Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.

WiKirby:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(379 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="position: absolute; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</span>}} __NOTOC__{{ProposalRules}}
{{#css: .firstHeading{display:none} }} __NOTOC__{{ProposalRules}}


='''Current Proposals'''=
='''Current Proposals'''=
== Formally disbar the use of any wiki-based source for files that is not itself sourced (August 5th, 2022 - August 19th, 2022) ==
==Create categories for names in specific languages (June 21, 2024 - July 5, 2024)==
Greetings. So, I've been putting in some effort recently to try and find sources for the items in the [[:Category:Files lacking sources|Files lacking sources]] category, and I think we've collectively done a good job narrowing things down. I will remind everyone that it is the goal to have zero unsourced things on the wiki at the end of the year, so anything left over will be deleted or otherwise shelved as appropriate when that time comes. While doing my work earlier today, I decided to take a hop over to PidgiWiki, which has historically been used as a source for files on WiKirby. When I got there, however, I noticed that they'd recently updated their galleries to include several unsourced images from our own category, and ''did not specify'' that they'd gotten it from there, or anywhere. I further noticed that files on PidgiWiki are not sourced in general.
This topic was discussed on Discord, but after it felt like it was settled, arguments against were brought up, which is why this proposal exists. The gist of it is to split [[:Category:Articles which list non-English names]] by language (Japanese, Korean, Italian, et cetera).


As such, to avoid the possibility of breaking the space-time continuum by using something retrieved from us as a source for that very same thing (a "circular source"), and as a broader rule due to the nature of wiki file uploading in general, I propose that we add a hard rule to the file sourcing policy that '''any wiki-based source for a file must be itself sourced, or it may not be used'''. This will also apply retroactively to anything we've sourced to PidgiWiki or another such wiki in the past, and solidify the rule against using images from the Kirby FANDOM (since they almost never source anything). That is the extent of this proposal. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 01:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The reasoning here is that, as of now, the category has little to no practical use. I believe it was originally created to track progress of pages which lacked the template, and the description was modified to <u>encourage speakers of the languages to help explain the names</u>. Nowadays, almost every article fits in there, with the exception of those which have conjectural or meta names and therefore don't need the template at all. Reasonably, I don't see anyone using the category for serious purposes.


{{Support}}
On the other hand, having categories for specific languages has several benefits: 1. Speakers of the languages will actually be able to find the pages which concern them, rather than the current thousands of pages 2. In a case where the page doesn't mention a name but the speaker knows it, using the split category will help pin it down with alphabetical deduction 3. For languages which have few localizations, it helps give a general overview, which is just interesting from a reader's point of view.
#Support. Not much to say, but I have had my doubts about the legitimacy of unsourced files from other wikis, so this makes sense to me. [[User:StarPunch|StarPunch]] ([[User talk:StarPunch|talk]]) 01:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 
#support, makes sense to me [[User:Robothing|Robothing]] ([[User talk:Robothing|talk]]) 1:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Some downsides which were pointed out are 1. You can't exclude a specific category, so you would still have to analyze several categories if you want to find pages with only a specific (group of) language(s) 2. It's a lot of additional categories for a niche function. In my opinion, most downsides will still mostly remain even with our current system; if anything, more specific search has at least 1-2 additional uses. It's not that much extra work (I already made the template edit draft under a sandbox), so the real issue is clutter.
{{Oppose}}
 
Finally, even if it is implemented, we're not sure whether or not to separate regional variants (e.g. Canadian or European French). If we judge from a translator's point of view, then there isn't much of a reason to split them; but for research purposes (about localization in different countries), splitting would give extra insight.
 
Anyway, this is something that is best voted on. If none of the aforementioned options are to your liking, there's always the wildcard option of getting rid of the category altogether. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 
{{Option|1|Split, keep regional variants together}}
#First choice. I'm in the translator camp, and I don't think separating variants makes too much sense. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
#First choice, I'm not in the translator camp but I don't see much purpose in separating language variants. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
#Second choice, I don't really mind either way about the regions, but the new categories can be useful. [[User:SilvTheGrape|SilvTheGrape]] ([[User talk:SilvTheGrape|talk]]) 13:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
#First choice. I do think splitting regional variants is going overboard, but this could be useful for listing pages with, say, Spanish names. It wouldn’t be too many extra categories, either, and it’d be much more useful than the status quo. {{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 15:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Option|2|Split, keep regional variants separate}}
#Second choice. Generally not opposed to the idea of doing this though. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
#Second choice, either this or above is fine with me but slightly prefer together for less clutter. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
#First choice, it would be easier to find out if a translation is missing in one of the regions by keeping them separate. [[User:SilvTheGrape|SilvTheGrape]] ([[User talk:SilvTheGrape|talk]]) 13:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
#Second choice. It sounds unwieldy to me compared to Option 1, but this can definitely work, and is still an improvement from the status quo. {{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 15:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Option|3|Do not split, keep category as is}}
{{Option|4|Delete category}}
#Third choice. I see no use in the category as it is today, something needs to change imo. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
#Third choice. As it is right now, it's basically just [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Names|whatlinkshere]] sorted alphabetically. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
#Third choice. The category as it stands is not very useful at all, so with no other changes to it, might as well delete it. {{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 15:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Neutral}}
{{Neutral}}
 
#I was the one who was opposed or at least concerned about the specifics of this, but I'm leaning neutral now as I see there's some support for this idea and so it's not as niche as I initially anticipated. I think there is some value to splitting regional variants if this is done, but I can see why you wouldn't want to. My main concern right now is clutter, as we'll have a lot of similar-looking categories even if they're hidden, but if they're serving a purpose then no harm no foul. It's all automated so I suppose it'd be easy to tweak or remove anyway. [[User:StarPunch|StarPunch]] ([[User talk:StarPunch|talk]]) 17:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion===
===Discussion===


Line 18: Line 37:


='''Proposal Archive'''=
='''Proposal Archive'''=
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]}}</br>
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]</br>
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]}}</br>
[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]</br>
[[WiKirby:Proposals/Withdrawn Archive|Withdrawn proposals]]}}


{{clear}}
{{clear}}
{{Navbox-Help}}
{{Navbox-Help}}
[[Category:WiKirby]]
[[Category:WiKirby]]

Latest revision as of 17:54, 21 June 2024

Your opinions matter!

Welcome to the Proposals page. Here, WiKirby's editors may propose changes to the way the wiki operates, including how to handle certain categories of content, quality standards, or even just making aesthetic suggestions. Any user who has Autopatrol status or above may make a proposal or vote on one, and after two weeks of voting, if it passes, it will be incorporated into policy. Please see below for the specifics on how to make and/or vote on a proposal.

How to make a proposal

Please use one of the following templates to make a new proposal:

Single vote: This is for proposals which only propose a single change to the wiki. 

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}

===Discussion===

{{clear}}

Multi-option vote: This is for proposals which include many possible changes to a particular element of policy. One option should always be to keep things as they were. It is recommended that no more than 8 options are given in a single proposal, including the "no change" option. 

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Option|1|(option title 1)}}
{{Option|2|(option title 2)}}
{{Option|3|(option title 3)}}
{{Option|etc.|(option title etc.)}}
{{Neutral}}

===Discussion===

{{clear}}

Multi-facet vote: This is for proposals which want to make several smaller changes to a single element of policy (for instance, making several changes to how the main page looks). Each change needs to be voted up or down individually. There should not be more than 5 parts to a proposal like this. This type of proposal should not be made without approval from wiki administration. 

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert summary of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
===Change 1===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 1 discussion====

===Change 2===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 2 discussion====

===Change 3===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 3 discussion====

etc.

{{clear}}

Once a proposal is made, the voting period begins (see voting regulations below). Voting period for a proposal ends two weeks after it starts, at 23:59:59 UTC on the 14th full day of voting. An administrator can veto a proposal at any time, although such action should always be justifiable and agreed upon by multiple admins. Administrators should not use this right to add more weight to their own opinions.

