User:Yoshi K/Draft

This is an example of a proposal that would be affected.

Create article for Power-Up C
We have articles for Power-Up A and Power-Up B, why not have one for Power-Up C? Power-Up C's info is currently in Power-Up A. (User A puts reason here)

Proposer:User A (talk) Deadline:MM, DD, YYYY

Create the article

 * 1) User A (talk) Per proposal
 * 2) User B (talk) Per User A
 * 3) User D (talk) Why not create it?
 * 4) User I (talk) Per all.

Split, and merge into Power-Up B

 * 1) User E (talk) This is almost the same thing as Power-Up B.
 * 2) User F (talk) Per User E

Do Nothing

 * 1) User C (talk) Power-Up C is not major enough to have its own article.
 * 2) User G (talk) Why? They both do very similar things.
 * 3) User H (talk) Per User G

In our current system, User I's vote of Per all would make the proposal pass, (as this proposal has only 9 votes, and not affected by Proposals Rule 9) despite more than half of the users opposing it.

Under my rule, the proposal will be extended, but no options will be deleted. Which was the main reason the last proposal failed. It will be extended just like a normal proposal, and is treated as any proposal would be.

I hope this wasn't too complicated for you to understand, I tried to make it as clear as possible.