Talk: Thomas Wooden Railway Wiki Guidelines/Archive

This is an archive of the proposals and related discussions of the wiki governing policies between October 2011 and October 2017.

If you are looking to propose a change to the wiki government or take part in an active discussion on such a matter, go here.

Guideline Proposals

User page protection

Only edit your user page.Ivan Kakooza 20:01, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Protecting userpages would not be able to allow users to edit their own pages whilst stopping others from doing the same. Administrators would be the only one able to edit regardless. They'd have to constantly change protection levels and the coordination for that would be ridiculous. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Same reason stated above :P Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:19, December 4, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified.

Category Proposal

I, with encouragement from OrigamiAirEnforcer, am now proposing a new guideline for adding new categories to pages. My proposal is that new categories should only be created if it actually is needed. Categories like wheel configuration and engines' basis should not be allowed, it would only cause trouble. Categories that should be allowed are, for example, things like "Engines that have been Re-Issued" or "Troublesome Engines." The first one would be for engines that have had re-issue models of them, the second one is for engines that frequently cause trouble i.e. Diesel, Diesel 10, Troublesome Trucks. Mr.Conductor 04:10, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: I agree that wheel configuration and engine basis are unnecessary categories, but I also believe 'Troublemakers" and "Reissued" categories are not terribly fitting either. For other administrators note: there is no conflict of interest, my encouragement was solely that Mr. Conductor exercise his right to propose new guidelines. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:42, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: With the vote hung and no amendments to speak of proposed, I must oppose the proposal as it is written. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:13, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support: However, I do not feel "Troublesome Engines" is necessary. I do, however, feel "Reissued" and "Discontinued" may be appropriate. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 15:33, December 10, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Oppose, I think "Engines that have been Re-issued" and "Troublesome Engines", aren't quite necessary categories, for reasons mentioned above. FDMG, 8:48 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:48, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Result: The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified.

Talk Page Retention/Archives

I propose that it become a guideline that all conversations on talk pages remain and not be expunged from the page, but at most strikenthrough unless these exchanges are in violation of other guidelines. I also propose that after every 15 messages (that is, subject sections) talk pages be archived.

I will recuse myself from voting on this having been the one to propose it. The other administrators should vote on this soon. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:24, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support. I don't have too much to say, so let's just say I agree with the above. FDMG, 8:29 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:29, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support: Sounds good to me! Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:02, December 12, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Result: GP 1.3 was later repealed under RP 2.1.

Strike Proposal

I have obtained a marvellous idea from the Thomas and Friends wiki. I propose that we employ a strike system to stop vandalism. Instead of just blocking someone, give that person a "strike." Three strikes will be given to that person, and after that - a block if that person continues to vandalize or spam. Mr.Conductor 00:16, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: I believe this is a good idea, but right now my vote is hung on the provisions of this proposal. These strikes should be based on severity of the infraction. If we do adopt this with such a severity basis amendment, I would also wish for this to be made very clear and not vague or open to interpretation. If such amendments are not included and passed, I will have to change my vote to "Opposed". OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:58, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Rethinking the proposal, not only do I think the current, one strike system is better because of its simplicity compared to this proposed idea. Additionally, the amendments I wished to be attached to this have not been really considered either. With the vote hung and one of the other voters also looking for amendments and not being answered, I feel I must move to the "Opposed" vote. OrigamiAirEnforcer 22:28, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I believe one warning is sufficent. However, if it is a server violation (i.e. uploading pornographic or violent images, racial slurrs, etc.) I believe a block is needed, however, the user in question may still edit his talk page so he could discuss the violation with the mods. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:44, December 14, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support, with amendments, I think strikes are necessary, but only against spammers that upload pornographic or violent images and/or racial slurs. If it's something minor, like inaccurate information on a certain engine, I think just a warning will do. FDMG, 8:58 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:58, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Result: The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified.

Blocked User Appeal Amendment Proposal

As it is currently, there is only a de facto rule among administrators around the wiki maintaining that blocked users be allowed to use their talk pages for appeals while blocked. I believe it ought to be a point incorporated into the wiki guidelines that, "so long as there are no further infractions while blocked by a blocked user, they may have access to their talk pages."

