Open Proposal
The following is an ongoing proposal. Please feel free to voice your opinion, but be sure to follow the rules. How proposals work
You can use any of the following prior to your comments to show your opinion. Neutral votes do not count in determining the outcome percentage. |
Introduction
A petition was made on December 30, 2014 by 120d in regards to in-universe books. On January 8, 2015, the petition recieved the required 3 endorsements in order to proceed to a discussion.
Despite support for the petition, there was also different opinions questioning the necessity of in-universe, some agreeing that the in-universe books should be contained in a list. So, now that this is an official discussion, please tell us what you think:
Should the in-universe books (that is, books within SpongeBob's world) contain their own articles (with an infobox and all) or should they be put into a list?
For your reference, see the original petition here: ESB:Petitions/In-Universe Books.
This discussion will end on Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 7:30 p.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 00:29, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Each with their own article
Should each in-universe book have their own article, infobox and all?
- Template:Neutral towards Oppose this would create too many stub articles. While some books do have a lot of information, others have very little. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 00:36, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Nicko756 (M•C•E) Sign! 00:47, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral - — Lewis2567 (talk) 01:48, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Support - They would hopefully not be stub articles because a stub article is an article that cannot have any more information. Don't forget that an encyclopedia is supposed to have pages for everything. 120d Talk Contribs 120d 20:58, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral - 22:30, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Put the books on one list
Should the in-universe books be listed on one page instead of each having their own article?
- Support - this would make much more sense for organizational purposes. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 00:36, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Nicko756 (M•C•E) Sign! 00:47, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Support - — Lewis2567 (talk) 02:34, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - 120d Talk Contribs 120d 20:58, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Alternative ideas
If you have any alternative ideas, list them here.
Comments
List any overall comments you have here.