured Articles on this wiki, and therein better reflecting the quality and diversity of works within our community.

Support

Support Strongest support. Its official recognition and inclusion as a featured article will be an excellent way to start the new year strong. I am always thoroughly impressed by your works and this article is a true testament to the ingenuity and craftsmanship you have put into this community. Centrist16 | Talk | 08:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Nothing else needs to be said. -Mythopoeia (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Fizzyflapjack (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

T0oxi22 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Andy Irons (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Support --Solaris2019 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Support DatMaster001 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nathanadrian (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Support D̗íyak! :) Diesel.mov (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Main Page: Patron Article of the Month addition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After several days, there has been no opposition to the proposal. Subsequently, the addition to the main page will be made as proposed. Fizzyflapjack (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I am about ready to set up a Patreon account for the Constructed Worlds Wiki to allow the community to help pay for the site's monthly web-hosting costs. As one of the potential benefits of an as-of-yet undetermined tier, I would like to get feedback on the potential inclusion of a "Patron Article of the Month" section to the Main Page. A Patron of this benefit tier will be allowed to select an article (either their own or any other on-site article) to have featured on the main page for a month. The next month, the next patron of that same tier will get to make a selection. If another patron signs up for this benefit tier while on this second patron's month, they will get the next month after them. Once the list of patrons has been run through, it will loop back to the first patron.

To demonstrate this I have created Main Page/Sandbox to show what it would look like. Personally, I think that this patron box should go right above the navboxes at the bottom of the page (immediately below the About the Wiki and Paracosmic Awards sections, which include merit-based achievements such as Featured Articles), because it's essentially a paid advertisement (albeit totally on-site as no external linking would be allowed).

There is also the possibility of eschewing the monthly rotation in favour of the random selection of articles from a list, where Patrons can update their selected features as they please. Personally I dislike this system because I think MediaWiki is bad at choosing randomly and also it devalues the placement of articles on the Main Page.

I'm happy to hear suggestions and concerns about this. At the very least, once the Patreon is set up, the names of every patron will be included in a small box on the Main Page, so this discussion is just about the possibility of page promotions being included as a Patreon tier benefit. Fizzyflapjack (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Support

• Support F0rsaken (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Soilaf (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support DatMaster001 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Centrist16 | Talk | 00:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to apply to the Independent Wiki Federation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After several days, there has been no opposition to the proposal. The Constructed Worlds Wiki will apply to become a member of the Independent Wiki Federation immediately. Fizzyflapjack (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have recently become aware of the Independent Wiki Federation, an association of independently-administrated wikis which aims to create a community of collaboration and shared knowledge between its members:

“

Mission

• Forming an alliance of independently operated wikis that focus on lifestyle, entertainment, and gaming.
• Fostering a Community of Practice where group members have a shared passion of developing wikis, and learn to do it better as they help each other, share knowledge, skills, and interact regularly.
• Building friendships and collaborations between IWF members

” — IWF About page

As Conworlds' technician, I think it would be very valuable for our wiki to be a member of this organization. I am capable of simply maintaining the back-end of this wiki, but I am always trying to learn new ways to demonstrably enhance the quality of the site for users. Not to be too morbid, but in the unlikely event of my incapacitation from caring for Conworlds, I think having an association between Conworlds and a community of technically-minded wiki developers is an invaluable connection.

As an 11-year veteran Conworlds user, I believe the IWF's principles align with the fundamental values of our community. Back when Conworlds was on Wikia, the admins made a point of reaching out to the admins of sister-genre wikis to foster inter-wiki collaboration and community growth. Conworlds has not maintained its ties to other wikis as we continue grow more distant from Fandom's ecosystem. Since our detachment from Miraheze, we have pretty much relied on the strength of our existing community to foster the interest of others. Joining an alliance of indie wikis seems like common sense in opening a new pathway for outside interest in our vibrant community and our cherished projects.

For these reasons, I am submitting for the community's consideration a proposal to apply to the Independent Wiki Federation. Please voice your comments or concerns here on the village pump in the Discussion section below. Fizzyflapjack (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

• Support Fizzyflapjack (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Mythopoeia
• Support Emelxa (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Andy Irons (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Javants (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Soilaf (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support T0oxi22 (talk)
• Support Dawnstar (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support WorldMaker18 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Centrist16 | Talk | 04:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

• Abstain Wisky (talk)
• Abstain Dense (talk)
• Abstain HanxilBlitzer (talk)
• Abstain Spills (talk)

Promoting File:2 Trine Banknote.png to Featured media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The proposal did not face significant opposition, however it also did not gain significant traction. Should a featured media section end up being created on the front page, the 2 Trine Banknote.png file will be included. Fizzyflapjack (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We've talked about finally getting to adding Featured media and I think File:2 Trine Banknote.png is worthy given the complexity of the piece in question. There's also an .svg version but it's like 20 MB so I think nominating the raster version (which also loads like 100x faster) is more relevant. Erik (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

• Fizzyflapjack (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Solace (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Centrist16 | Talk | 18:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Reform of Our Current Featured Articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After two weeks, the proposal has passed. T0oxi22 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A majority of the Wiki's featured articles received that rating prior to the creation of our more standardised rating system, and as a result many don't currently conform to the guidelines listed on the page. Therefore, I propose a mass review of the current articles, redesignating some that do not meet these standards and addding a couple new articles instead. None of the current featured articles are bad articles by any means, and I encourage their authors to add to them so that they may be re-featured in the future, but for now they should be de-featured in the interest of consistency and fairness to other featured articles.

I propose the following redesignations:

• 2019 Kalșerian presidential election: →
• Benny Marchesi: →
• Fort Travis, Kings: →
• Interprovincial 3C: →
• Isaiah Landon: →
• Lovecraftianism: →
• Music of the United Commonwealth: →
• Q-Lo: →
• St. Anthony County, Gold Coast: →

• Aidusian Empire: →
• Rock Saga Evolution: →

Additionally, to clarify some of the current guidelines, I propose making amendments such as these:

• In consideration of the fact that there can always be more added to an article, "finished" articles are those that are reasonably, not absolutely, complete. The determination of when an article is "finished" is a subjective threshold, and will be assessed relative to existing featured articles and general practice. A finished article should contain everything that one might reasonably expect to see in such an article, be written thoroughly and in a detailed manner, and reach a point where the page is generally presentable.
• All current grades shall be treated as mutually exclusive. Featured status will be treated as its own rating, above that of A-class, rather than articles being both featured and A-class simultaneously.

I open this into a general discussion to refine and add to the current proposal, after which point I will create a formal vote below.

T0oxi22 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit: As there hasn't been any objection to the selections, I'm opening the reform up to voting now, but feel free to continue discussion. T0oxi22 (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Support

Support Nathanadrian (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Symposium (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Soilaf (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Fizzyflapjack (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Erik (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Renereve (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Centrist16 | Talk | 19:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I endorse this reform. Fizzyflapjack (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Vetitum electorum exteriorum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The proposal was withdrawn by its author. Fizzyflapjack (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In an effort to preserve the integrity of future community votes, and promote meaningful contribution from all community members, I propose a policy that will hopefully remedy the ongoing issue of allowing those who passively engage with Conworld to vote in community votes. I will outline what criteria I believe should be required to vote in community decisions and votes. I would also like to see a committee be established and that a secret ballot be implemented.

Those who monetarily support the upkeep of the site are exempt and shall be allowed to vote in community votes as their contributions are essential in assisting Fizzyflapjack in maintaining the website. Mythopoeia will not be afforded this exemption for their monetary contributions, regardless of the amount they contribute in the future, and they shall be subject to the requirements proposed thereafter the successful ratification of said policy, contingent the policy proposed remains in effect.

I propose the following to be added to the policies and guidelines, section title 'general policies' subsection 'miscellaneous';

Vetitum electorum exteriorum et cetera
Prohibition of external electors and other things

1. Definitions and establishing committee
   1. Visitor(s) (qui legunt; those who read) – individuals who engage with the Conworlds community primarily through reading articles or participating in Discord chats but do not actively contribute written content to the site. Visitors, while integral to the community's vibrancy, do not engage in the content creation process to the extent required for voting privileges.
   2. Active editor(s) (qui scribunt; those who write) – individuals who regularly contribute written content to Conworlds, meeting the established standards of quality and originality. Active editors are those who, through their sustained and meaningful contributions, are deemed eligible to participate in community votes.
   3. Community Committee – The Constructed Worlds Community Elections Committee, denoted as 'committee', shall be a committee consisting of three users; Andy Irons, Fizzyflapjack, Centrist16. Committee decisions shall be made by simple majority. All decisions by the committee shall be made as a whole from the group, and the how each individual on the committee shall be anonymous.
2. Criteria for voting eligibility
   1. Individuals deemed active editors eligible to vote in a community decisions shall have contributed a minimum of (10,000) words within three (3) calendar months.
      1. The three (3) calendar months shall randomly be selected from the twelve (12) months prior to the announcement of the community vote.
      2. The three (3) calendar months shall be decided by a twelve (12) sided dice, a process which shall publicly be broadcasted on the discord.
   2. Written content shall adhere to the standards commonly associated with Wikipedia, and that articles are imitative of Wikipedia's style and format in a way that immerses readers.
   3. Material that is either copied or pasted from other websites or sources is expressly prohibited and shall not count towards the word count required for voting eligibility or being designated as a 'active editor'.
3. Election procedure
   1. All users may a request for a community vote to the committee, but only community votes initiated by an active editor shall be brought before the entire community for a vote. Users may appeal their classification if their community vote is denied, or their submission was deliberately ignored by the committee through the appeals process described in 4.2.
   2. Users who cast their community vote shall submit a secret vote to the committee; designated as AYE or NAY.
   3. Campaigning on websites besides Conworlds, in private chats or chat channels where more than half (51%) of the individuals in that chat do not qualify as 'active editors' or are associated with other websites is prohibited and shall be known as 'illegal campaigning'. Voters discovered up to six (6) months after an election to have participated in illegal campaigning shall be prohibited from voting or calling a community vote for twelve (12) months, and any individual(s) who initiated an illegal campaign shall be be prohibited from voting in or calling a community vote for twelve (16) months and shall be banned for (3) days from the Conworlds discord channel. Users may appeal as described in 4.2.
   4. The committee shall decide anonymously if a user is eligible or ineligible to vote.
   5. The committee after having tallied and decided which voters were eligible or ineligible shall post the result tally as follows; TOTAL ELIGIBLE VOTES: [Insert Number] AYE: [Insert Number] NAY: [Insert Number] DISQUALIFIED: [INELIGIBLE] TOTAL: [INSERT]
   6. The committee shall post a complete list of all those who voted in the election, but no indication of how a user voted or if they were eligible or ineligible may be revealed.
   7. The committee shall then accept for five (5) weekdays appeals from all users regarding their own, or another users, eligibility or ineligibility. Appeals process described in 4.2.
4. Determining status, auditing status and user appeals
   1. Determining a users eligibility, ineligibility, revocation of eligibility, reinstatement of eligibility to cast ballots in community votes, and classification of users as 'active editors' or 'visitors' shall be vested in the committee.
   3. All users shall retain the right to appeal the committee regarding a decision made on their own status and or another users' status.
      1. The committee shall respond within five (5) weekdays regarding their decision on the appeal.
      2. If the committee fails to respond in the stipulated time, or if the appealing user is unsatisfied with the committees' response, the appealing user may request a panel of five (5) arbiters from the Independent Wiki Federation. Requests made to the federation must be made within (5) five days weekdays after the committee failed to respond to the user.
      3. The directors of the Independent Wikipedia Federation shall provide the arbiters within one (1) month if the committee fails to respond to the user, and must randomly select a willing arbiter to decide the appeal. Arbiters elected by the Independent Wikipedia Federation must have no association with Constructed Worlds or who may have a bias opinion towards any users involved in the appeal.
      4. If the Independent Wikipedia Federation fails to intervene or refuses, then the committee shall randomly select from 12 the top contributors as denoted on 'Contribution scores' with a twelve (12) sided dice. The dice shall be rolled until a contributor accepts.
      5. If all twelve of the top contributors refuse to be an arbiter after one (1) week, then the appeal will be decided by a coin toss. Heads indicates that the users appeals is granted in full. Tails indicates that the users' appeals is denied in full.
      6. All appeals to the committee must be done privately and public campaigning to influence the decision of the committee, any directors, arbiters of the Independent Wiki Federation or top contributors shall be be prohibited from voting in or calling a community vote for twelve (16) months and shall be banned for (3) days from the Conworlds discord channel.