As before, I will recuse myself from voting on this having been the one to propose it. The other administrators should vote on this soon. {C}OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Support: I agree with this proposal. If a user begins to "curse up a storm" on their talk page after they have been blocked, I believe they should lose access to their talk page as well. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 21:02, December 16, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support:I agree with this proposal, as well as Jamesis5. If anything should not be allowed on the TWR wiki, it's profanity. FDMG, 4:55 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 21:55, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

  Clarification of the TWR Wiki Allowance of Characters' Back Stories

In recent edits, users have added more than just information onto characters' pages, much of it being expansions on their back stories. I feel this is need of interpretation of all of the wiki administrators, whom I feel need to come to a consensus, as this is significant. Personally I see a long back story as unneccessary for a wiki that is (to my knowledge) focused on the models of the character and not the character itself. Thoughts? OrigamiAirEnforcer 18:26, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think that as much as the focus on the actual models on the TWR wiki is necessary, I also think it's a good idea to have a reasonable backstory, so that people on the TWR wiki, particularly the newcomers, will know who the engines are and/or what episode(s) they appear in. So in other words, I have mixed feelings for this rule. FDMG, 1:40 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 18:40, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I meant it less as a rule, but more as just a question of where everyone is at interpreting the de facto rule of back stories. OrigamiAirEnforcer 18:47, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

A breif backstory is needed. 2-3 sentences is sufficent. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 20:27, December 27, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Administrator Recusal Amendment

I believe it needs to be made official that administrators proposing the enactment or repeal of wiki guidelines recuse themselves from voting on their own proposals, primarily to avoid the obvious conflicts on interest. I myself have done so twice to uphold the de facto rule, and now I believe this de facto rule needs to be established. For obvious reasons, I will recuse myself on voting for this too. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:26, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support: Fine with me, I did it out of common sense before :P Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:11, December 29, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support: I've read over this topic several times, but it's a bit hard for even me to understand, so I might as well get this out of the way by agreeing. FDMG, 1:24 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 18:24, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Expanded User Privilege Proposal

My proposal is, that users should be allowed certain admimistrator privilgeges such as: voting on proposals, customizing badges, and deleting pages. HOWEVER, these powers should only be used with administrator approval, and the users should be punished severly for abusing the powers. I understand the concerns that you may have, but everything might work out, if the right decisions are made. Mr.Conductor 03:16, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: This would require nothing short of granting users adminships, and is ridiculous in the face of tools such as badges and processes such as deletions. Customizing badges isn't as personal as it may imply. It affects all who earn that badge. The deletion template exists as a signal for users to use to administrators to consider (and possibly make) deletions. I strongly oppose this proposal and I doubt any amendments will be able to sway me. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:29, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: The reasons stated are pointless. To do this, we would have to make every user on the Wiki an admin, which would take all of the "power" away from the actual admins. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:49, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified.

Proposal Deletion Rule

I would like to propose a rule preventing the deletion of any and all rule proposals. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:06, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support, with amendments: I support this, but I would like it amended that failed proposals (though no their titles or votes), be strikenthrough with the strikethrough tool after failing in voting. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:11, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Is this strikethrough?Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:38, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Affirmative. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:40, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:52, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Recusal, recusal. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:56, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support: Affirmative. FDMG, 9:35 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 14:38, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Result: The amendment passed in voting and has been ratified.

Hung Vote Avoidance Amendment

I propose that to avoid the possible problems of hung amendment proposals, that any proposal in which the vote is hung and cannot be reconciled within a week of the original proposal, the proposal be declared a failure and not ratified. I will recuse per my own will and by the wiki guidelines. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:15, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Hung pretty much means undecided. It does not mean it failed nor does it mean it passed. It means it is undecided. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 05:38, December 31, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Hung means balanced in this context. We should not have ties in voting, but we should not have to add another admin either. I made my concession right there; users and admins alike can lobby and discuss for one week before anything is declared. I think this amendment is key. OrigamiAirEnforcer 07:32, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

How ironic, the proposal meant to eliminate hung votes is hung itself. James, we need this amendment. Its what right for the users and what's right for the wiki. We can't have these kinds of things sitting, pending until the next admin shows up (which I think would be unfair anyway). Things have to keep moving otherwise we won't accomplish anything here. OrigamiAirEnforcer 19:04, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

James, I understand that perhaps you think I am trying to use this to shoot down you Repeal Proposal 2.1. I will offer you this concession in exchange for your vote: If you vote in favor of this and break the tie, I will exclude RP 2.1 from this as it came before this proposal was made. Would you accept that? OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:55, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

