WiKirby:Proposals/Archive-2023

Successful proposals archives
Proposals passed in 2023
Proposals passed in 2022
Proposals passed in 2021
Proposals passed in 2020

The following proposals have been successfully passed by WiKirby's community. For older proposals, check the box to the right:

Proposals

Solidifying character names and attributes in article writing - Change 2: Solidifying entity names (January 29th, 2023 - February 5th, 2023)

On WiKirby, it has been customary to refer to the names of entities differently based on which game or other media they are in. For example, in the original Kirby's Dream Land, Maxim Tomatoes are referred to as "Bag of Magic Food" in the manual, so they are called that on the wiki whenever talking about them in article text specific to Kirby's Dream Land. Another example is referring to Tiff by her Japanese name "Fumu" whenever talking about the Japanese version of the anime specifically. However, it has been brought up that this convention can be confusing to readers, even if strictly speaking more accurate. If this sub-proposal passes, WiKirby will stop referring to entities by different names based on circumstance and only use the most consistent names, mentioning different names only as an aside, unless that different name is prominent in the game/scenario (such as the name "Aeon Hero" for Galacta Knight in Super Kirby Clash).

Support

1. I very much agree with this. I have had a decent amount of confusion reading some articles due to the names not being consistent. As for the anime, I feel like this would especially help those (like me) who have never watched the Japanese sub and would save time so they do not need to look up whatever it is that they are confused about. ~☆Starvoid⁠☆ (t · c) 14:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
2. This seems reasonable—as an extreme supporting example, you wouldn't leave an entity un-named when discussing it in the context of a specific game if that entity got a consistent name in later games. Any context short of literally quoting from the instruction manual or strategy guide should simply have a parenthetical aside or footnote about the original name, and move on using whatever name is (or would be) used for the article for that entity based on the wiki naming policy. —willidleaway [talk | edits] 15:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
3. We also stick to this unwritten rule even if it's a clear typo or mistranslation, Mr. Flosty being most infamous example. I don't really see why we need to stick to developers' mistakes in writing everywhere, especially if they later correct themselves. Superbound (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
4. It is pretty confusing in the most egregious of cases (articles related to the anime especially), so standardizing things in this manner would make it easier for readers that aren't invested in the Kirby series as a whole to not get lost. In other words, per all. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Personally, I feel like consistency is key. By making everything uniform, it will make things less confusing for everyone. I've also gotten a bit confused myself at times when reading articles, so standardizing everything would greatly help. Would definitely have to add a note at the start of all the pages saying that in game they're referred differently however. GoldenDragonLeaf (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
6. Agreed. Same as with the gender thing, the devs being inconsistient doesn't mean that we need to be inconsistient. ---PinkYoshiFan 16:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
7. Above has said enough. Sounds good to me. Trig - 16:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
8. As long as the exception in the last sentence of this proposal means we don't just start systemically changing all "Smash" or "Fireball" appearances to "Smash Bros." and "Burning" disregarding the context reader is put into. If there's say a glitch in Kirby & The Amazing Mirror or Kirby's Adventure that requires prominently named Smash or Fireball abilities in respective games, telling the reader/player to aquire "Smash Bros." or "Burning", non-existent as such in respective games, would be more confusing than vice-versa. Whereas examples brought up in this proposal are an obscure prototypical name of Maxim Tomato in an instruction manual and a romanization of Tiff's name in a different language/localization. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
9. I support consistency and clarity, regardless of minor developer errors. Both the first and second parts of this proposal will prevent readers from becoming confused. --kirb 18:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
10. Consistency provides clarity, so I think this is a valid thing to happen. Additionally, here it would be much clearer what the "prominent name" is. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
11. This sounds all good to me for the above reasons, though I agree with Vipz that we should consider context in certain instances. Clarifying in those areas will be handy and will make sure readers aren't confuzzled. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Change 2 discussion

Here's a theoretical question: what if the next Kirby game were to call Waddle Doo "Cyclops Dee"? Would we have to move the enemy's page, change all mentions of and links to it, and move all files related to it? --kirb 17:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that that happens. If the name was prominent in the game (used repeatedly in dialogue, given a formal nameplate, etc.) then we'd be forced to use that name when referring to Waddle Doo in that specific context. If it's just a weird outlier (like the name of a keychain or character treat), then it can be mentioned as an aside and otherwise ignored. --Samwell (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, but if "Cyclops Dee" were to be used exclusively, would we be forced to use "Cyclops Dee" retroactively? Would it depend on if said game was a mainline or spin-off game, or if the name began to appear in all official media? --kirb 18:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it would take several games and a concerted push from HAL to make that happen, so it wouldn't be a sudden decision on our part. --Samwell (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense to me. --kirb 18:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What to do about Ambassadors? (July 15th, 2022 - July 29th, 2022)

