WiKirby:Proposals

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


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. 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.

Current Proposals

Abolish semi-protection for all mainspace pages (November 11th, 2020 - November 25th, 2020)

Alright. Since we've got the Moderation and Confirm Accounts plugins settled in at this point, it seems to me that retaining semi-protection for various articles (restricting editing them to only autoconfirmed users and above) is no longer necessary. I propose we remove semi-protection from all articles that have them and abolish the idea of using semi-protection in the future on mainspace content.

Keep in mind, this does not apply to full-protected articles (those that only Admins+ can edit). Those will remain as is. Also, users can still have their user pages and related pages semi-protected if they want.

What say all ye? --Samwell (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Yes. Semi-protection is meant to deter vandalism, but the extensions completely eliminate it, and the redundancy is unnecessarily restrictive. ---PinkYoshiFan 19:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Agreed on it being redundant and non-user-friendly now. StrawberryChan (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. I thought about it and decided that it is unfriendly to new users when many pages about main aspects of Kirby are blocked from editing. It will discourage new users, because they probably would not want to start their editing career on an obscure page. And as others have said, there are anti-vandalism measures in place already. I do beleive that certain pages should have protection, such as user pages and talk pages. --kirb (talk · edit stuf) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. I also agree on that notion. Since we already have tools in place that effectively prevent vandalism, why bother semi-protecting mainspace articles? Of course, user pages and talk pages should be exceptions to that rule, as I found out the hard way a few months back... Per all. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oh yeah, user pages and talk pages should definitely stay protected. But for the normal articles, such protection is indeed redundant. Superbound (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  6. Per all reasoning above. While I can understand Trig's point and slightly agree with it, I think abolishing Semi-protection will be fine, since having it as an extra layer of protection isn't greatly needed when Moderators are already on the watch. -- MetaDragon (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  7. Moderation just already does what semi-protection seeks to do, and it's more effective while reducing roadblocks to anonymous users. I don't see a real downside. -YFJ (talk · edits) 03:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Opposition
Neutral Comments
I think that there are some general pages that do not need this anymore, but I would still consider leaving it for a few of the largest pages such as Kirby or King Dedede, as generally these pages will see the most attempts to vandalism, and would perhaps encourage the creation of an account instead. Talk pages could also be utilized. Trig - 19:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Bump. Should be archived. Superbound (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sub-nomination for Featured pictures pertaining to the holidays (November 25th, 2020 - December 9th, 2020)

After noticing that Featured pictures that are focused on certain holidays do not currently usually align with their appropriate holiday, as well as seeing a picture abruptly Featured and thrown onto the main page for Halloween, I thought a sub-nomination page for pictures pertaining to the holidays would be a good idea.

My idea is pretty simple. Each holiday this sub-nomination page would cover (listed below) would have its own picture cycle exactly like the main one. Pictures in the cycles would change to a different one on every certain holiday. If the picture in the sub-nomination is voted in, it will be placed in a cycle for the holiday it states. (The pictures set up for nomination must state what holiday cycle it is going to be placed in if it gets voted in. That is the only voting rule here that is different.)

The sub-nomination would cover pictures pertaining to:

  • Christmas
  • Halloween
  • Kirby's Birthday
  • Easter
  • Valentine's Day
  • New Year's Day/New Year's Eve

(If you think a holiday should be added or removed, feel free to say so in 'Discussion'.)

Lastly, the Featured template on these would work how certain license do (a Halloween Featured picture for example would have {{Featured|Halloween}} placed on it).

What do you all think of this? -- MetaDragon (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Highly agree. That way we don't be cheating the system every single time like we did previously. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. I agree since it makes more sense than having holiday-specific FPs featured year-round, although how would we retroactively apply this to the already featured ones? ---PinkYoshiFan 12:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Yes, it would be nice to have a Christmas image up for a month while still regularly featuring normal images. --kirb (talk · edit stuf) 01:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Opposition
Neutral Comments

Discussion

I think it should include Kirby's birthday, but I'm also kind of iffy about Thanksgiving Day, as I can't remember any image that would that event. Superbound (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right about both. I'll go ahead and swap out Thanksgiving for Kirby's Birthday on the list. -- MetaDragon (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Another question, how long are those cycles and when they will happen? Does this mean that images featured during cycles will never appear on the front page again? Superbound (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals