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
(Current Proposals)
Tag: Reverted
 
(46 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


='''Current Proposals'''=
='''Current Proposals'''=
==List of media (26/03/2014)==
==Create categories for names in specific languages (June 21, 2024 - July 5, 2024)==
There should be a page called "List of media" that houses links to all other lists of individual media we have ([[List of games]], List of [[Kirby JP Twitter]] posts), including those yet to be made (List of books, List of interviews), with its "real" utility being to have at the end an "'''Others'''" (or "'''Miscellaneous'''") list at the end where to enlist canonical information about the series that can't be qualified as any of the above, like a video on youtube from Sakurai talking about the series, or a blog rather than a page for a game.
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 standards would need to be qualified as anything related to the series coming from authorities in it, be it developers or former authorities whose word may reflex some value to various degrees from the time they worked on the series, even if they're not talking about solid things or events in the series, but their feelings towards it. The same wording can be copied & pasted to a future "List of books" when instructing what to add when talking about books that aren't primarily Kirby-related but some specific issues have a small section with canon information (Only those specific issues would be listed in that case).
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.


Like this:
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.


(Explanation of the page.)
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.


<nowiki>==Games==</nowiki>
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.
*[[List of games]]
<nowiki>==Books==</nowiki>
*[[List of books]]
(etc.)


<nowiki>==Others==</nowiki>
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)


(Agreed upon wording for the standards on what qualifies as media.)
{{Option|1|Split, keep regional variants together}}
*Youtube:
#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)
**(Link) (Date)
#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)
**(Link) (Date)
#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)
*Blogs:
#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)
**(Link) (Date)
#First choice. I think keeping regional variants together would be better just for less clutter. [[User:NVS Pixel|NVS Pixel]] ([[User talk:NVS Pixel|talk]]) 17:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
**(Link) (Date)
{{Option|2|Split, keep regional variants separate}}
*Twitter posts (Not from Kirby_JP)
#Second choice. Generally not opposed to the idea of doing this though. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
**(Link) (Date)
#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)
**(Link) (Date)
#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)
*(Some other form of media I'm not remembering. And if there isn't, there might be in the future.)
#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)
 
#Second choice. I slightly prefer the first option but I'm not opposed to this option either. [[User:NVS Pixel|NVS Pixel]] ([[User talk:NVS Pixel|talk]]) 17:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
While we could have that last section as its own page, it has utility to have all media in 1 place as it makes one aware that all of it exists, whereas a random person may be aware of some separated lists but not all of them. We CAN have the "Others" section as its own page, but it is important to at least have 1 page where to show all media. [[User:Eficiente|Eficiente]] ([[User talk:Eficiente|talk]]) 20:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Option|3|Do not split, keep category as is}}
{{Support}}
{{Option|4|Delete category}}
{{Oppose}}
#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)
#Third choice. The category as of now is pretty useless and isn't very helpful so unless if something changes I think deleting it makes sense. [[User:NVS Pixel|NVS Pixel]] ([[User talk:NVS Pixel|talk]]) 17:35, 26 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===


Latest revision as of 17:36, 26 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)
  5. First choice. I think keeping regional variants together would be better just for less clutter. NVS Pixel (talk) 17:35, 26 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)
  5. Second choice. I slightly prefer the first option but I'm not opposed to this option either. NVS Pixel (talk) 17:35, 26 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)
  4. Third choice. The category as of now is pretty useless and isn't very helpful so unless if something changes I think deleting it makes sense. NVS Pixel (talk) 17:35, 26 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=479414"