There is a weird ambigous thing. I cannot tell if Twilight Sparkle is categorized as Pure Good or rejected Good. I am not sure if this is a glitch or completely intentended but I just wanted to let you know. They have the green lock logo and a green checkmark implying that it is proven as Pure Good, while there is a blue check mark representing that it is a rejected Good article. It's really hard to tell. And I recall a Pure Good Proposal of Twilight being rejected.
The Rejected Good Article should be added with a Blue Lock at least. It's weird having it as a Green Lock making it confusig for the people to tell if they are Pure Good or not with the only exception of how darker the lock is. With the Villains Wiki with the Rejected Evil there was a blue lock to stand out since a darker red would still make it like Pure Evil. This should be the same thing with the Heroes Wiki where the Rejected Good Articles should be kept with a Blue lock and along with a possible blue checkmark.
Hi there. As the subject line indicate, there's something I wanted to clarify regarding the rule about who can do PG proposals. Do you really need to have been here for at least 5 months and make at least 500 contributions/edits to do one? Because I couldn't help noticing that some of the most recent proposals have been done by a couple of users who are quite new, which made me wonder how strict that particular guideline is. This also made me wonder if I'd be eligible to do one in the near future if I so desired. I haven't done a PG proposal before, but I do have some experience doing proposals for the PE category (and even some experience prior to that making similar posts elsewhere, which helped me a lo)t, and while not perfect, I do always put a lot of effort into them. I don't really mind waiting until I'm eligible, but between knowing I wouldn't be lazy about it, and seieng that other new users have done their own proposals lately, I just thought I ask.
I see. That makes sense. So does the part about being a user for 5 months still apply? Because apparently, a couple of those same users doing proposals only created accounts this month. That stated, the way they write gives me the impression they have some experience, so I don't personally mind that they're doing them. It just seems odd that they're so new and are making proposals right after these rules were posted.
You see, the original claim you made originates from Villains Wiki. The new proposal rules a based largely off their new rules that were created a day before this site's new rules came into effect (with some notable exceptions), after the complaint, (as well as a recommendation from Head Admin. Mesektet) I altered the rules further to makes ours stand out differently from Villains Wiki.
Yeah, sorry, nevermind. I just took another look at the rules, and the one about being here for at least 5 months and needing 500 contributions in order to do proposals isn't there anymore. I knew it was largely based on the Villains wiki's new rules but wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same. I just didn't expect there to be a complaint and a subsequent modification so quickly.
If you do not mind, I would like to slightly modify your proposal. It is a copy paste of the villain descriptions and one would not apply here. Horror/exploitation would rarely if ever overlap with pure good. For that one I was thinking of substituting figures from modern religions to be out of the running, if only because there will always be a critic looking to take down, Jesus, Mohammad, God, Moses, Rama, etc and others will gush no matter how many non pure acts sited "God is GOD, therefore he HAS to be Pure Good, those babies had it coming" so on.
Oh I have been keeping up on my phone, but do not have access to all the same tools mobility and less and less time in-front of my computer. I had wanted to sync up our policy with our sister-wiki's as soon as I saw theirs.So again, good judgment-call and imitative to set up the post.
Regarding the new Pure Good requirements, while I agree most of the rules are reasonable, I am asking that you kindly remove any edit requirements or time requirements. One of the main ideas behind mking PG's proposable was that anyone could do it. Putting a mandate really undermines that argument, and the vast majoirity of people never reach 500 edits. So please consider either putting that requirement up for a vote or just remove it, because a large amount of users will likely object to that rule.
Unfortunately, it looks like you have less than 500 edits and 5 months experience on this site, and according to the new rules, those are required in order to participate; so I’m afraid you’ll have to wait awhile and edit on this site in order to participate, sorry.