---

Changes can be made during implementation if the community so chooses. If this doesn't fly but maybe something else will I look forward to it. There may need to be some grammatical fixes, spelling, w/e.

I'll close by saying this last bit. This proposal is not meant to exclude or alienate but rather protect our community from undue external influence and establish a secret ballot. We currently do not, in my opinion, have a harassment free community. I've never had a featured article on this site, even when my work at times had fit the criteria for a featured article. First time one of my writings was featured on the main page was because I shamelessly paid for it, something I've always been against. $4.20 is all it took. I've been here for nearly 12-13 years.

I'll always write on Conworlds, and I'm thoroughly engaged with what I'm currently working on. This is not a 'do as I say or I quit' situation and I'll be back to writing tomorrow. Just providing you, the reader, with background as to why I spent several hours late at night writing this very intricate voting process.

Thank you, - Mythopoeia (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong oppose It is my opinion that this proposal is not in line with the values of the Constructed Worlds Wiki nor even the values of the visionary Mediawiki software on which Conworlds runs. Interwikism is a foundational principle of all wikis. This fundamental fact is the reason that Fandom's advertising business grew like weeds on the bones left behind by the death of Wikia. The free movement and participation of users across wikis is what makes the very concept of the wiki itself unique. Conworlds has long been a place at the intersection of many different wiki communities. I would never have discovered Conworlds 13 years ago like I did if I were not encouraged to explore as many wikis as possible by the fundamentally interwikist design of Wikia.

I understand and sympathize with the frustration of not having a single one of your articles featured despite your long and illustrious time here. Yet it is my opinion that this proposal will not improve the slow pace of community decisions, but rather, totally stall them in an unending cycle of arbitration and drama over the "status" of a given user regarding their edit history. I believe under the terms of your proposal's activity measures, even I would not have written enough in three months to be considered an active user. But that is besides the point.

This proposal also runs contrary to the values of the IWF in its petition to include them in the internal affairs of a wiki. The IWF is an organization which is committed to the radical independence of wiki communities from top-heavy hosting arrangements and advertising interests. I believe it would be inappropriate to ask them to involve themselves in disputes which are entirely contained within our wiki. I also have firsthand experience with the pace at which the IWF operates and can say without any doubt that its inclusion in any process would delay any appeal to a severe degree.

Finally, I question the glaring absence of T0oxi22 from your proposed community committee. She is one of the backbones of the community of this website. If at all, I would rather her serve on the committee than myself. I trust her and her decision-making immensely. If she was not active on this site in 2022, then I would probably not have remained active since my rejoining that February. Imagine where we would be without her. Still subject to the erratic and self-aggrandizing behaviour of former admins. Still hosted on Miraheze, no less. Conworlds would not have grown so much in the past year if we never became independent. Conworlds would not be the gem that it is today with T0oxi22. In my humble opinion, she is the best of us.

For these reasons and more I must unequivocally signal my complete and total opposition to this proposal. Fizzyflapjack (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose By the above definition I am perhaps a "visitor", but for what my opinion is worth I don't think this is a good idea. There are a lot of difficult technical considerations as others have noted, like quantifying who is and isn't active, which I think will make this really unfeasible. Even if it wasn't difficult to implement, I'm not sure I follow why this would be needed, given past voting appears very unproblematic. I personally like the transparency and simplicity of everyone posting their vote on the page without much fuss. Now if there is harassment in the community, we should address that head-on. I however am not convinced this proposal addresses it, nor prevents harassment from spilling into the voting if it exists, it only makes the process more arcane.

I also speak from my experience with Althistory's voting system, and how the subjective implementation of requirements (which were less complicated than those proposed here) nearly tore the wiki apart, resulting in a half dozen bans in the fallout, including of myself for a time. That's actually how I ended up joining Conworlds, and why some 500 pages from Merveilles des Morte are on this wiki now. Conworlds attracts people by its down-to-earth community and ease of use, as seen by how the wiki is growing, and I don't want to jeopardise that with a needless election scandal.