My vote remains the same. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:57, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support I see no point in keeping hung amendment proposals up that users can't decide on, so I agree with the above. FDMG, 9:38 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 14:38, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support: After furter reviewing the proposal, I see no reason as to why this should not be passed. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 21:14, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

IP Proposal Clarification Amendment

I believe we need to clarify a perk of site membership is the ability to propose guidelines on this page. I think barring IP users from proposing guideline amendments is something we need to do because it reduces the likelihood of fraud. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:11, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support: Affirmative. FDMG, 2:52 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 19:53, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support: I think propsing new rules is a registered member only privilege. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:16, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Unanimous Administrator Promotion Amendment

Because it has already been the de facto rule with all administrators of this wiki that adminships only be granted with the unanimous approval of all acting administrators of the wiki at that time, I feel it ought to now officially be incorporated. OrigamiAirEnforcer 05:50, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support: Affirmative. FDMG, 2:52 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 19:53, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support: Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 21:46, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

GP 1.3 Replacement Amendment

I propose that after every 100 "Heading 2" messages talk pages be archive by an acting wiki administrator. I also propose that an archival template be procured by the wiki by a date no later than Feburary 1, 2012. OrigamiAirEnforcer 06:32, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support: I feel this is a lot more reasonable and user friendly than 15 messages. The templete is aldo a great idea to give the talk pages more of a standard. I see no flaws. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 06:35, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support: Affirmative. FDMG, 2:53 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 19:53, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Chat Rule Proposal

All of the general rules must also be followed in chat. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 21:47, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support, with amendments: Although I don't understand why we need this amendment. The guidelines already cover chat, as it is, by extension, a part of the wiki. I would however, like users to be free from restrictions in PMs. OrigamiAirEnforcer 21:53, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I see no issue with this. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 22:43, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support: I don't have much to say right now, other than that I agree with the above.

FDMG, 5:15 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 22:15, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

===We should add more admins === I am not saying this so I can become one, but we need more than 3 and possibly some ChatMods. BashDashCrashSmash Choo! Choo! 00:36, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

This page is for guideline proposals. Are you suggesting guidelines for minimum numbers for admins, chat mods, etc? If so, the proposal will need to be clarified. OrigamiAirEnforcer 00:39, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Result: Dropped by author request.

Poll Protection Amendment

I propose that proposals in which a poll is being taken GP 1.10 is delayed until the end of the poll. After the poll ends GP 1.10 enters effect and a second poll is not possible. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:09, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Support: Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:13, January 3, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support: Affirmative.

FDMG, 9:44 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 02:44, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Picture Naming Guideline Amendment Proposal

I propose that all images uploaded are from now on uploaded with the full name of the object in the image. For example: If a picture of Thomas' Country Show is uploaded, it should be named "Thomas'CountryShow", not "TCS" or "Image 123", etc. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 01:37, January 6, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support, with amendments: I agree that an amendment similar to this is needed, but I also feel that if used properly, acronyms can work alright too. Therefore, I am looking for an amendment that upholds acronyms, while still barring random names. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:57, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Acronyms do not always come up when you are searching for the images. You end up having to scroll through dozens of pages to find one picture. It has happened to me many times before. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:12, January 6, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Notations ought to be able to be made using letters and digits for different sets and angles respectively. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:51, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

I fully support the amendments you have made and see no reason why they are unreasonable.

Full names don't always come up either. As far as I'm concerned, I see no reason why acronyms should be forbidden. Random names I could see, but this is too restrictive in my opinion. Users should be able to upload images and give the information, but not be slaves to it. After all, what happens when we get a set with a really long name and the user decides that the time it takes to write the full name isn't worth it, how will that work? OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:54, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

You are serriously going to compare uploading a picture with the proper name to slavery? I mean seriously? Do you know how offensive that is to some people? Again, I mean, seriously? Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:59, January 6, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Missing the point...and incorrect. Its not offensive in the fact that it speaks for the wronged person's better. I do not understand how this is necessary anyway. I need an amendment permitting acronyms or I cannot support this. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:59, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am still too stunned that you even dared to compare this trivial thing to slavery. I am so stunned I do not even wish to reply, because for all I know you will compare this to the Holocaust. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 00:09, January 7, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Whatever. Bring up any "SENSITIVE WORD--DO NOT USE"-card you wish. Until I get an an amendment permitting acronyms, this amendment will not have my approval. OrigamiAirEnforcer 00:15, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Even though I am trying to include full titles on the picture files I upload onto the TWR Wiki, I feel that initials work just fine for long titles of certain items. Take for instance, an upcoming file, "The Works Engine Repair Shop Box". I feel it's just easier for me to use initials, "TW-ERS-Box" instead of trying to use one long title for the file I upload. FDMG, 9:19 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 02:19, January 6, 2012 (UTC) Bo