Restrictions

Users may propose many different changes or additions to the wiki. The following things, however, may not be voted on:

  1. Proposals which target specific users (such as bestowing or removing ranks or rights).
  2. Proposals which violate the law, as specified in the general content policy.
  3. Proposals which seek to overturn a recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) approved proposal.
  4. Re-submitted proposals which were recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) rejected, and which have not been significantly altered.
Voting regulations
  1. Proposal adding and voting is open only to registered users who have attained Autopatrol status and above. Users who do not have Autopatrol+ may still participate in discussions.
  2. Users who are currently blocked will not be allowed to vote, and any outstanding votes they have on proposals will be removed. Any proposal made by a user who is blocked during the consideration period will also be removed.
  3. All votes must be signed with signatures (type four tildes (~~~~.)) Unsigned votes are automatically negated, regardless of any points made.
  4. After two (2) weeks of voting, a proposal will be immediately enacted if the number of supportive votes is greater than the number of opposing votes, or, in the case of multi-option votes, any option receives a plurality consisting of three or more votes. In the event of a tie, the proposal may be re-voted upon with a one week duration, or annulled by the administrators.
  5. In the event a proposal has seven (7) unanimous support votes OR ten (10) support votes and no more than two neutral votes, as well as the support of a bureaucrat, a proposal may pass in only one (1) week instead of two.
  6. If a supported proposal is vetoed by the administrators, it is considered failed and should not be started again for at least 8 weeks (56 days).
  7. If a proposal fails to garner three (3) supporting votes (or 3 votes on any one option in multi-option proposals), it will not be considered.
  8. The original proposal maker may not vote on their own proposal if it only contains two options (i.e., "yes" or "no" proposals). However, proposers may vote on their own proposals if they have three or more options.
  9. All votes must be supported by a substantial reason from the voter. Simple and/or unproductive comments like "I agree" or "No that's stupid" will result in the vote being removed.
  10. The original proposer may cancel the proposal for any reason during the first three (3) days of its run, and it will not be considered failed. Admins may veto subsequent proposals if this is abused.
  11. Voting users may change their vote at any time before a proposal's deadline passes, but should update their timestamp if doing so.
  12. Discussion must remain civil at all times! Any uncivil discussion will result in the offending users' votes being negated, and possibly lead to strikes or a block.
  13. Excessive campaigning for any proposals will result in the campaigner's vote(s) being negated, or proposal being removed if applicable.
  14. Proposals about minor article manipulation (such as splits, merges, renames, or deletions) should not be created, unless the scope of the discussion is particularly large; otherwise, these should be handled on a case-by-case basis, through discussions or polls on the talk page of the article in question.
  15. It is recommended that a single user make only one (1) proposal at a time. Though simultaneous proposals from the same user are allowed, they are discouraged; this should ideally only be done if multiple issues are in question, and not many proposals are already active.
  16. For multi-option votes, voters are encouraged (but not required) to indicate a first, second, third, etc. vote. The exception to this is neutral votes, which must be the only vote if chosen.

Current Proposals

Create categories for names in specific languages (June 21, 2024 - July 5, 2024)

This topic was discussed on Discord, but after it felt like it was settled, arguments against were brought up, which is why this proposal exists. The gist of it is to split Category:Articles which list non-English names by language (Japanese, Korean, Italian, et cetera).

The reasoning here is that, as of now, the category has little to no practical use. I believe it was originally created to track progress of pages which lacked the template, and the description was modified to encourage speakers of the languages to help explain the names. Nowadays, almost every article fits in there, with the exception of those which have conjectural or meta names and therefore don't need the template at all. Reasonably, I don't see anyone using the category for serious purposes.

On the other hand, having categories for specific languages has several benefits: 1. Speakers of the languages will actually be able to find the pages which concern them, rather than the current thousands of pages 2. In a case where the page doesn't mention a name but the speaker knows it, using the split category will help pin it down with alphabetical deduction 3. For languages which have few localizations, it helps give a general overview, which is just interesting from a reader's point of view.

