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

Combination of Personal Image and Personal Audio; Changes to Policy 080420

In my attempts to help reduce unused content, I have stumbled across Template:Personal Audio. Nobody at this time uses this template, and I don't necessarily see why we must distinguish between the two types of media in the WiKirby:Personal content policy. It feels unecessarily restrictive, and has not proven to be of any significant conflict in the past. Since no one is utilizing the two forms of personal content, and there is not much of a reason to distinguish the two, I suggest the following changes are made:

Current suggestions:

  • Combine personal audio and personal images template/category into personal media/personal file
  • Change policy to allow 5 total files (instead of 3 and 3)
  • Change policy page accordingly.

Trig Jegman - 17:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Makes sense, especially since personal audio is unused, so per proposal. ---PinkYoshiFan 17:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. I also support this. There wouldn't be much reason to have a lot of personal audio files anyway, outside of very specific cases, so just making it "personal media" makes sense. StrawberryChan (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. I agree with all other supporters in this matter, I have never seen any user with personal audio. It seems fair to merge these. MetaDragon (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support, it will be good to take it (Personal Audio) out of unused categories. Superbound[talk][contribs] 19:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Opposition
Neutral Comments

Discussion


Add a process for revoking a page's "Good" status (August 6th, 2020)

For a while, after a page was marked "Good" by a patroller+, it was a permanent status. That was changed a while ago with a proposal, however, and now a page may have its "Good" status revoked by patrollers+:

In the case of Good status, patrollers+ may revoke it at any time if it no longer meets the requirements for such status. At least one (1) week should pass before it can be returned to Good status. ~WiKirby:Featured content policy#Unfeaturing an article

This sounds good on paper, but usually when a page is marked "Good" and suddenly doesn't meet the requirements anymore, it's due to some improvement templates. Many times it takes an editor or two to take their time to improve whatever is asked, and the page meets the requirements again. So, many times, it's counterproductive to remove the "Good" status, only for hours later it be edited to meet the requirements again, but a week has to pass before it can get its "Good" status back.

So, my proposal is to instead add a process for revoking a page "Good" status, as follows:

  • A patroller+ finds a "Good" page that no longer meets the requirements
  • Said patroller+ adds a "Candidate for 'Good' status revocation" notice to the page
  • Then they go to the page's talk page and explain their reasoning for flagging the page as such, and ask the opinion of other editors
  • Other editors comment on the talk page, agreeing or disagreeing
  • Ideally, work is done in the page flagged so that the proposed revocation is avoided
  • If the issues outlined by the patroller+ are fixed before a week has passed since the start of the discussion, they should remove the notice from the page and end the discussion
  • If at least a week has passed, the issues outlined weren't fixed, and there's no disagreement from other editors on the revocation, then the patroller+ may revoke the page's "Good" status and remove the notice

I know this may sound a bit too long of a process, but this isn't much different from when for example we want to move a page to a new name, or split a page's section. I just wanted to detail it to make my idea clear enough. Also, yes, if this passes, a "Candidate for 'Good' status revocation" notice will be created, and only patrollers+ may add it to pages and start the process as I outlined.

(Finally, I want to credit Samwell for the idea of the creation of the notice template for this proposal. Thanks!) Gigi (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. While it is not the method I would personally take, I do believe that this will be a better process than just allowing a page's Good status to be revoked at any time and then having to wait a week to reinstate it, so I support. --Samwell (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Opposition
Neutral Comments
  1. This seems to be a suitable process. In my opinion, opening discussion for revoking "Good" from a page is a great idea, however, the process is quite long and dragged out. I will stay neutral for now, it is a matter that I will have to consider more deeply. MetaDragon (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. I also think it can be too long, however I need to think of it more deeply, so I may change my vote. Superbound[talk][contribs] 06:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. As Superbound and MetaDragon said, this seems too long and drawn out, but I guess it's better than the current system... ---PinkYoshiFan 11:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Wait, does this process is for articles only or for files too? Superbound[talk][contribs] 07:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

They said page and not article, so probably both. ---PinkYoshiFan 11:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I was considering it to apply for both. Gigi (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

For those that are claiming that the process is long, how would you shorten it? Gigi (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought about "If nomination gets X support/oppose votes, it will pass/fail instanly", however, this rule shortens the amount of time fixes can be done, but on the other hand, if fixes are done after the hammered nomination, then it can be regooded, do I dunno Superbound[talk][contribs] 15:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals