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
m (Only users Autopatrol+ can make proposals. If you wish to make any, earn that rank by editing the wiki more and getting used to how it works. This proposal shows you still need to learn a lot more about WiKirby)
Tag: Undo
 
(949 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- This prevents the Table of Contents from showing up. -->
{{#css: .firstHeading{display:none} }} __NOTOC__{{ProposalRules}}
__NOTOC__
{| class="navbox" style="{{round}}; background-color: #{{WKColor4}};width:100%; border:5px solid #{{WKColor5}};" class="wkblue"
! align="center"|Your opinions matter!
|-
|
Due to WiKirby's recent surge in community interaction, we have seen fit to implement a formal proposals page. Up to this point, proposal-handling has been informal, with larger ones handled via referendum, but this page serves to clear away any ambiguity and provide a set of procedures for suggesting changes to the wiki, whether that be the handling of certain content, or changes and additions to policy.
|-
! align="center"|How to make a proposal
|-
|
All proposals must be made using the template provided below, posted under the "Current Proposals" heading:
<pre>
==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}


===Discussion===
='''Current Proposals'''=
''None at the moment.''


{{clear}}
='''Proposal Archive'''=
</pre>
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]</br>
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 11:59:59 P.M. UTC on the 14th day of voting. If a proposal which follows all rules receives a basic majority of support, it is sent to the [[WiKirby:Ranks#Administrator|Administrators +]] for final consideration. The administrators + may decide to veto the proposal, which means that it will need to be voted on again and receive a supermajority of 75% or more to be passed again. If this happens, the proposal will be enacted, and cannot be vetoed again. If the proposal fails at any step, it will be rejected.
[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]</br>
|-
[[WiKirby:Proposals/Withdrawn Archive|Withdrawn proposals]]}}
! align="center"|Restrictions
|-
|
Users may propose many different changes or additions to the wiki. The following things, however, may '''not''' be voted on:
#proposals which target specific users (such as bestowing or removing ranks or rights).
#proposals which violate the law, as specified in the [[WiKirby:General content policy|general content policy]].
#proposals which seek to overturn a recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) approved proposal.
#re-submitted proposals which were recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) rejected.
|}
{| class="navbox" style="border:5px solid #{{WKColor1}}; background-color: #{{WKColor1.5}}; width:100%; -moz-border-radius: 15px; border-radius: 15px, khtml-border-radius:15px; -webkit-border-radius:15px;"
|<center><span style="color:#{{WKColor6}};font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;font-size:Large">{{XL|'''Voting regulations'''}}</span></center>
|-
|
# Proposal adding and voting is open '''only''' to registered users who have made at least '''100 edits''' to '''mainspace''' content and have been registered for at least '''two (2) weeks'''.
#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.
# All votes '''must''' be signed with signatures (type four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.)) Unsigned votes are automatically negated, regardless of any points made.
# After two (2) weeks of voting, a proposal will be sent forward to the administrators for final approval if a '''simple majority of more than 50%''' of votes are supportive.
# If a supported proposal is vetoed by the administrators, it may be voted on again, but must receive a '''supermajority of 75% or more''' to be approved after another two (2) week period.
# If a proposal fails to garner '''three (3) supporting votes''', it will not be considered.
# The original proposal maker and administrators + '''may not vote''' on proposals. (Administrators + may make proposals)
# 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.
# Voting users may change their vote at any time before a proposal's deadline passes, but should update their timestamp if doing so.
# 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.
# Excessive campaigning for any proposals will result in the campaigner(s) vote(s) being negated, or proposal being removed if applicable.
# A single user may not make '''more than one (1)''' proposal at a time.
# Administrators + reserve the right to remove a proposal without recourse if it is suspected to be in bad faith.
|}
 
= '''Current Proposals''' =
==Change featured article requirement 3 (February 7, 2020 - February 21, 2020)==
As WiKirby's first-ever proposal, I would like to propose a change to our featured article policy; namely, requirement number 3, which states that, to be featured, "An article with an opening abstract of sufficient length, consisting of at least two paragraphs." This is a good guideline that encourages lengthy abstracts, but as we recently witnessed in the [[WiKirby:Featured Article Nomination/Failed Archive|failed nomination of My Friend and the Sunset]] last week, this guideline can exclude articles that are perfectly fine nominees for featurement simply because they only have a one-paragraph abstract.  Moreover, as nominater Fubaka stated over on Discord, introducing a second paragraph in this article would only cause redundancy, and that would actually lower the quality of the article.
 
