WiKirby:Proposals

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: Proposals which target specific users (such as bestowing or removing ranks or rights). Proposals which violate the law, as specified in the 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, and which have not been significantly altered.

Current Proposals

Standardized Boss Moves Locations (April 6, 2024 - April 20, 2024)

Hi! We currently have boss moves put somewhat unevenly around the wiki, with some bosses having their moves recorded on their personal pages (King Dedede, Dark Matter Clone, etc.) and at least one boss I can't track down has them on their stage page. I think these should be standardized, and specifically I think they should go to the boss stage pages. This is because:

1. Wiki-assisted players will have the convenience of the information being on the boss page, instead of having to go somewhere else to find the knowledge they need.
2. This will put relevant information on boss stage pages, most of which aren't stubs, but still fairly short due to their nature of being mostly just an arena (except such as in Kirby Star Allies but it still won't hurt).
3. This will mildly slim down several character pages, only having a major impact for the already lengthy pages of King Dedede and Meta Knight, and it doesn't much impact any other boss.

Thoughts? ~ by Waddlez! 23:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 1: move to stage page

1. My only preferred choice. ~ by Waddlez! 23:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Second choice. I can see the merit in having the info on the stage page, although ultimately we're not a strategy guide. Also any standardization is better than none. ---PinkYoshiFan 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 2: move to boss's character/other page

1. First choice. It's the moveset for the character, so it should go on their page. ---PinkYoshiFan 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Primary (and only) choice. Not just because the attack tables would be better off for the character but also because of a potential problem regarding bosses exclusive to circumstances like The Ultimate Choice. More details in the Discussion section. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Single choice here. As stated, this is the boss character we're talking about, so it wouldn't make as much sense to put the move-set where the boss appears when the boss has its own page.--Paistrie (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
4. It makes far more sense to me to list all the moves on one page given that boss moves tend to evolve over time. We could easily use an {{main}} on stage pages to link to the move listing page wherever that is. --Basic Person (talk/contribs) 19:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I think having boss moves on their own makes the most sense for bosses and I think it'd be best to have these instead of putting them on location pages, mostly because it would be awkward for bosses that only appear in Arena modes. NVS Pixel (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
6. First option, and this is already what we do. Stage pages don't make sense when Kirby has many bosses exclusive to game modes like arenas, and putting boss details there would make giant pages. A boss page should cover info about a boss, and a stage page info about the stage. - Gigi (talk • edits) 13:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 3: make no changes

1. Second option, although this is essentially the same as option 2, as we already only put boss moves in boss/character pages. For reasoning, same as option 2. - Gigi (talk • edits) 13:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I thought of a bit of a major issue when it comes to option 1. Say, for example, a boss was fought exclusively in The True Arena or another location or mode with no defined stage count. If option 1 passed with the majority of votes...then how on earth would an attack table for a boss like Chaos Elfilis even work?! Wonder if there's some sort of solution that I'm not seeing... – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd just put it on the Colosseum page under an exclusive boss heading, myself. They wouldn't be the only exclusive boss there... I get why that might not be appealing to some if the page is just intended to describe the mode but I think that's a good solution should option 1 be passed. Alternatively, special cases could be made for them, but that'd ruin the whole standardization idea.

I'm not fond of putting it under character pages because seeing what a boss uses in each fight over a vast number of games really isn't as useful as having info about the boss in the page about where you fight it, in my opinion. ~ by Waddlez! 00:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I mentioned on Discord, I am a bit confused on this proposal's existence. As far as I know, where to put boss attacks is already standardized, and that is to say to put it in the character/boss page, which would make option 2 and 3 the same. - Gigi (talk • edits) 12:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I can see the merit of moving it to the stage pages, as this would help somewhat with clogged character pages or pages for characters with multiple boss appearances where the moveset just gets listed over and over again (for example, King Dedede, Meta Knight, Kracko). I find those inconvenient. But I'm not sure if that's the proper solution to the problem, when it's probably a deeper underlying problem we can find a better way to handle. StarPunch (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

On Discord I proposed for recurring characters that are also bosses (mostly Dedede and Meta Knight) we should have separate boss pages for them, so that's another idea. That in general appears to be a problem for characters that appear in more than one game and aren't always bosses. - Gigi (talk • edits) 13:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Add a guideline to discourage edits that don't correct or add any new information (April 10, 2024 - April 24, 2024)

Mentioned this a couple times in the past week or so about this, and finally it's time to make it a proper proposal.

For context, while not that common, sometimes there are edits on WiKirby that simply change a part of the text to one thing or another and both the version before and after the edit are correct and not incomplete. Two major examples are adding or removing the Oxford comma, and adding or removing contractions to words (don't to do not, for example, and vice-versa): both are correct in English, so there is little to no point in changing from one way or another. In particular, due to both ways being correct, this can easily create a dispute between editors, and in the end there is no real resolution as there is no one way that is more correct or incorrect. So, in a similar vein to other past proposals (see here and here), my proposal is to add a new mantra to the writing specifics, that is something like:

Don't correct what is correct - Unless something is incorrect, don't correct it.

(The above can be reworded of course, this is just my first idea, feel free to suggest changes)

Also, for clarification, this is not to say that we shouldn't change European English spelling to American English, that is a guideline we have on WiKirby to prefer American English stuff so that is unrelated to this proposal, and any other specific rules we may have about how to write things is also unrelated to this proposal. To put it another way, if there is no specific guideline on WiKirby to say we should say one thing one way or another, an editor shouldn't come to a page to just change it because they prefer it another way. While this mostly applies to spelling, this could be expanded to for example to changing mentions of NTSC and PAL to North American and European: as there's no rule (at least right now) on WiKirby to prefer one way or the other, there shouldn't be edits to "correct" these one way or the other.

What do you all think? - Gigi (talk • edits) 16:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Agreed, there's no real reason to change things that are correct. ---PinkYoshiFan 16:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Right, there's definitely a distinction to be had between fixing up writing to match the writing guidelines and just doing pointless style edits that don't add anything. A lot of wikis have a similar mantra, sometimes phrased as "first come, first served". If it's not incorrect, there's no need to do an edit solely to change it to your preferred style. Whatever is there first should stay there, as long as it's correct and consistent. StarPunch (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
3. I also agree. As was previously stated, if the initial wording was perfectly fine...why bother changing it? The only exception for me is applying that train of thought to using outdated video signal terminology for regional video game releases (especially since modern sources like NSO go with the standard "NA and EU version" route), but I don't think it's that pressing a concern right now. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Supporting. Spelling is definitely something some people have strong opinions and preferences, even when both options are correct, so having a policy like that to prevent arguments is good. Superbound (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I think this is a good thing to clarify. That said, I should warn you now that this likely will not stop certain users from insisting that certain things (like the Oxford comma situation) are correct, so it probably won't stop most edit wars on these grounds. At the very least, it gives the admins firmer ground, so supporting regardless. --Samwell (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
6. I concur with those above about this subject. However, I feel as though the current proposed message could be a bit more descriptive and outright include some along the lines of: "No minor wording changes" just to be more specific and clear. --Basic Person (talk/contribs) 19:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals
Withdrawn proposals

WiKirby's help and policy

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