WiKirby

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:

  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, and which have not been significantly altered.
Voting regulations
  1. Proposal adding and voting is open only to registered users who have attained Autopatrol status and above. Users who do not have Autopatrol+ may still participate in discussions.
  2. 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.
  3. All votes must be signed with signatures (type four tildes (~~~~.)) Unsigned votes are automatically negated, regardless of any points made.
  4. After two (2) weeks of voting, a proposal will be immediately enacted if the number of supportive votes is greater than the number of opposing votes, or, in the case of multi-option votes, any option receives a plurality consisting of three or more votes. In the event of a tie, the proposal may be re-voted upon with a one week duration, or annulled by the administrators.
  5. In the event a proposal has seven (7) unanimous support votes OR ten (10) support votes and no more than two neutral votes, as well as the support of a bureaucrat, a proposal may pass in only one (1) week instead of two.
  6. 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).
  7. If a proposal fails to garner three (3) supporting votes (or 3 votes on any one option in multi-option proposals), it will not be considered.
  8. The original proposal maker may not vote on their own proposal if it only contains two options (i.e., "yes" or "no" proposals). However, proposers may vote on their own proposals if they have three or more options.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Voting users may change their vote at any time before a proposal's deadline passes, but should update their timestamp if doing so.
  12. 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.
  13. Excessive campaigning for any proposals will result in the campaigner's vote(s) being negated, or proposal being removed if applicable.
  14. Proposals about minor article manipulation (such as splits, merges, renames, or deletions) should not be created, unless the scope of the discussion is particularly large; otherwise, these should be handled on a case-by-case basis, through discussions or polls on the talk page of the article in question.
  15. It is recommended that a single user make only one (1) proposal at a time. Though simultaneous proposals from the same user are allowed, they are discouraged; this should ideally only be done if multiple issues are in question, and not many proposals are already active.
  16. For multi-option votes, voters are encouraged (but not required) to indicate a first, second, third, etc. vote. The exception to this is neutral votes, which must be the only vote if chosen.

Current Proposals

Standardizing Discussion of Regional Differences (April 17, 2024 - May 1, 2024)

This is a problem I've had for a while now; I feel like the way we discuss regional differences is really unclear because it's focused on being too precise to the point of pedantic. Other wikis handle this in a more clear manner, so I feel like we should have a clear set of guidelines when discussing regional differences. These can probably go in the WiKirby:Localization policy.

  1. Prioritize American English in any instance where one language is required. Plain and simple; WiKirby is based in the US, so our articles use American English (the same reason why we voted to remove the LangSwitch template, as nobody was actively switching into British English). In this case, this would be related to page quotes and such where there are differences between the American English and British English versions. While we can list both in other sections, in places like page quotes where it's preferable to only have one, it would be best to prioritize the American version (see old versions of Landia for example, where it was cluttered by listing both versions of the quotes even though they only have minor differences).
  2. When discussing regional differences, discuss only the versions that are pertinent. For example, on Parallel Meta Knight, we have this: "The English, French, Italian, German, Spanish and Dutch localizations of Parallel Meta Knight's pause flavor text misinterpret his origin. As the original Japanese and localized Chinese and Korean texts describe:" That just leads to a signal-to-noise trainwreck; the pertinent versions to discuss here are the Japanese version (the original text) and the English version (the language the wiki uses). Mentioning the others is putting undue weight on a minor note. We can note somewhere that the Korean and Chinese versions generally follow the Japanese version while all other languages follow the English version. In cases where certain languages have peculiar differences, it's fine to mention them; for example, that Whispy Woods is localized as female in the Brazilian Portuguese version, or that the Mint Leaf is not a Sweet Potato in the Korean and Chinese versions. But if they follow the Japanese version or the English version identically or near-identically, it isn't worth noting. (Obviously, this wouldn't apply to the "names in other languages" section.)
  3. Using the terms "PAL" or "NTSC" to describe regional versions is fine. Nintendo officially used the term PAL to describe regional versions of their home consoles and games from the NES all the way up to the Wii, as they were designed to be used for PAL televisions. I can understand not wanting to use it for handhelds or for the Wii U or Switch, as this terminology is based on analog signals that are no longer used, but at least for the NES through the Wii, it is not only valid but official and commonly used terminology. Right now it's commonly switched to "British English", which is not accurate, or "European", which is fine but lacks coverage for Oceania. The same can also apply to NTSC being used for the North American and Japanese versions.
  4. Avoid the constructs "in American languages", "in European languages", etc. when referring to regional versions. For example, on Kirby Super Star or Kirby and the Rainbow Curse. In the former case "NTSC" and "PAL" would be fine, while if we want to avoid using "NTSC" and "PAL" in the latter case, then I think it would be better to just say the regions they were designed for and sold in; in the Americas, in Europe and Oceania. It can lead to confusion; for example, French comes from Europe, but Canada is part of America, so is Canadian French a European or an American language? It's not worth dealing with that question when we can just say "in the Americas".

