|
|
| (939 intermediate revisions by 49 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===
| |
| | |
| {{clear}}
| |
| </pre>
| |
| 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. '''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.'''
| |
| |-
| |
| ! 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 immediately enacted if a '''simple majority of more than 50%''' of votes are supportive.
| |
| # 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).
| |
| # If a proposal fails to garner '''three (3) supporting votes''', it will not be considered.
| |
| # The original proposal maker '''may not vote''' on 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.
| |
| #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.
| |
| # 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.
| |
| #Proposals about minor article manipulation (such as splits, merges, renames, or deletions) should not be created; these should be held as informal discussions or polls on the talk page of the article in question.
| |
| # A single user may not make '''more than one (1)''' proposal at a time.
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| ='''Current Proposals'''= | | ='''Current Proposals'''= |
| ==Images in custom sigs (May 24, 2020- June 28, 2020)==
| |
| As you may (or may not) know, there are some wikis that allow images in custom sigs, and some that do not. The current reason given by [[Help:Custom Signatures|the page about custom signatures]] is "We'll accept symbols and wingdings, but full images are simply distracting to talk page posts." Images can be slightly distracting, but they should be fine as long as no animated images are used. It has been mentioned on the discord server for the wiki that it would make the file usage list large, but [[Special:Whatlinkshere]] can be used to only search for certain namespaces. Finally, there is the slight issue of the fact that images space out lines, but [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/323530530681520129/714079049206464512/tNE9j8CoAAAAASUVORK5CYII.png if they are small enough], that shouldn't be an issue. The screenshot is from smashwiki, which has a policy of only letting images be 20px high, which should work as a standard for us. Also, there would be a limit of one image per sig.
| |
| :To recap, the proposed policy change is to allow images in custom sigs, but only one per sig, they must be 20px <b>high</b>, and they cannot animated. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 14:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
| |
| {{Support}}
| |
| #'''Weak support'''. Everything seems reasonable, altrogh I'm still not convinced that hiding certain namespaces would justify using mainspace images. {{User:Superbound/sig}} 16:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
| |
| {{Oppose}}
| |
| #I'll go with oppose ''for now'', for the same reason you cite from [[Help:Custom Signatures]]. There have been a few users with those already and some created text line misalignments, which, I suppose, could universally be resolved with font-nearing height limits, but it could still become distracting from the important discussed content. Less is more after all, just look at Superbound's signature. —[[User:Viperision|Viperision]] ([[User talk:Viperision|talk]]) 23:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
| #Took some thought but I'm going to side with Viper here, it's probably best if we keep things the way they are. There are plenty of ways to make your signature unique but there's a fine line between unique and distracting, and images may well fall into the latter category. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
| {{Neutral}}
| |
| What are the diffrences between symbols, wingdings and images? {{User:Superbound/sig}} 07:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :It appears from Googling that symbols and wingdings are actually a typable font, while images are not. Also, images have much more potential to become complex. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 12:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
| |
| ::Alright. {{User:Superbound/sig}} 16:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Implement image cycle for Featured Images (June 14th, 2020 - June 28th, 2020)==
| |
| A while ago, we had proposal regarding cycle for Featured Articles. Citing YFJ:
| |
| {{quote|So I noticed that we have a rather large catalog of previously featured articles, which are perfectly suitable to feature on the main page, but were only ever featured once. While we have no shortage of good articles eligible for featurement, it doesn't quite feel right to just leave previously featured articles behind. Is ''[[Kirby's Dream Land 2]]'' doomed to never appear on the main page again? Would it have to be refeatured? Neither option sounds very great, so I propose we implement FA cycling. It would work like this: every Sunday at 00:00 GMT, the current FA will be replaced by the next one on the queue. New featurements will automatically take the next spot on the queue. [...]|{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}}}}
| |
| The same could be said about FP, and I '''propose''' the same solution regarding pictures. The system would start on nearest Sunday from this proposal passing. I would also like to add that some images like [[:File:Kirby KEY.png|this]] which (from my understanding), got featured but never appeared to Main Page. Images are important, since they add real visual on this wiki. What you all think? {{User:Superbound/sig}} 16:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
| {{Support}}
| |
| #I agree. Makes sense to have a cycle for both, not one or the other. – [[User:Owencrazyboy17|Owencrazyboy17]] ([[User talk:Owencrazyboy17|talk]]) 16:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
| #This wasn't already a thing? {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 13:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
| #I didn't do this earlier since my main concern was getting FAs refeatured, although I did plan to do this somewhere down the line. As long as unfeaturements for pictures become a thing as well, I support. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 18:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
| #Same for Featured Article cycling. If we only focus on the latest one, the others will lose their spotlight. {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 18:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
| {{Oppose}}
| |
| {{Neutral}}
| |
| Proposals usually don't get any votes after first 24 hours, so here's bump. {{User:Superbound/sig}} 07:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| '''@YFJ''': I didn't propose unfeaturements because it didn't make sense to me - what you see is what it's gonna be. Images can't be outdated, and stuff like size can only change when reuploaded, which can be easily tracked, and only image that could be unfeatured would be [[:File:Ice Kirby KSSU Artwork.png]]. Looking back at it... it sounded better in my head :/. Unfortunately, I think it's too late to change proposal, so it's gonna require seperate one. {{User:Superbound/sig}} 09:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
| :Yeah, I gotcha. Images really can't become outdated the way standard articles can, although I do think there should be a way to reverse FP nominations regardless. It isn't urgent but I feel there are a few FPs that...really shouldn't have passed in the first place. But I'm cool with saving it for another time. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ='''Proposal Archive'''= | | ='''Proposal Archive'''= |
| {{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]}}</br> | | {{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]</br> |
| {{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]}}</br>
| | [[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]</br> |
| | [[WiKirby:Proposals/Withdrawn Archive|Withdrawn proposals]]}} |
|
| |
|
| {{clear}} | | {{clear}} |
| {{Navbox-Help}} | | {{Navbox-Help}} |
| [[Category:WiKirby]] | | [[Category:WiKirby]] |
