WiKirby:Proposals

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: 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.

Current Proposals

Implement FA cycling and remove good/featured permanency policy (April 24, 2020 - May 8, 2020)

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.

In addition, with this change I am also proposing the introduction of unfeaturement. Our current featurement policy states this: "Once an article or image has become featured, it cannot be removed from the list of featured content. In the event that a featured article or image is made obsolete by new information, that obsolescence should be addressed as quickly as possible to keep it up-to-date." Sometimes, however, this is easier said then done, and sometimes we have articles such as Waddle Dee that were never eligible for featurement in the first place, and it just wasn't noticed upon its nomination. No article can keep its quality forever; it's just wiki nature. This policy also extends to good articles, and I think that as patrollers+ can add good articles, they should be able to remove them too.

If you have any suggestions or improvements in mind, be sure to let me know in the comments! --YFJ (talk · edits) 21:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. What's the point of featuring articles if they only get a week of fame and a fancy icon? Plus, unfeaturing would be easier than updating articles, although there should be some time to update them before unfeaturing. I fully agree with the proposal. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Agreed. It's good sense to be able to un-feature content especially so articles that are under construction don't get undue spotlight, and it allows for a more communal sense of building up content rather than just being one-and-done. StrawberryChan (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Yes times 2. Or maybe 4. Or maybe 27. As Pinkyoshifan said, if an article only gets a week or two of recognition, well, then, it's not really getting the treatment that great articles like the featured ones should deserve, is it? Having featured article cycling sounds like a good idea to me. But this means that featured articles'll get more recognition, so removing articles that no longer are worthy of that recognition seems like it'd also be a good idea. This proposal definitely gets Cowguy's Seal of Approval™. --Cowguy™ [talk · contribs] 21:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Forgot to mention this in the proposal, but unfeaturement nominations will take two weeks or a unanimous five-vote support for one side, just like featurement nominations. --YFJ (talk · edits) 21:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That works. Also, will there be a page for all unfeaturing, or will it be on the talk page? ---PinkYoshiFan 21:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It will be a subpage of WiKirby:Featured Article Nomination that holds all unfeaturement nominations. --YFJ (talk · edits) 21:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Song titles (April 24, 2020 - May 8, 2020)

This isn't much of a major proposal, but it's something that came up while talking in the Discord; a change to the article naming policy specifically for songs. Right now, the current policy is to use the latest name regardless of circumstance, and while that works fine for characters, places, objects, or other things that have been renamed in localization over time (like Pop Star to Planet Popstar), it doesn't fully work for songs, since oftentimes remixes will use new names that only apply to that remix, not the song as a whole. (For example, just because the remix of "Green Greens" in Planet Robobot is called "Re: Green Greens", it doesn't mean every version of the song is now retroactively called "Re: Green Greens".) With that in mind, the proposal is essentially a minor footnote to be added to the naming policy:

• In the case of music, the latest title should be used only as it applies to its original incarnation, and not any remixes.

This would also result in a few articles here and there being renamed, such as "A Well-Earned Rest" to "Ripple Star: Stage Select" (which had previously been proposed, but shot down under the current policy). Does that sound okay? StrawberryChan (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

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