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

The following proposals have been successfully passed by WiKirby's community:


Implement image cycle for Featured Images (June 14th, 2020 - June 28th, 2020)

A while ago, we had proposal regarding cycle for Featured Articles. Citing YFJ:

The same could be said about FP, and I propose the same solution regarding pictures. The system would start on nearest Sunday from this proposal passing. I would also like to add that some images like this which (from my understanding), got featured but never appeared to Main Page. Images are important, since they add real visual on this wiki. What you all think? Superbound[talk] 16:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. I agree. Makes sense to have a cycle for both, not one or the other. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. This wasn't already a thing? ---PinkYoshiFan 13:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. I didn't do this earlier since my main concern was getting FAs refeatured, although I did plan to do this somewhere down the line. As long as unfeaturements for pictures become a thing as well, I support. -YFJ (talk · edits) 18:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  4. Same for Featured Article cycling. If we only focus on the latest one, the others will lose their spotlight. --Obsessive Mario Fan 18:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  5. Yes, this should be applicable to all featured content (the only other one now and needing some love being WiKirby:Featured Video Nomination). There's no endless supply of images to feature, and some never get to be seen years after having been featured. —Viperision (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutral Comments

Proposals usually don't get any votes after first 24 hours, so here's bump. Superbound[talk] 07:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@YFJ: I didn't propose unfeaturements because it didn't make sense to me - what you see is what it's gonna be. Images can't be outdated, and stuff like size can only change when reuploaded, which can be easily tracked, and only image that could be unfeatured would be File:Ice Kirby KSSU Artwork.png. Looking back at it... it sounded better in my head :/. Unfortunately, I think it's too late to change proposal, so it's gonna require seperate one. Superbound[talk] 09:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotcha. Images really can't become outdated the way standard articles can, although I do think there should be a way to reverse FP nominations regardless. It isn't urgent but I feel there are a few FPs that...really shouldn't have passed in the first place. But I'm cool with saving it for another time. -YFJ (talk · edits) 17:17, 27 June 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)

  1. Yes 2: The return of Yes. In the case of A Well-Earned Rest, the remixes are clearly named differently, since they serve different purposes. But the articles should represent the... representative version of the song, usually being the original song, so the original title should be used as well. --Cowguy™ [talk · contribs] 21:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, remixes should not be retcons for song titles, and this will simplify things. Per all. ---PinkYoshiFan 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Completely agree. Many songs fall into this category, and it really doesn't make sense to consider the song's name to be the name of a remix that came years after and has nothing to do with the original theme. Another good example of this is Dark Castle's theme, which under the current policy is supposed to be named "Neon Laboratory", due to its Planet Robobot remix, and I don't think I need to explain why the later name for the theme isn't ideal. Gigi (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. I don't particularly like the use of remix. Generally, it's that song's main motif used more than the actual song. Either way, better distinctions should be made for at least songs that are remixed and songs that have sections and the use of what name goes where. Trig - 01:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutral Comments


I fully agree with this proposal. Additionally, oftentimes the only official name for a song is for a rearranged song that doesn't make any sense in context of the original version, such as A Well-Earned Rest. Conjectural names should definitely be used in these circumstances. So support vote from me. Wait, what's that? Admins can't vote on proposals? Blast. -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

  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)
  4. I agree. Featured articles should get more spotlight, not just when they have just been featured. And while ideally I wouldn't want to see articles losing featured and / or good statues, it may be needed for various reasons. Gigi (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I actually thought unfeaturing was allowed here before, and was planning to unfeature 3 articles. Also, as for the cycling, it's good to have every featured article get the spotlight at certain points. --Obsessive Mario Fan 21:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Comments


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)

Change featured article requirement 3 (February 7, 2020 - February 21, 2020)

As WiKirby's first-ever proposal, I would like to propose a change to our featured article policy; namely, requirement number 3, which states that, to be featured, "An article with an opening abstract of sufficient length, consisting of at least two paragraphs." This is a good guideline that encourages lengthy abstracts, but as we recently witnessed in the failed nomination of My Friend and the Sunset last week, this guideline can exclude articles that are perfectly fine nominees for featurement simply because they only have a one-paragraph abstract. Moreover, as nominater Fubaka stated over on Discord, introducing a second paragraph in this article would only cause redundancy, and that would actually lower the quality of the article.

This is a problem, but fixing it is a very easy and minor change. Simply rewording it to say "an article with an opening abstract of sufficient length (preferably consisting of at least two paragraphs)" would still encourage longer abstracts while avoiding redundancy scrapes. To be completely clear, this does not make all articles with one-paragraph abstracts automatically eligible for featurement. If an article's abstract is lacking in info, or a second paragraph could be introduced without causing redundancy, an oppose vote is perfectly valid. All this change would do is prevent predicaments like My Friend and the Sunset, where the only way to make it eligible for featurement would be to add a redundant second paragraph to the abstract. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  1. Scrooge200 (Talk) Allow me to make the first ever proposal vote, which will lead to the first ever featured article on a song. Scrooge200 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. I concur such change for the solution of an issue it displays. —Viperision (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. I don't see why length has to be a requirement. ---PinkYoshiFan 23:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. I agree. There are definitely pages out there that don't need a second paragraph but deserve to be featured articles. --JRJ007 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Lending my support. I think an abstract isn't always necessary if the details can be better covered in the main article. StrawberryChan (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  6. I support this proposal. After all, one of the writing policies states "Short articles and/or sections aren't bad if there's not much to talk about." Two policies shouldn't contradict each other, and I don't think length should be a requirement. --Cowguy™ [talk · contribs] 01:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  7. Agree with literally everyone else for this particular proposal. Similar to what Cowguy said, short articles do not automatically mean they're bad. Sometimes there's not much to talk about, so trying to add more information would just be unnecessary fluff. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral Comments


Keep in mind that administrators + may not vote on the proposal here. It will be our job to review the proposal and approve or veto it if it passes. That said, I see no reason why I would want to veto this proposal. --Fubaka (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur a change. As "sufficient length" is not a conditional description, and may not always be compatible with the part that tells "opening abstract of at least two paragraphs" — FA previews sometimes reduce/remove less significant lede content (e.g. descriptions of Japanese names, lengthy "also known as" parts, etc.), but in my opinion they also shouldn't obligate to only containing lede content. This is subjective to each article. Otherwise, articles shall be worked on regardless of FAN-ing them and such criteria, and may not always be compatible with it.
On that topic, there's not a picture at all in a soundtrack article, let alone a lede one (of an infobox) — well obviously, this is a soundtrack, the substitute here is a sound-player.. well more of them, likely of "equal weight" for each game appearance.. but is any of that an applicable embedded main-page FA content? Alone, or within an infobox "compacted out" that'd be cut out to more significant infobox content (and match the FA container size)? Would we instead seek for other images, in this case possibly an excrept of introductory notes from (official) music sheets? —Viperision (talk)

When it comes to music pages, I typically don't think it's necessary to include images, since the article in question only covers audio. If there are applicable images, however, then it's usually good to include those, such as CDs, or scenes specifically associated with the music in question. --Fubaka (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)