That's my basic thoughts, anyway. I'm sure things can be ironed out more, but I want to standardize this so we avoid conflict and unnecessary confusion. StarPunch (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Prioritize American English in any instance where one language is required.

Support
  1. No hesitation here. It’s so annoying to see two painfully similar versions of the same quote side by side. Even when we use tabs to show only one at a time, it doesn’t work right on mobile. It’s just like the userlang templates: more trouble than it’s worth. -YFJ (talk · edits) 00:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. We are an American English-based wiki after all, so it only makes sense to go in this route. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. I agree, pages listing both English versions can get really cluttered and often the differences are minimal and not really worth listing. If we really wanted to document them just for completion's sake, we could do elsewhere, but this is outside the scope of this proposal I feel. - Gigi (talk • edits) 00:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Details in discussion below, but 100% supported. ~ by Waddlez! 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. We use one version of the language for article text, it makes sense to have that one version used for quotes in article bodies. ---PinkYoshiFan 01:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  6. Supporting. I think clarity for the reader should be prioritized over "technical accuracy" of terms or trying to meticulously cover all regional differences even where it's just a difference in punctuation, regional spelling, or capitalization. --Samwell (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  7. Agreed, for consistency sake and to avoid clutter. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 05:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral

Discussion

I agree that choosing a localization is the best call. However, I think sometimes there are some times where it's at least worthwhile to highlight some differences, even if it only happens very rarely. In the cases where British English or another language has meaningful differences, I think that has potential value - again, it is rare. I also think that considering how rarely the Japanese, Chinese, and Korean releases deviate from one another, it would be useful to establish some kind of name for that. Personally, the term I use when discussing them is "East Asian versions", but I understand that might have some minor confusion. Perhaps "source release" or something else? ~ by Waddlez! 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I'm understanding, what you are discussing covers more point 2, I think? These are addressed there (at least partly). - Gigi (talk • edits) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

2. When discussing regional differences, discuss only the versions that are pertinent.

Support
  1. Probably best for simplicity. Of course, we should definitely mention somewhere which of the two other languages tend to follow, and perhaps point out when games deviate from this. -YFJ (talk · edits) 00:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. In hindsight, stuff like the aforementioned Parallel Meta Knight example would clutter some stuff up, especially if we're usually only dealing with differences between the original source language (usually Japanese) and the primary English translations spun off of that. Makes sense to keep it simple, instead of overcomplicating things. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. I agree, in particular when the games keep getting translated to more and more languages, who knows who many languages we will have to list in the future. I do want to point out we should mention somewhere that most languages translate from English, and Korean and Chinese are closer to Japanese, but unsure where at this point. - Gigi (talk • edits) 00:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Agreed, no need for mentioning every language individually for how things are localized. ---PinkYoshiFan 01:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. Agreed, for the reasons I stated in the first point. --Samwell (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  6. When it's relevenat? Yeah, absolutely mention versions. When it's not a distinction unique to a specific language then no one cares, and it's just bothersome to fill in. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 05:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral

Discussion

3. Using the terms "PAL" or "NTSC" to describe regional versions is fine.

Support
  1. As long as they see official usage, I see no reason why we can’t use them. But they are outdated standards and I’d avoid them for newer games where this official distinction is not present. -YFJ (talk · edits) 00:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. I think we've discussed this enough to the point where it's pretty aparent that NTSC and PAL are widely understood by the gaming community even today, and was how most games were classified when consoles were region locked. It's true, nowadays not so much, in particular since most games now have only one version and just various languages, but when I had to buy Wii games, I always asked for NTSC versions. Owen failed to mention, but South America also is NTSC when it comes to games, even though it's a split between the countries. In Brazil we had PAL TVs but played NTSC games in them. In short, this is a system that isn't directly tied to TVs but that is still widely understood and not exclusinary. If we say "European", we exclude Australia, but if we say "PAL", we do not. If we say "NA", we exclude all of South America, but if we say "NTSC" we do not. For simplicity sake, and with inclusion in mind, I see only reasons in favor of this. - Gigi (talk • edits) 00:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. If they're officially used, no reason not to use them ourselves. ---PinkYoshiFan 01:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Soft support on this one, as long as it's being used in the proper context, and isn't being used to describe regional differences in modern hardware or software. All in all, I think hyperfixating on whether this term is "technically" correct or not is unimportant as long as it's clear from the context. --Samwell (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy, HEAVY oppose across the board for super, duper, ultra, hyper, mega, ultimate, super-deluxe, big, giant, massive, perfectly-explainable reasons!
    Now, yes, StarPunch is correct when stating that Japanese, North American and South Korean releases of games were primarily designed with the NTSC standard in mind, with European and Australian releases designed with the PAL standard. She's also correct when saying that people still use such terminology for video games. But various game developers and publishers would not agree with such statements. In the past, anytime such mentions were present on game box art or in promotional materials, it's literally there to mention the video standard the game cartridge or disc was developed in and nothing else, like on various VHS tapes, Laserdiscs and DVDs. That's not covering the fact that some 50Hz video games can actually be made to run at 60Hz on a game-by-game basis, which further muddles the waters. Not to mention, if a kid goes on an article and reads up about a certain 'NTSC version,' they'll probably think 'What the heck is an NTSC?!' But that was "then." This is "now." And "now," at least in reference to said older video games, such releases are no longer referred to as such.
    1) Most of the various N64, Game Boy and GBA titles on Nintendo Switch Online feature both NA and EU versions of their games appropriately labelled "NA and EU versions" (short for North American and European versions) in the Settings menu.
    2) Some titles like Super Smash Bros. Ultimate may make reference to certain other game titles and/or release dates. In circumstances where they differ in European materials, it's always stated to be "in Europe" not "in PAL", even for older software on the applicable hardware at the time of its original release (e.g. "Kirby Super Star on the SNES (originally known as Kirby's Fun Pak in Europe) was the first Kirby game where two players could team up.", "Luigi's first break as a main protagonist was in Luigi's Mansion, released in Europe in 2002.", "Ness debuted in EarthBound, a game that never made it to Europe on the SNES, but finally came over on the Wii U Virtual Console in 2013.", "Jigglypuff's debut was in the very first Pokémon games, released in Europe in 1999.", "Villager's European debut was in 2004 in Animal Crossing, a game about enjoying a peaceful village life with a variety of animal neighbors.", etc., etc.).
    I can further make arguments in the comments section if need-be, but for now, this wall of text should suffice as to why we shouldn't keep using such outdated terms on a wiki like this, even for older titles and their ancillary materials. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Neutral
I have no strong opinion on the subject. It's simpler to use 3-4 letters, but not everyone might know what they mean, and I don't know where it's correct to use. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 05:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

4. Avoid the constructs "in American languages", "in European languages", etc. when referring to regional versions.

Support
  1. English is a European language, so this distinction is functionally useless anyway. -YFJ (talk · edits) 00:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. Support, but maybe change the constructs into "in the North American translations" and/or "in the European translations" where applicable. Just a thought. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. Agreed, language isn't really tied to continent. ---PinkYoshiFan 01:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. I think this is how it was done originally, but for whatever reason, the focus was changed to the "languages". I think that was a misstep on our part that we allowed that to happen. --Samwell (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. Agreed, per YFJ's statement above. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 05:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral

Discussion

I think simply replacing "languages" with "versions" would ease this element of the proposal. ~ by Waddlez! 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, true! That... completely slipped my mind, LOL. StarPunch (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

My only question is why not both, and for boss stages specifically. I know it'd be a huge clutter for Arena pages, but if we limit it to the stages (which describe hthe playthrough anyway), I could see having a more easily accessible table. Then again, the main template exists for a reason... ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 05:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals
Withdrawn proposals

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
 
Retrieved from "https://wikirby.com/w/index.php?title=WiKirby:Proposals&oldid=470220"