So, this has been discussed on and off on the Discord (mainly in secret places), but I thought, since we have a relative dead zone in terms of proposals right now, that we should bring this up. Historically, WiKirby has had a special role for Ambassadors, which are generally defined as trusted users from other partnered wikis, mainly those from NIWA, who are regardless not part of staff, and basically on the same level as Autopatrol users in terms of user rights. However, it's become clear that Ambassadors as a concept have become largely vestigial on the site, and there seems to be little reason to keep this distinction around, at least by my view, though I am open to discussion on the matter. That is part of what I am hoping this proposal will accomplish. Down below are some basic options for what we ought to do (or not do) with the Ambassador rank going forward. I would encourage anyone voting to elaborate on their thoughts on any specifics that might be expanded upon in future proposals:

1. Abolish the Ambassador rank entirely: If this is chosen, we more or less do away with the rank entirely. Thoughts on what we could do in its place may include things like allowing trusted and verified users from other NIWA wikis to automatically gain Autopatrol.
2. Keep the rank, but change how it functions: With this, we redefine what it means to be an ambassador, hopefully making it more distinct than Autopatrol, and possibly changing requirements to qualify as well.
3. Do nothing: Maybe nothing needs to change. Cause if it does it's for the worse. Seems it's just a modern curse.

Let me know what you think, and pleasant dreams. --Samwell (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 1: Abolish the Ambassador rank entirely

1. The rank does not really seem worth having around, given now little it is used. It does not do very much either, and having someone assign it takes the same effort as giving someone Autopatrol, even though they are kind of the same thing. I don't know exactly what we would do with it if we kept it either. I don't really have any ideas for what could make it unique, because giving someone a rank with better abilities than Autopatrol just seems unfair, and giving them worse abilities would basically just make them autoconfirmed which is already very easy to get. The rank just seems unnecessary in my opinion, and just giving the trusted users of other wikis Autopatrol just seems like a much better solution. --Basic Person (talk/contribs) 02:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
2. There's nothing this rank has but to exist. There's almost extensively no real reason that any outside wiki (sans Fanon or Strategy) would have any extensive editing need to work with us in relation to their respective wiki franchise. Most of the remaining ambassadors are not active significantly anyway. Alex was shadow realm'd, DK Pat has not edited their own respective site in over a year, Tacopill is not an active editor in content for Lylat (or for anyone, really), and prior Ambassadors removed earlier this year had been entirely inactive for years. A lot of the potential partnered sites do not even have editors to have ambassadors for, in the case of Lylat, Wars, Golden Sun, or Icaruspedia to name a few, which have seen no edits in 30 days. In fact, it's really just Nookipedia as an outlier that happens to share an editor base slightly across two sites. I don't think that this warrants any special title or connection between the two simply because they edit another site. There's not some big Kirby x Animal Crossing connection that needs maintained between two "expert" editor groups, and ambassadors are not necessary for any possible connections or information to be added. Should MiiWiki mention that many of its editors come from here? What would it gain from that? Nothing stops other series fans from adding information as it is. Have Ambassadors actually, genuinely, done anything? Is there some big editing extravaganza that only ambassadors could have managed to accomplish? COULD there be? Cross Wiki Weekend is a good example to analyze success in that regard. At worst, it sounds exclusionary. "You're not actually part of this wiki group, you're just outsider representing other sites" is a strong message, even if not intended. Discord is not a be all end all platform, but I find it unlikely that across Shiver Star, NIWA, or ABXY that there's not an issue that couldn't be discussed about relations or projects or some similar fashion...if not done directly on our own site via talk pages as a standard user. TLDR: The description says it itself: "Ambassadors do not have any hard privileges above prior ranks". If there's no privileges, then what could they not accomplish as a standard user? What could they not ask/perform/accomplish on or off site whether they were known as an Ambassador or an Editor? How do we even know these people will remain active over the course of time, and to what steps would a replacement be found? Trig Jegman - 06:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
3. I've never really understood the purpose of this rank since it doesn't have any additional privileges, and in my opinion it shouldn't matter much to this wiki what someone's status on a completely separate wiki is. Hewer (talk · contributions) 07:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
4. I can understand having a way of saying that someone is staff on an affiliate. However, a MediaWiki rank is a really bad way to do it since a userbox or something like that saying you're an admin on another wiki is more visible to the average user. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
5. I speculate this rank might have been useful in the early days of the wiki, when WiKirby was dependent on editors from other NIWA wikis. That no longer being the case, this list has seen little to no use from what I've seen. We'd expect some interwiki messaging going back and forth resulting from this list, but that's not the case, perhaps due to better interconnectedness (Discord servers). Now, if this was a pretty big list, it would be considerable to retain it, but it's not. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
6. I agree with the previously made points. The rank is not used much and I do not think an ambassador's position on another wiki really affects their contributions to Wikirby, so I do not see any significant benefit to the rank's existence. In addition, I am not even sure automatically giving trusted users from other wikis autopatrol is needed. The rank is not particularly hard to obtain, and a user coming from another wiki earnestly trying to contribute to Wikirby is likely to obtain the rank rather quickly anyway. I suppose it would likely not harm the wiki to automatically give trusted users autopatrol, it mainly just seems redundant to me. Typman (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
7. Also agree that Ambassadors don't work and right now they are only confusing and not really meaningful (as mentioned by others above already). I maybe would have voted Option 2, but the lack of a real plan on it holds me back. Superbound (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 2: Keep the rank, but change how it functions

