Welcome to the hub for Proposals. This section of the wiki allows users to create proposals to share their ideas for potential changes to the wiki and look for consensus in approving them. The goal of this section is to unify the community and ensure that all World of Cars Wiki users have a say in important wiki decisions.
Process
- If a user has an idea they would like to suggest, they should create a proposal by adding a topic under the "Active proposals" heading. Proposals can cover all kinds of articles and spaces. The proposer must provide both an explanation of what the proposal consists of as well as a valid argument to justify why it should be passed.
- Once a Proposal has been created, the voting period begins. Users have one week to declare whether they Support or Oppose the given proposal. This can be done by signing their username under either the "Support" or "Oppose" sections respectively, accompanied by an explanation of why they feel the way they do. Users can debate and discuss with one another in the "Discussion" heading.
- After the week-long period ends, the final result is determined by which section had the most names signed. If the majority of users chose to Support the proposal, it indicates consensus, and the change may now be implemented. If more users chose to Oppose, the changes will not be put into effect.
- In the event of a tie, the voting period will be extended an additional week.
Rules
- Proposals must provide a detailed explanation of the intended change, as well as a mock-up or draft of what the change would look like in effect.
- Users must choose to Support or Oppose, not both. In a situation where a Proposal offers more than two options, users may offer their opinion in multiple sections, as long as their selections do not contradict one another.
- While every user is free to explain themselves however they like, they may not edit any comments that are not their own. The only situation in which a comment will be edited or removed is by an administrator in the event that a comment is offensive or rude, or otherwise violates the site rules. Users should be respectful and must not resort to personal attacks.
- While there are no limits or requirements for the lengths of comments, explanations should be as clear and concise as possible. Users should not reply with sarcasm or "jokes" that do not reflect their true opinion on the matter.
- All user comments must stay on topic.
- Proposals should be used to suggest changes to the wiki, not rally users to collectively expand information about a certain topic. For instance, a proposal titled "Add more screenshots for Cars: Radiator Springs Adventures" is not a valid proposal. These sorts of discussions are better had in the Forum.
Active proposals
Decide how to organize character articles
This is a poor example for a first proposal because normally I would not be the one drafting this proposal, but due to the current state of the administration I am going to have to take initiative in overseeing checks for consensus in the coming weeks.
The first matter that must be addressed is the character article format. In the time that I have been gone, User:124PX1 has been writing and updating articles in past tense, which is different to the way we have always displayed our content. I did not consent to this change and as from what I can see in previous threads, no one else has.
The layout of character articles will require a lot of different discussions, but for now we will focus on this proposal: We should continue writing articles from an out-of-universe perspective using present tense, instead of changing to an in-universe perspective using past tense.
Proposer: RodRedlineM1 (talk) 
Deadline: Saturday, April 24, 2021, 23:59 EST
Support
- RodRedlineM1 (talk)
-- This is the way we have always presented our articles since the site's creation in 2011. It allows us to cover all Cars media without having to worry about playing the difficult game of discerning what is meant to be "canon" and what is not. The Cars universe is not meant to be taken super seriously and I believe this style reflects that. Snot Rod is a great example of an article using "my" format, if you would like to review. I also wrote more "in-depth" explanations here and here. I will happy to elaborate and clarify wherever wanted or needed.
- ABG1304 -- I personally think the articles should've stay the way they were before. Cars doesn't have a strong canon and trying to make it seem like does is odd honestly. Especially since the "canon" seemingly is broken by Pixar themselves with them being very indirect about it. I mean just look at how they've been treating Cars 2 recently and you'll see what I mean. I just don't think describing characters who are still alive with the words "was" is a smart choice because it gives the feeling that the character is either dead or retired (excluding the actual dead and retired characters) when they're not. Making the info boxes ridiculously long also isn't appealing either honestly. I rather have them be short and sweet (like they usually where back then) with the "technical" information being saved for the "Physical Description" part of the pages. That's all I can currently think of right now but I might comeback and edit my support if I can think of anything else but for now that's it.
- Lumbud84 -- I am so relieved that I'm not the only person who was pushing for the wiki's format to stay the way it always has been during that period where 124PX1 watched over literally everything. I created multiple new articles upon the reveals of the names of certain Next-Gen racers (Jim Reverick, George New-Win, Will Rusch, William Byrev, and Carstin Dillon) and every single time I wrote one of those articles, the quality consistently dropped after 124PX1 made edits to it (you can look through the version history on the pages on any of the articles I listed before and compare one of my early edits to one of his later ones to exactly what I mean, I highly suggest you do that). Afterwards, I kept trying to explain to them that past tense should only be used when a character is dead or no longer a car, but nevertheless, they still made edits to the wiki that significantly dropped the quality of the pages they were editing. They even defended the idea that "these events happened a long time ago" when the new Next-Gen diecasts were revealed only a week earlier. All in all, the wiki was completely fine how it was before this whole "in-universe past-tense" thing. The changes that 124PX1 has been making to these articles have been mostly negative, filling the page with spelling and grammatical errors, as well as deleting in-depth explanations and replacing them with extremely dumbed-down surface-level descriptions. I vote to keep the wiki how it's always been since its creation, a well-trusted source for any and all material Cars-related.
Oppose
Discussion
In response to ABG's explanation: 100% with you on the infoboxes. I think it is redundant to have so many features in the infobox when we already cover most of the parameters on the article itself. Totally agree about keeping things short and simple. I will say I do like 124PX1's infoboxes by themselves, but I just don't think they work well on this wiki, if that makes sense. Since you brought it up, we'll make that next week's proposal after this one finishes. In the future we will probably be able to run more than one proposal concurrently, but I just want to wait and see how this one works out first. Best to keep things simple while people are still getting used to everything. ~~ RodRedlineM1 (talk)