It may be easier to upload, but it is more efficent and professional to put the entire name. What happens when we get two value packs with the same initials, how will that work? Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:31, January 6, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal has failed (per GP 1.10) after being hung for more than 10 days and the vote could not be reconciled.

Wiki Government Regulation Amendment Proposal

I propose that it be made a guideline that hereby: (a) the wiki cannot have fewer than 3 active administrators and 2 active bureacrats (active means they have contributed to the wiki at least once in 3 months) at any time except in the week; (b) replacements for inactive, retired and resigned administrators be found no longer than one week after the incumbent administrator has left their post and only in that time may the wiki have fewer than the aforementioned number of administators and bureacrats; and (c) that all bureacrats step down and remove and transfer (if necessary to fulfill subsection a) their powers at the end of their tenure. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:08, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Support: I really like and agree with this proposal and believe it needs to be passed and put into effect. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 01:28, January 7, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support: Seeing as in just a few days, I will have contributed to the TWR Wiki for three months, I have no clear reason to object. FDMG, 9:23 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 14:23, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Blocked User Appeal Proposal

My proposal is that we let users who are blocked leave messages on administrator talk pages. It says that blocked users can contact them, but that is impossible because they can not edit talk pages. If my proposal is passed, it will allow blocked users to actually appeal to the administrators so they can discuss their block if they wish. Mr.Conductor 03:02, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: We already have an appeal process for blocked users (GP 1.5) and this one is not possible to work without unblocking the user. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:11, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: If we let the users do so, we would have to unblock them. If we unblock them, the initial block is pointless and they can run amuck doing whatever they please. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:25, January 10, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified.

Argument Avoidance Amendment Proposal

I believe that in the wake of the recent (and ongoing) SOPA/PIPA debacle that political arguments be restricted on the wiki like religious ones are. They have no place here and contribute nothing to the wiki. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:34, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: I support this with the amendment that everything posted prior to the proposal of this be exempted from it except for the recent SOPA/PIPA arguments.Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:53, January 21, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support: Affirmative.

FDMG, 6:25 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 23:25, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

New Item Proposal

My proposal is, whenever a new train, set, or destination page is added, the person who is adding it needs to cite their source of the info in the summary section so the person checking it can see if the new item is real or false. This proposal could prevent possible arguments about if a new item is real. It also makes it easier for the administrators to check new pages and not have to search the internet for a while trying to figure out if a new item is actually real or not. Mr.Conductor 23:41, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support: This is already a de facto rule anyway, so I have no problems with establishing it. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:52, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support: Affirmative. FDMG, 9:58 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 02:58, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: I will vote to pass this, which does not matter if it has my vote or not due to majority rules, if this only pertains to normal Wiki users. If an admin creates a page, and has proof such as a picture, further citation is unneeded. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 21:49, January 27, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Wiki Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Proposal

I propose to help give users more ability to interact with their wiki's government they be able to contact the administration with wiki government. Such information would be requests for things such as deleted user contributions and elaborations on any particular issue that they may want to talk about related to the wiki government. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:52, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support: Affirmative.

FDMG, 10:00 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 03:00, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: I will only support this if FOIA only covers events that happen on this Wiki. If a user is blocked on another Wiki, that should not be discussed here, as it has nothing to do with us. If, FIOA only pertains to things about related to this Wiki only, then it will have my full support.

FOIA would only involve this wiki and the information and logs related to it. OrigamiAirEnforcer 23:09, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Religious Guideline Amendment

I believe that in its current form, the guideline pertaining to religion does not adequately codify and recognize persons who are of no religion. Therefore, I believe it is necessary that we add the clause "(or lack thereof)" to the guideline in order to represent the situation entirely. OrigamiAirEnforcer 05:53, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support: Affirmative.