1. I think we should keep ambassadors, as they do exist on other NIWA wikis and help build a sense of camaraderie among them, but it should be more distinct from Autopatrol. Ambassadors, generally speaking, don't use this wiki as much as their home base, so a qualifier would be ideal to me (at least, similar requirements to being autoconfirmed) to ensure that there's a reason for the rank to exist. Aside from that, I'm not too sure what could be done to change it, but I don't think getting rid of it is an ideal solution, and neither is just doing nothing about it. StarPunch (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 3: Do nothing

1. Personally, I see no issue with keeping the Ambassador rank. Though Ambassadors have basically the same rights as Autopatrol users, the rank appears to have greater symbolic significance to those who have earned it, signifying trustworthiness and a commitment to excellence in wiki editing. Not to mention, keeping the Ambassador rank around is by no means burdensome, at least not in my view. Therealtheo123 02:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

I would like to point out that technically, ambassadors do have one right that regular users do not: they can edit MediaWiki pages (e.g. non-personal css and sitenotice). ---PinkYoshiFan 12:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Do away with the spoiler template? (March 30th, 2022 - April 13th, 2022)

So, in the wake of Kirby and the Forgotten Land's release, a lot of spoilery information is being added to articles. Naturally, under current policy, all the affected pages should be tagged with the spoiler template, but that got me thinking. Other wikis, such as Fire Emblem Wiki, don't bother with a spoiler template at all, but just issue a blanket statement on the front page saying the wiki contains spoilers. I wonder if it would be worth us doing the same, so that we don't have to keep track of where the spoiler template ought to go. I don't personally hold much stock in one choice or the other, but I thought it would be worth bringing up. Let me know what you think. --Samwell (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Agreed. One year seems like too long and there are probably people who would say it's too short, so having anything based in time can go. Also if we have a template then we're bound to miss some cases at some point, and there are some places we can't put it (like if a page with a spoiler in the title shows up in a maintenance special page). ---PinkYoshiFan 11:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Many times it's good to warn a reader of what they're about to read, but I think it's common sense to not read wiki articles or sections relating to video games you don't want to be spoiled about. It can also apply to any older titles someone might not have played. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 12:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Never thought about that before, but it makes a lot of sense to do away with it now that you bring it up. Usually there's a warning on the sitenotice about spoilers anyways, which can be seen on every page. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Having this template is bound to cause disagreement about what does and doesn't constitute a spoiler, and anyone trying to avoid spoilers probably won't be reading pages about those spoilers anyway. Not to mention, whenever we do use the template, it's usually dwarfed by a big image or infobox next to it that reveals the spoiler, rendering the warning pointless. Hewer (talk · contributions) 11:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
5. You come to the wiki with the full expectation that the content you see will be related to what you search. By those means, you can't be upset with the results of what you come across. It seems unusual and foolish to try and obscure details or critical information on a wiki that is supposed to provide full information about the given subjects they are discussing, and anything less than that would be incomplete. We as the content providers are not responsible for being risk adverse: The reader is. Furthermore, a large portion of potentially spoiler things can still be read but not necessarily understood in context or what it could imply for the overall lore/canon/whatever kids call it for the entire series/franchise. Would it not already inherently be a spoiler to say a character such as Bandana Waddle Dee appears in KATFL simply based off the headers in the TOC? Would I, a fledgling fan be so heartbroken to be spoiled in this way, or would I simply just choose to either not be on the online Kirby space or alternatively, just not read the sections that contain spoilers. People should be left to their own devices as whether or not to spoil themselves. Trig Jegman - 21:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
6. Like we discussed in the Discord server, when someone sees a spoiler template on a page, it can just still spoil the fact that it has some kind of involvement in the series' newest game. I think it would be better to have a sitewide notice message like Pikipedia has, but pointing out to be extra careful here because the Kirby series likes to reference/bring back stuff a lot. --DeepFriedCabbage 23:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose on this, myself. As someone who avoided Forgotten Land spoilers and considered avoiding them crucial to my experience, I think removing the courtesy of alerting someone who may accidentally stumble in a page only to get spoiled is a really bad move. As much as it can be easy to avoid certain pages specific to a certain game, the Kirby series is known for its surprise return of characters, mechanics, and even often music, so someone could be checking a page not directly related to FL and get accidentally spoiled. I would be really sad to see this template get removed. Also, I don't think it's fair to compare this case with a series like Fire Emblem, because RPGs are very story heavy, and thus of course spoilers will be everywhere. Now Kirby isn't story heavy at all, but it still has spoilers. I can't mention any examples here because I don't want to accidentally spoil someone who may read this really. If anything, I would rather us to probably review the time something is considered a spoiler and what we consider spoilers for any game, but I would really not like to see the spoiler template get removed. - Gigi (talk • edits) 11:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I personally have found some use out of it, respectively around the release of KF2. The Fire Emblem comparison imho misses an important point. FE handles stories very different from what Kirby does. And honestly, I just prefer the template as sort of a "last resort" for a reader who goes on a random page, as unlikely as that may be. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
3. So, the policy regarding spoilers states that "Generally speaking, spoiler tags should be used on all front-facing (easily accessible from the main page) content for new (less than 1 year old) Kirby games. Once a game becomes sufficiently old, spoiler tags can be removed from all content that is not meant to be a revealed secret within the game itself."
   The policy doesn't say that the {{spoilers}} template should be used on everything regarding the new games, like every stage or whatever. It says that it should be used on content that is easily accessible, and content that isn't suppose to be a secret on the game (this last thing doesn't make much sense to me honestly, maybe I am reading it wrong).
   Anyway, so, as the use of it is already pretty strict, and that the policy doesn't seem to support that it is used in obscure things like final boss pages and so, it seems that it would only be used in pages of the main characters or so (like with is currently happening on the "Elfilin" page), and, in that case, I don't really see why the template should be deleted.
   I get the point of view that someone that doesn't want to be spoiled on a topic wouldn't search about that topic in the first place, as that is exactly what I am doing with KatFL, but there may be some pages that cover various topics at the same time, so a person that may search about one topic may get spoiled by a different one that the same page covers, which is currently the case with the "Invincible Candy (theme)" page. Using the template to alert the reader for the spoilers seems ideal to me, and it would be unfair if that option isn't given.
   The only change that I'd support here would be to lower the use of the template, like instead of being used on things like end game stages, as they are hard to reach wiki-wise and thus making the template kind-of irrelevant there, use it for very specific easily accessible content, but it seems that that is what the policy supports to do anyway. So with that, my vote is instead aimed to reforming the spoiler policy, to make a very clear and set decision on which type of pages should the template be used. Like, for me, currently speaking with KatFL's case, it should at least be used on the Elfilin, Meta Knight and King Dedede pages (on the KatFL's section in the later two), as I suppose that they cover things that the player should only discover while playing the game, instead of in any trailer or promotional footage. Currently the template isn't in the later two pages, but if someone puts it I don't think that anyone would remove it, as the policy isn't that clear, so what seems ideal to me is reforming the policy to set if that template should definitively be or not in those pages. And while I am speaking on KatFL-side, I also hold all of that for any future Kirby game that may release.
   Finally, be the policy reworked or not, still I think that the template should not be deleted at all, as there are still the cases that happen like in the "Invincible Candy (theme)" page, where people might go to a page looking for one side of the content, but be spoiled because the page covered some spoiler-y content without any warning or defining header. And well, I think that that template exists specifically for that; to warn in those cases and not make the reader eat an unwanted, unwarned and, mostly, unexpected spoiler. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 06:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
4. A blanket statement on the front page won't inform anyone of which pages to avoid. Readers would have to avoid the entire wiki to not be spoiled. I don't believe we must mark everything about the game as spoilers, just content about the ending. I think it's important to let people know generally what pages to avoid so they don't spoil themselves. You may say that readers should simply avoid the wiki until they beat the game, but then that defeats the whole purpose of a walkthrough. --kirb 23:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
5. I agree with Kirbeat. I feel like at least having some kind of warning for unexpected spoilers is a good idea, even if it isn't perfect. I think if someone looks up the name of a character, they might go straight to that character's page and could miss the warning on the front page and find a spoiler. (I'm not super familiar with site notices though, so maybe this isn't a problem.) I've heard games like the Xenoblade series "permanently" consider certain story elements as spoilers because they are very story-driven games where spoilers can change how you look at the entire plot. (I don't know too much about the Fire Emblem series but I'm guessing spoilers work similarly there.) I feel like a catch-all policy makes a lot of sense for these kinds of series because page-specific warnings could be there for multiple years or longer. To summarize, I think having a spoiler policy is worth having, but I agree that the way it is currently handled could be changed. -Aeon Hero (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

