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: You do not have 100 edits yet.)
Line 64: Line 64:
#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)
#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)
#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}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
{{Neutral}}

Revision as of 01:31, 19 February 2020


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.

How to make a proposal

All proposals must be made using the template provided below, posted under the "Current Proposals" heading:

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

===Discussion===

{{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 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 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.

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.

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 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. --YFJ (talk · edits) 23:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Scrooge200 (Talk) Allow me to make the first ever proposal vote, which will lead to the first ever featured article on a song. Scrooge200 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. I concur such change for the solution of an issue it displays. —Viperision (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. I don't see why length has to be a requirement. ---PinkYoshiFan 23:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. I agree. There are definitely pages out there that don't need a second paragraph but deserve to be featured articles. --JRJ007 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Lending my support. I think an abstract isn't always necessary if the details can be better covered in the main article. StrawberryChan (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  6. 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. --Cowguy™ [talk · contribs] 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. --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 only 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.
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? —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. --Fubaka (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals

KSA Parasol Waddle Dee Pause Screen Artwork.png