FDMG, 7:49 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 12:49, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Support: I think it is fine. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 19:44, March 7, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

No fake wooden Chinese knockoff pics

I propose an act that will remove all fake Thomas item pics from the Wikia. Looking through pages on this Wikia, and on several user pages there are pics of "100% genuine Thomas" items that are clearly off eBay and are not truly genuine Thomas Wooden railway items. I feel it is necessary to remove these pictures from the Wikia, as they are not real Thomas items. The only thing I could see allowing these pics would be to make a page for illigitimate Thomas knockoff items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverGWR11 (talk • contribs)

Oppose: I feel it is alright for the fake items to be on the pages of their legitimate counterparts, but I would not object to a dedicated page for them to be displayed on too. OrigamiAirEnforcer 15:27, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with OAE.

FDMG, 11:33 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 16:33, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Here at the TWR Wiki, we strive to cover every aspect of the franchise, including the "Dark Side", the Chinese knock-offs. As long as they are not used as official products, the are perfectly fine. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 22:00, March 8, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified.

Fanfiction Amendment

While it has been a de facto rule enforced based on subjective analysis under other rules such as those of spamming, I believe a rule specifically dealing with fanfiction is in order. My proposal for this amendment would be that fanfiction be barred completely from content pages, and restricted to less than 250 words in a user blog post. OrigamiAirEnforcer 21:51, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support: I agree one hundred percent. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 22:15, June 1, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support: I agree wholeheartedly. FDMG, 6:29 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 22:29, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

User Age Requirement Amendment

For a user to be on the Wikia System, they have to be 13 years of age. I believe this should be reinforced on our rules page because I know we have several users here who are not of age. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:29, June 19, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

I have no problem with this, but how can we verify anything? OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:48, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Sales Amendment

More often now, the wiki is being used for product placement and the announcing of sales. I have not been sure whether or not they qualify as spam, so I believe a new rule is required. Because of these seemingly unuseful posts, I believe sales should be prohibited everywhere, except the user's page and talk page. OrigamiAirEnforcer 18:37, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Agreed. FDMG, 2:46 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 18:46, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support: I think this is a violation of Wikia policy. Also, it is plain stupid. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:34, July 5, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Factory Error-Knockoff Distinction Amendment

At this wiki, we have a page for factory error products. Previously, we have also upheld mention of illegitimate items. Because we did not identify and clarify distinctions between the two groups, confusion and misclassification appears to be normal now. A determination must be reached to define the two distinct classes in order to maintain accuracy. As I have previously, I suggest a page for the knockoffs be made as well, where images of knockoffs could be posted after removal from the factory error page. To conclude this, my amendment proposal is for a guideline that: "Hereby, factory error item photos are to maintain 'FE' in their file names and knockoffs feature 'KO' in their file names." OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 05:01, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a Knock-off page should be made as well, and once that page is made, I will help transfer some of the Knock-off items from the Factory Error page to that page.

FDMG, 7:53 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 11:53, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Would that mean you support the amendment proposed too? OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 19:25, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would.

FDMG, 7:41 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 23:41, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly believe that Factory Error and Knock Off should be spelled out. It makes us look more professional, but FE and KO have the same effect, if it is noted on the guidelines page. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 20:51, July 25, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Would that mean you support the amendment proposed? OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 21:04, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

General Proposal Amendment

I believe that the wiki needs a place--perhaps a section of this page--for suggestions and proposals not directly linked to guidelines, but other functions and operations of the site. I say this because the wiki is in need of a place at which wiki projects can be announced and launched. I believe that the establishment of such a page should be undertaken, and subsequently guidelines established for that page. OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 08:20, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Support: I agree.

FDMG, 6:43 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 10:43, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Photograph Amendment

Given that photographs have created some difficulties recently, I believe it is necessary to codify existing, de facto rules on the matter. I propose that, hereby the uploading of watermarked images be disallowed, unless the uploader is also the photographer or has the consent of the photographer and can prove it upon request. Per regulations, I recuse myself. --OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 23:12, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

Support: I agree.

FDMG, 6:43 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 23:43, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

New Categories Proposal

I understand that this issue has come up at times in the wiki's past, and it's hard for someone like me to deal with it when so much work has been done on here before I came. My proposal is to remove nearly all of the old categories and make a new system. This is because categories for vehicles seem to be only related to the actual character which is not suitable for a toy wikia, and there can be some confusion when putting a new page up for a destination or set about what categories to give it.