So, to clear my line of thought up a bit, let me explain why I've chosen to support doing away with the spoiler template:

During every new release, in addition to a spoiler notice on the news section on our front page, a site-wide manually written notice is made, which appears at the top of every single page on the wiki as-is, meaning we already have a functioning, more efficient notice that doesn't have to be manually added to individual pages. On that note, individually added spoiler notices on pages could be a spoiler in and of itself, as this gives the reader the sign that whatever is specifically on that page is in the new game. I understand giving some specific warning, but to me, it causes more trouble than it's worth, especially as most people would probably avoid a Kirby wiki when a new game comes out in the first place. As I used understriking to point out my specific points in this message, we can also use coding to make the sitenotice more easily seen.

Though I will say lastly that I'd be fine with collapsible content if we use it carefully and efficiently. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

PRO Rule Change 1

Develop structures for multiple option proposals. Currently, the wiki is only really designed to have yes or no style proposals work in the system. In recent matters, however, several proposals (including this one!) would benefit or would have benefitted from the ability to set different parameters for passing, for more specific options to vote on. If this rule passes, work will be made to set up any extra rules necessary, as well as determining an appropriate structure for multiple-option proposals.

Support

1. Agreed. We've had unofficial multiple option proposals already, and those were a bit confusing due to lack of official rules for them. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
2. I agree, however I still feel that a proposal like this would should instead just be treated as five different proposals. A similar recent event we had was with the UserLang templates, where we first got rid of the general one, then we got rid of the game ones. They are related, sure, but they are two different suggestions, and I feel they work best as two different proposals. However, for proposals with changes that are less black and white, I do agree we need a good set of rules to organize them better. A recent example is the Smash Bros. content proposal. - Gigi (talk • edits) 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
3. I agree that work should be done to make a more intuitive multiple-option proposal template. Ideally, any and all such templates should have an option that serves as the equivalent of "Oppose", in which nothing is changed. --Samwell (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Ofiicial flexibility towards more options is good, but I do think there shouldn't be any more multiple proposals cramped into one. Superbound (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
5. Sounds pretty good to me, as long as we don't cram proposals which should be apart into each-other. I've been confused in the past by some larger proposals because we've not had an official structure for said larger proposals. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
6. I agree on this, it would ease a lot various proposals in where just a "Support or Oppose" alone doesn't suffice. I have seen a few proposals on Super Mario Wiki that use a variety of options to vote from aside from "Yes or No", and they really benefit from doing so. Just pass a bit through some of their proposals and you will see what I'm talking about. As stated, in this wiki, past proposals would have benefited from this, and future proposals surely will. I don't see any downside here.
   Now, I don't know if that "(including this one!)" is referring to that this proposal would have benefited from having more voting options than a "Yes or No", or if that is alluding that "multiple option proposals" are the same thing as having multiple proposals in one, like this one. If the latter, I am with Gigi, Superbound and MetaDragon in that a multiple proposal like this one should be counted as various separate ones, and not merging them in one. There is a difference between a proposal which options are more varied than "Support or Oppose" and a proposal that is essentially various proposals in one. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 07:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
7. I support more or less for the reasons above. The amount of proposals that were different from what the current rules define has risen these past months. Having extra rules for them can't hurt. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

PRO Rule Change 3

Early proposal endings. A chief complaint for some is that two weeks can be a substantial time for something that is either timely or minor. This change suggests the following: In the even 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 week instead of two.

