Inkipedia talk:Policy/Consensus

There are still a number of issues that the draft does not address:

1. The majority of a group (i.e. Inkipedia's active editors) -- if the active editing community don't see or interact with the discussion, are we to say motion passed given the arguments put forward by the proposer?
2. The dispute should be analyzed in an unbiased fashion -- by who? Do admins/bcrats have the final say? Is this still democratic?
3. Where should the voting take place? (May be out-of-scope for this policy)
4. Add that beginning another discussion should link to previous discussions (if any)
5. Links to Request for Rights page and MOS should be fixed.
6. I would argue moving/splitting/merging generally does not require consensus, unless it is a well-established or high-traffic article (such as Splatfest). Correction of an article name, especially unreleased items, should fall under the just do it category.

User:Kjhf/Sig 13:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes, but we should keep the discussion open for longer just in case. Will put that in later.
2. It's not supposed to pure democracy. The Admins and Bcrats do have the final say (albeit not if it clearly goes against consensus).
3. Same place as always, talk page. That said, yes, it's out of scope.
4. If it's on the same page, not needed IMO.
5. Done.
6. Will note corrections are an exception.

I probably won't be back until early tomorrow or late tonight, so if anyone objects to the changes, please chip in.

Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 14:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Better now? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 19:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Raltseye prata med mej 17:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 13:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Last bump. I'll pass this tomorrow afternoon if no one objects. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 12:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)