The new category system structure is something that I have just gotten my head around, and if some categories for certain things are not mentioned, I have not planned to get rid of them, they are already fine or I have just skipped them.

• 1992, 1993, 1994, etc
• Vehicles (every individual vehicle would get this, including multi-packs)
• (Learning Curve) Vehicles
• (TOMY) Vehicles
• (Fisher-Price) Vehicles
• Engines
• (Learning Curve) Engines
• (TOMY) Engines
• (Fisher-Price) Engines
• Rolling Stock (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price) (you get the idea)
• Non-Rail Vehicles (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price)
• Multi-Car Packs (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price)
• Battery-Powered Vehicles (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price)
• Talking Engines (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price)
• Limited Edition
• Buildings and Destinations (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price)
• Plain Track Buildings and Destinations
• Clickity-Clack Track Buildings and Destinations
• Traction Rail Buildings and Destinations
• Bridges and Tunnels (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price)
• Plain Track Bridges and Tunnels
• Clickity-Clack Track Bridges and Tunnels
• Traction Rail Bridges and Tunnels
• Sets (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price)
• Plain Track Sets (that is, the Brio-like track from 1992-1994)
• Clickity-Clack Track Sets
• Traction Rail Sets
• Lights and Sounds
• Lights and Sounds Engines
• Lights and Sounds Buildings and Destinations (the following two can be scrapped to avoid contradiction with the current products that do not seperate into a range like this)
• Lights and Sounds Bridges and Tunnels
• Talking Railway Series
• Talking Railway Series Engines
• Talking Railway Series Buildings and Destinations
• Talking Railway Series Sets
• Early Engineers
• Early Engineers Engines
• Early Engineers Sets
• Track Packs
• Clickity-Clack Track Packs
• Traction Rail Track Packs
• Accessories (for Family of Four, Seasonal Trees, etc)
• Play Accessories (Learning Curve) (TOMY) (Fisher-Price) (for things like playtables and playboards)
• Retired Items

Feel free to ask questions and apologies for any headaches I've given. Jdogman (talk) 14:04, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: These ideas are like diamonds in the rough, they need tweaking. Most of them are worthy of pursuit, especially those dealing with accessories. I do think all administrators need to come to a unified understanding, however, on the situation of items that would qualify for inclusion in more than one company's categories--such as the Adventures of Thomas pack. The amendment I am looking for is that: hereby, the acting administrators of the wiki will review the status of categories every 4 months. Without the inclusion of that amendment, I will have to oppose this proposal. --OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 19:36, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: I have to agree it's a good system, but with the ever changing product lines and models, as OAE has suggested it would be a good idea to check on the status every four months. NWRNO6 (talk) 20:38, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

I believe at the very least, the first stage should be to remove categories that are not needed before something as drastic as I've planned would take place. For OAE, I support your amendment in reviewing them, but in what sort of ways would we be reviewing the status of categories? Jdogman (talk) 14:02, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Eliminating categories should be done based on necessity, but I think there are plenty that can go. My thought is that we review categories and the need for certain ones--especially ones established in the four months between reviews to see if they are still relevant and worthy of there own titling, or if they should be merged and subjugated. --OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 20:40, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Revocation of Warnings to IP Users Amendment

Based on the recent history of the wiki (and its block log), I have found the great majority of infractions resulting in blocks to have been committed by an unregistered, "IP" users. Based on this, I believe an amendment to the wiki's policies is necessary to clarify that "IP users are not entitled to any warnings regarding infractions and blocks and may not be forewarned in any way prior to the assignment of a block for any violation." Per wiki policy, I will recuse awaiting the thoughts, opinions and votes of the other acting members of the administration. --OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 09:23, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

I must day, I have mixed feelings towards this; while some unregistered users do these kinds of unwanted edits on purpose (namely some who replace the pictures of other engines with one specific engine), others do this by accident (say, some might not know what they're doing is wrong), so I'm sorry to say, I neither agree nor disagree.