Support

1. Yes. This would help speed up good proposals (although it seems like a high bar, but with proposals that's probably a good thing). ---PinkYoshiFan 13:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Sounds fair enough. Since we we will always have an active crat because we will always have an EiC, it's unlikely that a proposal wouldn't end early just because a crat didn't support it. - Gigi (talk • edits) 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
3. This seems like a reasonable set of parameters for a fast-track. No objections from me. --Samwell (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Sounds like a decent guideline that should improve proposals overall. Support. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
5. It is something that will reasonably speed up the right proposals. I do think that the number may be a bit high, but still I think that it is low enough to be reachable, and high enough to not be exploited. Nothing to argue here. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 07:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
6. The required unanimous votes does it for me. That way this is guaranteed to only happen for things that the community at large agrees on. Not much else to say, support. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Remove userlang templates for localized names (February 4th, 2022 - February 18th, 2022)

This refers to the entire remainder of Category:Personal settings templates. The only way to enjoy localized British game names is to choose the language in the Preferences, but with removal of spelling templates, for a signed-in British reader there is less reason to do so. On the editor part, same reasoning can be used as in the last proposal: confusing for casual editors, more difficult to handle even for seasoned editors, plus incompatible with {{Aboutfile}}. My stance on this matter is to either fully support British English, or not at all, and we're presently in an awkward halfway house situation. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 17:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. "If there was a way to implement this site-wide without templates then it would probably be a good thing. However, trying to manually get every instance of the word in any and every given page is too much, especially when new users usually have no idea that they exist, and when it's ultimately English both ways, there doesn't seem to be enough benefit to outweigh that."- My vote on the other proposal. Replace word with game name, and it's applicable here too. ---PinkYoshiFan 17:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Support on this. I brought this up in the original proposal that did away with the other userlang templates, and since that passed, these should go as well for consistency. --Samwell (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. After removing many of the UserLang template used in mainspace, I realized the games one felt quite pointless now, and UserLang was also being used in some cases with game names, so to keep things simple, I feel it would be best to just not have them at all. - Gigi (talk • edits) 18:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Support. As I said in the previous proposal regarding userlang, those can't be applied to tabs nor aboutfile and in general are troublesome. Superbound (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
5. Support on my end as well. As much as I was a pioneer/fan of this sort of thing...it sure is said to see it go. If only the UserLang template didn't cause these sorts of issues...and if only it was more obvious that it was a sort-of thing we used to do around here... – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
6. I was originally going to propose this change as well, so I also support. Leaving these in would be awkward now that the rest of the UserLang templates are out the window and it's just a bit too much trouble. Personally, I do prefer the wiki being consistently American English overall. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
7. Continuing the track record of one-language one-manner to do things. No qualms to removing the clunky and semi-functional. Trig - 05:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Remove non-userlang game abbreviation templates 013122–021422

These things here:

• Template:K64
• Template:KCC
• Template:KDL3
• Template:KEEY
• Template:KPL
• Template:KSS
• Template:KSSU

We don't need em. They can't be effectively used on file pages anymore due to the rise of Aboutfile 2.0, and do not serve significant widespread purpose in main articles, given that they automatically make a link. Since they do not serve as a language switch like some of their counterparts (I.E. Template:KAv KGT), there is no practical use to keeping these around. While the wiki may be jovial in nature, we should not necessarily allow unprofessional shorthand through these templates still be the norm. Should this proposal pass, all instances of the above templates is replaced with a manual link (or replaced with just the written text, unlinked, if necessary) instead, and the templates are deleted.

Ciao. Trig Jegman - 05:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. They are a handy shortcut for some, and unecessary for others. I think it's worth cutting down unecessary template transclusion for stuff that can be typed out or copy-pasted. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 06:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
2. I. genuinely didn't knew these existed until now haha. And I think it's enough to say they're really not neccessary, especially since typing the full game name is enough to get the aboutfile template to categorize files. | Halcyan (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
3. They're not needed, can result in linking to the same page over and over and over, and some are unused. Support. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
4. I also agree on how unnecessary they are in the long run. Definite support. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Seeing that the remaining UserLang-based templates are almost certainly on their way out as well, I suppose these should go too. It's really not a bother to just type out the full name of the game. --Samwell (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
6. In addition to what was already said, it's probably easier for general editors to whip up a normal link on the get-go. Really it doesn't matter too much either way, but, yeah, I support this. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think it would be a better idea to, rather than delete these, just make a set of shorthand templates that account for every game, a la Nookipedia's game name templates. That would save space in the long run, and also make things a lot easier if we keep the game userlang templates, since you'd just type Kirby's Return to Dream Land rather than [[Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]. StarPunch (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I personally don't see harm on these staying, and sometimes lazy me likes to just type ''[[Kirby Super Star Ultra]]'' instead of the whole manual thing. But then, I suppose that saves only some seconds of my time, and they are not exactly needed, so I dunno. But I will be fine with whatever the community decides for this one, honestly. - Gigi (talk • edits) 17:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I am going to add a list of how many and which pages uses these templates, because in that way we can see more easily what would be the effect of this proposal if passed, plus adding links to the templates themselves because why not:

