Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.

WiKirby:Proposals

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search


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.

Current Proposals

Scrap the weekly rotation on featured articles and images (April 13th, 2021 - April 27th, 2021)

So, it's come to my attention that we seem to be having trouble remembering to manually update the featured article and image rotation every Sunday. Due to this persistent negligence, I think it may be best to scrap the rotation system altogether and go back to how things were done before: that is, only showing the newest feature on the main page at any given time. Perhaps what we could do instead is have a cycling set of links to previous featured content similar to how the DYK template operates which automatically updates every day, which would display below the main featured content boxes, but that would be separate to this specific proposal. --Samwell (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. As the one who proposed implementing cycling in the first place, I can't agree at all. How do we know we can have a constant feed of new FAs, and not end up with another KDL2 situation? How do we get an older FA featured again? We have a host of fine articles that were featured in the past, and I don't see a justifiable reason to just ignore that. Featurement doesn't mean a whole lot when it's just a one-time deal. And if the problem is simply forgetting to update it, perhaps there's a way to automate it; but either way, I fail to see how that in itself is a justifiable reason to scrap cycling altogether. If you have revisions to the current system in mind, I'm all ears, but I just can't agree with going back to the way it was. --YFJ (talk · edits) 04:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I'm indifferent about this. While the current system is by no means perfect, this one has problems too, as YFL pointed out above. Additionally, I don't mean to sound rude as I lack knowledge and experience, but why would taking a step back be the solution? I'm sure there was a reason why it was changed before. Wouldn't it be better to come up with a new, improved system? Infinite Possibilities (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

"NIWA wikis" template to replace its notice template equivalents (March 31st, 2021 - April 14th, 2021)

User:Viperision/Transclusion

{{User:Viperision/Transclusion
|title=This template
|Nookipedia=Template:Other Wikis
|NWiki=Template:Otherwikis
|SuperMarioWiki=Template:NIWA
|XenoSeries=1
}}

There was this template in my backlog of ideas, and it came up to viably replace Template:SmashWiki, Template:MarioWiki, Template:MetroidWiki and Template:NWiki in order to condense the space multiple such interwiki links take, as well as to distinguish them from maintenance-related notice templates.

Current templates look okay (or even better) on smaller (mobile) resolutions, but I think they are sometimes obnoxious with their yellow tone and take too much space when used, especially in sections. This alternative would work well in "External links" sections, although there are examples where it could be less wieldy to use.

Note that =1 will link to {{FULLPAGENAME}}, otherwise to another specified article. —Viperision (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

#The pink not looking like the improvement templates (and more Kirby-like) and the whole thing being more compact (especially if there are multiple interwiki links) are both great. This also would fix the fact that not every wiki has a template, which while not necessarily a problem, doesn't hurt for consistency's sake. ---PinkYoshiFan 23:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
#This looks like it'll be a nice improvement. Having the notice templates look like maintenance ones is inconsistent and takes up space, so this will be a better way to handle these interwiki links. --DeepFriedCabbage 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose
Neutral
  • This seems like a good initiative to cut down on notice space. That said, I do wonder how truly necessary this is, since not a lot of our articles will have/need links to multiple different wikis. Also, I'm wondering if it would be better to format this so it appears on the left side of the page, rather than the right. --Samwell (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Re: @Samwell, yeah I thought about it, only a handful of wikis will ever be inter-linked in mainspace this way (the fact there are only these four templates for this purpose shows itself), relatively low number of times. As for the alignment, a parameter can be easily made to appear anywhere you want. Nonetheless, this proposed template is meant to just be an alternative for wherever the mentioned four templates are used. —Viperision (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I wondering - where this template will be put? Not every page has external links section, and making such section solely for this template doesn't look nice (especially when it's on the right). Superbound (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I imagine it could just go wherever the current templates for this stuff go now, at the start of pages or sections (should work fairly well as long as a parameter to make it on the left is implemented). ---PinkYoshiFan 17:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it would work a lot better being in the bottom section, off to the right, like MarioWiki handles it. If we just had one of these replace all of those notice templates, it would be much more obnoxious. --DeepFriedCabbage 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@PinkYoshiFan here it would look horrible in my opinion.
@Obsessive Maroi Fan there's problem, as this wiki almost universally uses {{ref}}, making it impossible to put it there, and it would be awkward having this template in urelated section like "Names in other languages" or "Gallery". This is how it would look like if put on one of the smaller articles in the bottom section, where it's rather unnoticeable in my opinion. Superbound (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought we would just handle it like I mentioned, but I forgot about the ref thing, and the ways you've shown don't look good at all. I'll withdraw my vote on this for now. --DeepFriedCabbage 06:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
{{ref}} can be modified to include an optional parameter for code injection between ==References== and <references/> to make this template usable in that section like on SMW. For the Metroid article example - I haven't figured out how to give margins to infobox templates (ideally these boxes wouldn't touch). Here are two alternative ways with left float (separated from text by placing the template in a new paragraph). Regardless of this template, this is how the current MetroidWiki template would look with "lightpink" border and "pink" background.
Some articles don't have a "References" or "External links" section, but placing it in the very bottom right above navboxes seems how other wikis handle this. —Viperision (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Y'know, it was suggested on the Discord by erika that instead of having a separate template for linking to other NIWA wikis, we could instead add those links to the infobox for the subject in question. I think making the infobox slightly taller in order to cut down on other more intrusive templates may be the best solution here, and probably something we could enact without needing to make it a proposal. --Samwell (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea, but what about articles line Nintendo that don't have infoboxes? ---PinkYoshiFan 14:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we could keep the old notice templates for articles like that as a temporary measure. Ideally, the Nintendo article should have an infobox of some kind or other in future. --Samwell (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I like the infobox idea, albeit that idea derails from this proposal entirely, which means that most likely it will need to separated from this. I don't mind creating {{Infobox-Company}} or Template:Infobox-Staff. Also if it comes to existence I want to create a special template for inserting interwiki links here to preserve icons as they look cool.

If that doesn't come into play however, I'm not against modifying ref template like you suggested @Viperision.

Putting NIWA template on left just looks... ugly, I prefer the above mentioned infobox solution.

Pink notice templates could work as a (hopefully temporary) notice template on pages without infoboxes, through as a replacement for current ones don't make sense - one of the points of the original idea was to reduce space taken by them, and it won't work like that.

And my final, a little bit small, worry, is that "slightly taller [infoboxes]" might not be just "slight" in case of some pages. Superbound (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we might end up doing the infobox solution over the one in my proposal. In that case, I'm not sure whether the original proposal is to be vetoed (regardless of the vote outcome). I'll try to make these into the infobox in near time. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 19:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
We could just make the link section collapsed by default, but yeah, this isn't the same proposal anymore. Since it's at less than three support and zero oppose, it's just going to go on infinitely unless something happens... Should I change my vote to oppose then to stop this proposal? ---PinkYoshiFan 20:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
You don't necessarily need to change your vote, since the rules stipulate that at least three supporting votes are needed to make a proposal pass, and there's only one right now. I suspect this discussion will go into the failed archive pretty soon. --Samwell (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Viperision I've created an infobox part for infobox solution here, are you going to request to veto this proposal and repropose it, then? Superbound (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals

KSA Parasol Waddle Dee Pause Screen Artwork.png