FDMG, 7:43 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 11:43, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

         I don't really see a problem with the proposal in that regard. This proposal simply eliminates the de facto allowance of warnings to IP users--it does no prohibit them. Its simply intended to alert IP users that they may not be warned prior to a block, not that there is no chance they will ever get one. Malice would surely play into this as it already has unofficially. Essentially, the proposal simply codifies existing policy. OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 05:50, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support: I vote yes. Despite the fact it may be unfair to an IP user who just makes a mistake, most IP users (who don't abuse the wiki) probably just make a single edit and forget about it, therefore not having a real need for an account. A persistent IP user who makes regular edits would have it in their interest to just make an account to save themselves from bans do to mistakes. In short, this amendment will do more good than bad, and the bad can easily be remedied on the user's end.

NWRNO6 (talk) 05:14, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: I was mixed with this as well. Similar to what FDMG said, I think that if an unregistered user does a minor edit which is unacceptable or a mistake, it can be passed by, but if one IP deliberately spams pages, does something like being inappropriate, or keeps on repeating his edits by either not listening and reverting them, then an automatic block should be put into action. Jdogman (talk) 15:03, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

I feel that reasonable mistakes should be tolerated, and should be taken into consideration. I have no objections to such a stipulation. All too often, however, the edits made by IP users are not reasonable mistakes--they're deliberate violations. We continue to have this problem to this day, and that what this is aimed at curtailing. --OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 20:59, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Support, with amendments: Having found out about the recent vandalism, I have decided that while reasonable mistakes should be tolerated, if an IP deliberately spams pages (especially if they involve inappropriate content), they should automatically be blocked.

FDMG, 5:30 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 21:30, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Violator Exclusion Act Amendment

I propose that, hereby, any user found guilty of (a) violation(s) including: ((1) a repeated history of vandalism; (2) abuse of multiple accounts; or (3) attempted deceit of an administrator) may not hold any Wiki regulatory position (the ranks of: rollback; chat moderator; administrator; bureaucrat) after this date and is disqualified from consideration for any such post on that basis. --OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 07:58, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. FDMG, 8:07 A.M. EST Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 12:07, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Jdogman (talk) 13:34, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified.

Repeal Proposals

Talk Page Archival Mandate (GP 1.3) Repeal

I propse the following rule "After every 15 messages (subjects, not entries), talk pages must be archived " is removed from the guidelines. I am not a fan of archived pages and I do not feel users should have archived pages forced upon them. There is no need to do it. I'd say maybe after every 100 messages talk pages CAN be archived, per the users request. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:10, December 28, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Oppose: Talk pages are not meant to be epics. Talk pages are meant to be easy places where users can communicate with one another. The aim of the talk pages is not to be lengthy, but effective. To my knowledge, it is the standard of the Thomas Wikia and Wikipedia to archived talk pages after 10-15 messages are posted. I believe we ought to follow their model and proceed with the rule as it stands. Your talk page James, if included on the wiki's list of long pages, would rank in at number 2, surpassing every wiki content page except for the image-laden Box page. There is absolutely no need for such a long talk page. The extreme length obstructs the duty and function the page should be serving. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:37, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

The TTTE Wiki only archives when a user feels like it. The admins do not force it upon the users. The rule is pointless and quite frankly, unfair. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 23:23, December 28, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

You voted on this rule December 12, 2011. You seemed pretty enthusiastic with the proposal then, and did not so much as ask for amendments. The rule is not unfair, quite the opposite. It makes communication easier, and reduces the elitism of administrators' talk page lengths. Of note is that this rule has yet to affect anyone but myself. I really don't understand your sudden reversal when this rule was acclaimed by you in voting and hasn't affected anyone but me. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:15, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to take all of that out after I saw the vote myself earlier. I simply forgot it ever happened :P Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 05:45, December 29, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support I agree, I don't think archiving a user's talk page is necessary. FDMG, 7:34 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 12:34, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

So, the vote is hung, 1 vote for, 1 against. I believe that means the repeal proposal has failed in voting and so the repeal cannot go ahead. As far as this entire repeal goes, I really don't understand your sudden reversals. Did you guys read the proposal before voting in favor of it? OrigamiAirEnforcer 17:38, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I misread it. I thought it was for the article talk pages rather than the user talk pages. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 00:09, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

So this repeal proposal is withdrawn in any case? OrigamiAirEnforcer 00:36, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

No, I still want the rule repealed or changed to article talk pages, not user talk pages. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 00:49, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Well, with the vote hung, I don't see how that's possible. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:37, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