• {{K64}} 13 Uses - 5 of them are File pages, 1 is a Disambiguation: 7 Mainspace ones
• {{KCC}} 0 Uses ._.
• {{KDL3}} 3 Uses - 1 of them is an User sub-page: 2 Mainspace ones.
• {{KEEY}} 82 Uses - 1 of them is a File page, 1 is an Archive page, 8 are Categories, 2 are Templates, 1 is a Disambiguation: 69 Mainspace ones. Also linked to and used as an example of a "basic template" in Help:Creating templates.
• {{KPL}} 0 too :T no, not "zero-two"
• {{KSS}} Hahan't
• ''[[Kirby Super Star Ultra]]'' 122 Uses - 51 of them are File pages, 1 is a File Talk, 1 is an Archive page, 8 are Categories (again), 1 is a Help page, 3 are Disambiguations: 57 Mainspace ones.

220 Uses in total plus one link, 135 in Mainspace. 3 of the 7 templates are completely unused, and 2 have very little usage, basically with 2 being actually and properly used.
If this passes, then 221 edits would be made, and it would affect 135 main pages.
If my count is wrong, I missed something and/or there is a better way to link or format something of this, feel free to directly edit my comment to make the correction(s). -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 19:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Add a poll widget to the main page (January 21st, 2022 - February 4th, 2022)

Greetings. I noticed there's a big blank spot on the main page right now, under the Random Video box, and I figured something ought to go there. After a bit of brainstorming, I think I know what that ought to be: a user poll widget. The idea would be similar to what Pikipedia has on their main page. At regular intervals, we set up a poll and ask users to vote on various things relating to the series, such as what their favorite color of Kirby is, or what Copy Ability they like best, lighthearted stuff like that. I think it would be a good way to add a little more engagement to the site for regular readers. What say you all? --Samwell (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. I like the idea! It sounds like a fun addition to the main page that would do away with all that empty space most of us see. The idea of more community engagement is pretty exciting, even if this isn't the biggest change out there. Honestly, I see only positive things coming from this. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
2. This is also a good way to see how many readers we have. They don't have to always be simple. We can brainstorm and form questions in the Discord server, probably make a new channel for it. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 05:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Increasing engagement and filling empty space is always good. However, would there be a place to view the results? ---PinkYoshiFan 11:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Suport. Empty space looks ugly, especially on the front page. Superbound (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Polls are fun and my experience tells me that it secures more engagement from the community. There isn't a real downside either so why not? Infinite Possibilities (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
6. Polls are super fun! I honestly don't see any downsides to this idea. | Halcyan (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
7. That will use the current empty space of the main page and promote more interaction in the wiki, so support from me. - Gigi (talk • edits) 17:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
8. A poll like Pikipedia's or Super Mario Wiki's would be great! They are a fun "mini-game" to have, and every reader will most probably like them. I remember in the past typing "mariowiki.com" in my browser just to see which poll was up there, when I was just a reader, so this could give more reader attention to this wiki.
   Although there are two "inconvenients" that pass through my mind: One is that, on my current display, I see no empty space below the random video box, nor anywhere in the main page; that empty space may or not be there depending on the user, it doesn't seem to be universal, and putting a new section on the main page would most likely create an empty space for me there, instead of filling one, and the same could happen to other users. The other thing is that there doesn't seem to be a set topic about the polls; there could all be about which copy ability is "better", or about which games does the reader like more, and so on. If there isn't any set topic, I am worried that there could be some type of confusion in the future, though if it is set and decided that there isn't any topic at all, and that they can be about basically whatever (Kirby-related, of course) I wouldn't mind at all.
   Anyway, whichever be the topic of them, I support having polls as they are going to be very fun for editors and readers alike independently of their topic, and I don't think that anyone would mind having some empty space in the main page for a neat mini-game, if their display betray them. Or well, at least I wouldn't mind :P -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 17:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I never look at the main page ever so I have no strong preference. Trig Jegman - 15:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

To address PYF's question, if you take a look here on Pikipedia, you can see that poll results can be viewed. This is specifically an archive for them. You can see other details about the polls we'd probably use as well if you look around a bit in this general area. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Having a dedicated archive (like news) makes sense. Although if we do this, how would we implement it? MarioWiki uses an external website, but there is an extension that allows for polls to be on-wiki. ---PinkYoshiFan 00:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, hosting polls on our own is definitely better in my opinion. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 23:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Do away with userlang templates (January 19th, 2022 - February 2nd, 2022)