Some downsides which were pointed out are 1. You can't exclude a specific category, so you would still have to analyze several categories if you want to find pages with only a specific (group of) language(s) 2. It's a lot of additional categories for a niche function. In my opinion, most downsides will still mostly remain even with our current system; if anything, more specific search has at least 1-2 additional uses. It's not that much extra work (I already made the template edit draft under a sandbox), so the real issue is clutter.

Finally, even if it is implemented, we're not sure whether or not to separate regional variants (e.g. Canadian or European French). If we judge from a translator's point of view, then there isn't much of a reason to split them; but for research purposes (about localization in different countries), splitting would give extra insight.

Anyway, this is something that is best voted on. If none of the aforementioned options are to your liking, there's always the wildcard option of getting rid of the category altogether. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 1: Split, keep regional variants together
  1. First choice. I'm in the translator camp, and I don't think separating variants makes too much sense. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  2. First choice, I'm not in the translator camp but I don't see much purpose in separating language variants. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  3. Second choice, I don't really mind either way about the regions, but the new categories can be useful. SilvTheGrape (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  4. First choice. I do think splitting regional variants is going overboard, but this could be useful for listing pages with, say, Spanish names. It wouldn’t be too many extra categories, either, and it’d be much more useful than the status quo. -YFJ (talk · edits) 15:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Option 2: Split, keep regional variants separate
  1. Second choice. Generally not opposed to the idea of doing this though. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  2. Second choice, either this or above is fine with me but slightly prefer together for less clutter. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  3. First choice, it would be easier to find out if a translation is missing in one of the regions by keeping them separate. SilvTheGrape (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. It sounds unwieldy to me compared to Option 1, but this can definitely work, and is still an improvement from the status quo. -YFJ (talk · edits) 15:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Option 3: Do not split, keep category as is
Option 4: Delete category
  1. Third choice. I see no use in the category as it is today, something needs to change imo. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  2. Third choice. As it is right now, it's basically just whatlinkshere sorted alphabetically. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  3. Third choice. The category as it stands is not very useful at all, so with no other changes to it, might as well delete it. -YFJ (talk · edits) 15:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I was the one who was opposed or at least concerned about the specifics of this, but I'm leaning neutral now as I see there's some support for this idea and so it's not as niche as I initially anticipated. I think there is some value to splitting regional variants if this is done, but I can see why you wouldn't want to. My main concern right now is clutter, as we'll have a lot of similar-looking categories even if they're hidden, but if they're serving a purpose then no harm no foul. It's all automated so I suppose it'd be easy to tweak or remove anyway. StarPunch (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals
Withdrawn proposals

Basic help
Getting started • Categories • Colors • Disambiguation • File uploading • Formatting • Formatting file pages • Moving pages • Protected Page • Redirects • References • Tables • Talk pages • Templates • User Navigation Bar • Userboxes
Advanced help
Advanced tables • Creating navmaps • Creating templates • Custom Signatures • HTML • Page history • Special pages • Tabs • Template documentation • Using infoboxes
Policies
Abbreviations • Article creation • Article manipulation • Audio standards • Blocking of users • Categories • Citing • Community polls • Conjecture • Cookies • Copyrights • Deletion of content • Disputes • Featured content • File use • Formatting specifics • General content • General disclaimer • Glitch disclaimer notes • Glitches • Image standards • Infoboxes and Navboxes • Interwiki • Language • Layout • Localization • Long pages • Naming • Non-Kirby content • Personal content • Privacy • Sourcing standards • Stubs • Talk pages • Trivia sections • User accounts • Videos • Writing style • Writing specifics
Useful links
About WiKirby • Affiliates • April Fools • Archive • Current events • Dedication • Discord • Featured Article Nomination • Featured Picture Nomination • Good recommendations • IPA • Maintenance (Project Clean-Up) • Proposals • Ranks (Bots • Check user • Editor-in-Chief • System Admin) • Sandbox • Social media • Special pages
KSA Parasol Waddle Dee Pause Screen Artwork.png
Retrieved from "https://wikirby.com/w/index.php?title=WiKirby:Proposals&oldid=479036"