This is a problem, but fixing it is a very easy and minor change.  Simply rewording it to say "an article with an opening abstract of sufficient length ('''preferably''' consisting of at least two paragraphs)" would still encourage longer abstracts while avoiding redundancy scrapes.  To be completely clear, this does ''not'' make all articles with one-paragraph abstracts automatically eligible for featurement.  If an article's abstract is lacking in info, or a second paragraph could be introduced without causing redundancy, an oppose vote is perfectly valid.  All this change would do is prevent predicaments like [[My Friend and the Sunset]], where the only way to make it eligible for featurement would be to add a redundant second paragraph to the abstract. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 23:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 
{{Support}}
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Allow me to make the first ever proposal vote, which will lead to the first ever featured article on a song. [[User:Scrooge200|Scrooge200]] ([[User talk:Scrooge200|talk]]) 23:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
#I concur such change for the solution of an issue it displays. —[[User:Viperision|Viperision]] ([[User talk:Viperision|talk]]) 13:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
#I don't see why length has to be a requirement. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 23:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
#I agree. There are definitely pages out there that don't need a second paragraph but deserve to be featured articles. --[[User:JRJ007|JRJ007]] ([[User talk:JRJ007|talk]]) 01:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
#Lending my support. I think an abstract isn't always necessary if the details can be better covered in the main article. [[User:StrawberryChan|StrawberryChan]] ([[User talk:StrawberryChan|talk]]) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
#I support this proposal. After all, one of the writing policies states "Short articles and/or sections aren't bad if there's not much to talk about." Two policies shouldn't contradict each other, and I don't think length should be a requirement. {{User:Cowguy/sig}} 01:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
 
===Discussion===
Keep in mind that administrators + may not vote on the proposal here. It will be our job to review the proposal and approve or veto it if it passes. That said, I see no reason why I would want to veto this proposal. --[[User:Fubaka|Fubaka]] ([[User talk:Fubaka|talk]]) 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 
I concur a change. As "sufficient length" is not a conditional description, and may not always be compatible with the part that tells "opening abstract of at least two paragraphs" — FA previews sometimes reduce/remove less significant lede content (e.g. descriptions of Japanese names, lengthy "also known as" parts, etc.), but in my opinion they also shouldn't obligate to <u>only</u> containing lede content. This is subjective to each article. Otherwise, articles shall be worked on regardless of FAN-ing them and such criteria, and may not always be compatible with it.<br/>
On that topic, there's not a picture at all in a soundtrack article, let alone a lede one (of an infobox) — well obviously, this is a soundtrack, the substitute here is a sound-player.. well more of them, likely of "equal weight" for each game appearance.. but is any of that an applicable embedded main-page FA content? Alone, or within an infobox "compacted out" that'd be cut out to more significant infobox content (and match the FA container size)? Would we instead seek for other images, in this case possibly an excrept of introductory notes from (official) music sheets? —[[User:Viperision|Viperision]] ([[User talk:Viperision|talk]])
:When it comes to music pages, I typically don't think it's necessary to include images, since the article in question only covers audio. If there are applicable images, however, then it's usually good to include those, such as CDs, or scenes specifically associated with the music in question. --[[User:Fubaka|Fubaka]] ([[User talk:Fubaka|talk]]) 07:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


{{clear}}
{{clear}}
==Proposal Archive==
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]}}</br>
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]}}</br>
{{clear}}
{{Navbox-Help}}
{{Navbox-Help}}
[[Category:Help]]
[[Category:WiKirby]]
[[Category:WiKirby]]

Latest revision as of 21:07, 28 March 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.

Current Proposals

None at the moment.

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals
Withdrawn proposals

KSA Parasol Waddle Dee Pause Screen Artwork.png