In regards to your desire to have a featured article, that is a solid goal and I sympathise (I don't have one either), but it sounds like there is if anything an interpersonal issue that needs to be worked out less so than a fault of the voting system. For these reasons I respectfully vote no, but I support you in your endeavours as a writer and hope you'll make it to the front page in the future. ---Nathanadrian (talk)

I retract my proposal. -Mythopoeia (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Motion to reform the Featured Articles carousel

I propose that we reform the current "Featured Article" carousel on the front page of the wiki. There are currently too few articles with this distinction for the carousel to be interesting, and too few new FA-articles are made/promoted annually for this to change in the near future.

My suggestion is as follows:

• Reduce the carousel to a monthly/bi-monthly showcase of one FA-article, and reduce the space of this segment on the homepage.
• Under this featured article, insert a new segment called "Good article of the day", where articles with Good-Article status are showcased daily.

OR

• Incorporate a hybrid scheme in which Featured Article of the day and Good article of the day are featured in the same carousel interchangeably.

ADDITIONALLY

• If possible, streamline the selection-process for electing new Featured Articles, perhaps by creating a notification ping or a banner whenever a new article nomination is requested. This will surely boost the amount of people reviwing articles and giving their opinion on it, increasing community participation.
• Introduce a Featured Media carousel. The users of this community are creative and frequently create ornate and striking designs and pieces of media, such as pictures, maps, logos, and other files. This would shine a light on an otherwise sometimes overlooked aspect of conworlding.

Erik (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the issue with how it is now. As established the FAs are supposed to be the most prestigious pages and are honoured with display on the main page, so reducing the space or time there seems counterproductive. I'm pretty much fine with it cycling through as it does now; the fact that articles repeat frequently isn't a problem for me. If we don't have enough FA articles as you say, I don't think we'd find enough Good articles either, and most of the current GAs aren't really great for the front page. Renereve (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Renereve Thank you for providing your thoughts on the matter, though I'm still curious what your opinions are on the points under "ADDITIONALLY". Erik (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with an announcement on discord when a vote is called, although I think the admins generally already do that.

From what I recall there used to be featured images on the front page, and there were some votes to select new images, it just wasn't yet added back to the front page. So yeah I support adding a media carousel on the page, although I'd leave featured articles as they are. Renereve (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Super Africa Rally for Featured Article status

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article will be added and listed as a featured article. Centrist16 | Talk | 15:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to nominate the article "Super Africa Rally" for Featured Article status, as it is highly detailed, fully fleshed-out, and written in a cohesive and encyclopedic language. I feel that I can guarantee that there is no other motor sports or sports event article which is as elaborate on the wiki currently. Thank you. Erik (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Support

I agree - F0rsaken (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Support Centrist16 | Talk | 00:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Fizzyflapjack (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Solace (talk)
• Support Mythopoeia
• As I said on chat, I think it could benefit from some more pictures/templates/objects (namely in the late history section and "format and structure"). A map in particular seems sorely needed in the format section. Alternating the pictures between left and right and resizing some of them could I think help the presentation, although that comes down to personal taste somewhat. Although I'd like to see those improvements, the article is still great and so I'll vote yes. Renereve (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Revise the "flagicon" template

Currently the "flagicon" template in structured in such a way that several prominent countries' flags have their Altverse II flag as standard. To access the standard flag, users must add "|otl" when writing out the template. I suggest that this is amended, so that all countries real-life flags are displayed as default, perhaps with Altverse users instead adding "|av" in order to display their Altverse II equivalent. This move would be both practical, but also symbolic in that it sets the precedent that the wiki is not centered on one project, which I think is important moving forward as the wiki expands in users and articles. Multiple AAIP members have voiced their support. Thank you.

Erik (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support I think this makes more sense as we are moving away from an Altverse-centric wiki. Screwhorn (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Symposium (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Soilaf (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Litia von Lucerna (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support (HoneyCantaloupe25 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC))

Support Solace (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)