We have to resolve this somehow, we cannot simple ignore it. If two of the three admins feel it should be removed it should be. My vote is no, now I know my vote may not count, but, it still counts somewhat. Simple imput from our users would be helpful. If they don't like the rule, it shall be repealed. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:28, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

This is a ridiculous issue. I see this attempt at repeal as just your way of maintaining the longest talk page for an unknown reason. Your vote does not count towards this, you proposed the repeal and you have recused. Recusal is absolute. Users have never been asked before to vote on the proposed guidelines/repeals, and I feel that trying to begin that now--especially after the votes have been cast, is just a way to try to circumvent the inevitable failure of the proposal in voting. I will continue to Oppose this repeal unless I feel that it is in the wiki's best interests to let it pass. The vote is hung, and I'm afraid unless FDMG changes his vote and opposes the repeal, it'll remain hung. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:40, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Why would I want the longest talk page? There is no gain from it. I see that as a petty response to an actual issue. It makes you seem like you are almost jealous that I have more posts on my talk page than you do. I originally read the rule propsal incorrectly. I was reading it in the car, on my iPad and misunderstood it, it happens. Like I previously said, my vote does not count. I do think they members of this Wiki should have some imput though. It does affect them more than it affects any of us. Asking for their opinion is not a horrible thing. Unlike real governments, we cannot be voted out of office. So, we have to decide what is best for our members and there is little they can do about it. In return, we should at least ask them what they think about Wiki legislation every once in a while. This entire issue will disapear after Wikia introduces the new message wall system to all Wikis. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:53, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

As I said, an unknown reason. I do not know why you would want the longest talk page, I understand that we each mutally see no point in it. However, it is the only aspect I see as unique enough to motivate you to reverse your decision--(this is strictly a function of my beliefs and assessments and is, admittedly, just my own interpretation). As for the proposal, I understand your error, but it is not what I find wrong with this at all. Jealousy would have nothing to do with it, and the fact is I am not--(quite the contrary in fact, I enjoy fewer Wiki "new message" notifications). As for user's opinions, I do not disapprove of their voices, I disapprove of them voting in an issue not previously announced prior to OUR voting. Had you proposed their ability to voice prior to our voting, I would likely be less hesitant to entertain the idea.

I will offer the concession that article pages be excluded from the requirement, but nothing further at the moment. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:06, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say at this point the proposal has failed. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:42, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. It is hung, and shall remain hung. Hung does not mean failed. It will most likely remain hung until we gain another admin. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:45, December 31, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

I do not think we need another administrator, nor do I think it fair to ask for another voter after we have already voted. I really don't understand why you want to repeal something so pro-user. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:56, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

It is not pro-user. They are being forced to archive their talk pages, it is not benifical to be forced to do anything so pointless. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:58, December 31, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Although I still affirm it is pro-user, I'd like to ask you, why did you vote for it in the first place if you don't like it? OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:04, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Like I said many times, I misread the post. I originally thought it said that only article talk pages would be archived, not user talk pages. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 05:39, December 31, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5

Support, pending the enactment of GP 1.13 as a replacement: As soon as GP 1.13 passes, RP 2.1 passes too. OrigamiAirEnforcer 06:32, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The proposal passed in voting; GP 1.3 has been hereby repealed.

Administrator Foul/Sexual Language Approval Repeal Proposal

There is no need for the "(Unless authorized by an administrator)" provision of Guideline 3. The reason it was written is broad, but this clarification statement is already in place and is not going to be added or removed. There is simply no need for the provision any longer, and it likely sends out the wrong impression towards users about how the administrators of the wiki feel about such content. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:09, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Support: It is needed for instances like the sexual reference on the Learning Curve page. If that is not in the rules, the sexual reference on the page would be removed. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:00, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Yeah but that's already passed. We don't need it anymore. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:11, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

No, it is still needed. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:14, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Now that I review that page, is that mention itself even necessary? Its just an allegation, and it seems out of place. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

The other is an allegation too, is it not? Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 06:27, January 2, 2012 (UTC)Jamesis5

Approve, with one exception. As mentioned above, it is needed on the Learning Curve page, for the controversy of the Male/Female Adapters. FDMG, 2:49 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 19:49, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I believe that exception can be accomodated without the current text. Or perhaps the entire sentence be rewritten to not be suggestive. OrigamiAirEnforcer 19:53, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Result: The repeal proposal passed in voting and the wording of the guideline will be changed accordingly.