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

Files with Template:Link needed should be ineligible for Good status (112821–121221)

Currently as set in the WiKirby:Featured content policy, the parameters for a Good image are the following conditions:

• a high quality image with no significant aberrations OR a high-quality audio file with no significant distortion.
• sound of format (no improvement notice templates are present).
• has complete documentation with source (where applicable).
• properly licensed.
• properly categorized.
• used in at least one article.

While {{Link needed}} primarily focuses on files that do not have links to listed source files. This proposal sets to claim that any file that uses Link needed is ineligible for Good status, and any files currently utilizing sourced but unlinked files immediately enter into the revoke good process. The reason is primarily in the following terms:

• sound of format (no improvement notice templates are present).
• has complete documentation with source (where applicable).
• properly licensed.

Licensing is the least likely, but there is a very rare chance a linked file may NOT be used without permission or that it is released under an alternate license that is incorrectly registered on this site. The larger two issues revolve around sound of format; That the file has no notice templates whereas Link needed qualifies as a notice template, and Complete documentation with source. Because there is not a link to the source so that readers may track to the original source, it would stand to say that this does not qualify as complete documentation, and should therefore fail Good qualifications.
An alternate way to describe this scenario is that an ordinary "Good" file has no more reasonable edits to make on it while on-site. This is not the case for Link needed files, as they should feature links to the sources which would require an edit to correct.

Thank you for your time. Trig - 05:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Just out of curiosity, how would this proposal affect images whose sources cannot be directly linked to, such as a press kit release? --Samwell (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not 100% clear how those are formatted. If there aren't direct links available or they aren't say legal to share elsewhere, then press kit should just be listed as the source and Link needed template should just be removed. Trig - 17:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I'm not entirely sure what the key change you want to make is, aside from using the link needed template in place of the file source template. As far as I was concerned, both templates cover the same ground. Only reason any file with the file source template on it might still be listed as Good would be because we hadn't gotten around to revoking it yet. --Samwell (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that while something that would have used File source has no listed source, a Link needed file has a listed source--just not with a link to it. Some may justify that with a listed source but no link, that a source is complete. I serve to argue that it is not. Trig - 21:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, file source is meant to cover situations like that. Might reword existing policy to make that clearer, but it sounds like a proposal isn't needed for this. --Samwell (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, files without listed sources, those that would use File source or with empty source parameters in Aboutfile 2 are already ineligible for good. The fork from File source template into no listed source in Aboufile or link needed template complicated this however, because instead of a general "Help needed" template, I split them into two specific categories of no link and link needed did not fully specify how the conditions of Good would work. This sets to resolve that. Trig - 14:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(Separate from current discussion) Wouldn't link needed already cause files to be not good due to the no improvement notice templates condition? ---PinkYoshiFan 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does. This redundancy is further reason I would like to make it absolutely clear this qualifies. Trig - 17:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

So what's the point of making link needed make files ineligible for good if it already effectively does that? ---PinkYoshiFan 22:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of non-Kirby content in NES Remix 2 & Ultimate NES Remix (November 16th 2021 - November 30th 2021)

Inspired by the recent debate around Smash Bros. coverage since that is a similar topic I'm comming forth with a few options regarding the non-Kirby games featured in NES Remix 2 and Ultimate NES Remix. Here's a little layout for a better understanding:

• Kirby's Adventure is the only Kirby game featured in these titles
• The non-Kirby regular stages don't feature anything related to the series
• In Remix and Bonus stages the challenges sometimes run through multiple games
• Remix and Bonus stages also feature other characters in the Kirby's Adventure environment while Kirby is sometimes put into another gane himself.

As far as I'm concerned there are three options.

1. Mention which games are featured and include stage parts from other games in the tables given a Kirby challenge also is in the pack

Basically, the games get a mention with respective links to their respective wikis and are featured in stage tables if a Kirby challenge is in the same stage. This would make all stage tables complete for their respective stages, at the cost of talking about a game unrelated to the Kirby series.

2. Only mention the games featured

The games are all listed with respective links while the stage tables exclusively go over those that have a direct Kirby connection. For example, in Ultimate NES Remix's 25th Bonus stage the table would only feature 25-2 and 25-7. This option is also the closest to what the Super Mario Wiki does.

3. Don't mention them at all outside of when they're remixed with Kirby's Adventure

The only mention the games would get is in Remix/Bonus stages where Kirby's Adventure elements collide with them. For example in Ultimate NES Remix's 10th Bonus stage Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels would be mentioned as Bullet Bills from that game appear in a Kirby challenge.

I'm sorry if something confuses you. Writing stuff like this isn't my strong suit. If any of you have other suggestions, please post them in the "Discussion" section. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Voting

Support

1. I would prefer to see option 3; Only cover external elements when absolutely necessary and focus on covering Kirby content. Trig - 20:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Listing the non-Kirby stages with interwikis and going more in-depth on Kirby content sounds good, so I support option 2. ---PinkYoshiFan 23:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Seeing more in depth everything, I vote for option 2. With option 1, every stage would be covered fully even if it does not have any Kirby thing in it. But this is WiKirby, not NintendoWiki, covering the NES Remixes completely is up to them, so just listing the other games suffices.
   With option 3, every game that doesn't have something with Kirby's Adventure would be deleted from the matrix, not even mentioned, and I think that at least mentioning each game featured in the NES Remixes would be good. So option 2 seems to be the more balanced to me. -Kirbeat (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
4. I am precisely in agreement with the above message. I'll go with option 2 due it its reasonable balance. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

#I vote on option 1, if I understood correctly the options. If there is a Kirby related thing, it should be covered here. Like, If Kirby, the character, appears in a stage of another game, it should be covered here.
I don't vote on 2 because I understand that with that option, if Kirby appears on Super Mario Bros., it wouldn't be covered. But I think that that case should be covered, so 2 is out for me.
And with 3 it would be the same thing, as I get that in a non-remix stage Kirby and Mario content clash, it wouldn't be covered, but to me that, well, should be covered here. So in short, I want that every thing in which a Kirby related thing appears is covered here.
I'm in disagreement if something like, a stage where there is just Bomberman gameplay with the Bomberman characters, without Kirby at all, is covered. Though I think none of the options support that anyways.
(If I didn't understood something correctly, an clarification at the Discussion section would be appreciated to formulate my vote better, but for now I will go with 1.) -Kirbeat (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

• Here are two helpful links, one to the Sandbox where the current NES Remix stuff is located, the other to the Super Mario Wikis version of NES Remix 2.
  • NES Remix 2 + Ultimate NES Remix: Kirby's Adventure
  • mariowiki:NES Remix 2

Infinite Possibilities (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems like clarification is needed, here are hopefully clearer explanations:

• Option 1. Coverage would include non-Kirby content if it appears in the same stage as Kirby content. All games would be listed fairly early in the page.
• Option 2. Coverage would be limited to stages where Kirby content makes direct appearances. The games would be listed.
• Option 3. Coverage would be limited to where Kirby is the main focus of the challenge. Other games are only mentioned if their elements appear in Kirby stages.

Infinite Possibilities (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed 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