For a while now, WiKirby has allowed openness in terms of American and British English spelling within general words by using these "userlang" templates (most of which can be found here if you want to take a look). As a lot of you probably already know, these simply switch around letters for certain users, from American English to British English spellings, depending on an individual's personal account settings. It looks something like this when coded:

fav{{o}}rite

While I appreciate the effort to standardize words for more users, I personally think it's very unnecessary. For one, the effort that goes into searching for the appropriate words for this seems like way too much effort than it's worth. There will almost always be some words here and there that won't be found and corrected, in part of most new editors having no idea this is something we do here. I actually think this is possibly a big problem for general readers/casual editors. Maybe someone will come across, say, "favour" because of their settings, but then later catch "favor" on a page, because we just simply cannot add these templates to every single appropriate word across the wiki. This easily could be confusing to new users, especially if they try to go in and "fix" the supposed spelling mistake, only to find random brackets that I will note many anonymous editors tend to remove as-is. This likely makes it difficult for some people to understand what guidelines we really have set down here in regards to spelling.

Maybe I went overboard as to why I'm against these templates since it's a fairly small request/change, but yeah, that's the idea I'm going with here. I think having one set guideline for spelling would improve the wiki for the better and make things more efficient and understandable for everyone.

Just to be totally clear, I am not requesting the removal of regional game name templates. I honestly think those are worth having around. How do you guys feel about this? -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. If there was a way to implement this site-wide without templates then it would probably be a good thing. However, trying to manually get every instance of the word in any and every given page is too much, especially when new users usually have no idea that they exist, and when it's ultimately English both ways, there doesn't seem to be enough benefit to outweigh that. ---PinkYoshiFan 14:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
2. I don't think it's really worth all that work of these templates just to have a couple words be different for the few signed in only users. As a side point, some other things different between versions, such as in-game descriptions, should have both versions be visible, instead of using UserLang. --kirb 15:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
3. I am in full support. To be honest, I've never really liked this practice in the wiki for multiple reasons. For one, as a non-native English speaker myself, I often don't know alternate spelling of words as I mostly learned American English and that is what most commonly found over the internet, so people like me won't even use them properly, making it so that other editors would need to review edits on lookout for words with different spellings in British English. And as I pointed out in the Discord server, we currently have pages like Holo Defense API with the userlang template used all over it, which makes it such a pain to edit. I faced that myself a while ago with this edit, that should had been simple, yet it was extremely confusing. Also, at least as far as I'm aware, all spelling differences are very minor and usually consist of a single letter, so I just feel overall it's too much effort for something so small. Again, as a non-native English speaker, I didn't notice many of these differences of spelling over the years, are they really that important? Finally, these differences only are visible to logged in users who specifically selected British English as their language, so it's too much effort for such a small number of editors that probably wouldn't mind if they saw "defense" instead of "defence". So, yes, I support removing the userlang templates, for in-game text we should list both in the page itself like we do for Smash Bros. trophy descriptions already, and the game name templates are fine to stay. - Gigi (talk • edits) 16:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Did you know that Wars Wiki, the original inventors of the userlang template system, abolished it after a period of time? They probably had a good reason for it! I think it just creates a more complicated system that is less helpful for the new readers and editors. Trig - 19:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
5. I have the same feeling that everyone here has. This templates are hard to use for a result that a very small percentage of people will see. It is a big work with little reward. If this is still being used, I suppose that there will be a small negative feeling that there is some page that has a color instead of a col{{o}}r and I don't know if there is a way to use those templates in every page that they should.
   I don't want to talk in the name of someone else, but I think that the readers who prefer more British English will get that this site uses the US English spelling just by seeing that this is an American site, not an European one. For instance, I talk Spanish and I am more fond with the Latin American Spanish writing, so when I go to an European Spanish site that uses their writing differences (like using "vos" instead of "tú"), while it is something that peeks me a bit, I completely get it by seeing that said page is an European Spanish page, and not an Latin American one. It is the same thing here: this is an American site, and so it will mostly use the US English writing, thus I suppose that every reader who prefers the British English writing will get that if they see "tire" instead of "tyre" and so on.
   Essentially: If those templates are still up, they will affect the editors negatively with the amount of work that they give, via either confusing edits, or checking every page to see if they have them, and although it will be beneficial for the readers, said "beneficism" (if you may) will be very small, as a small percentage of readers will see the results of them, and the US/British English differences between words is very minimal. If those templates are eliminated as this proposal proposes (well, with the archiving of the userlang one) it won't be negatively for the editors in any way, and although it won't be beneficial to the readers, the ones that would get "affected" would be a very small number, and they would most probably understand the reason of why this uses the US English spelling.
   Although, if in-game writing does differ between the American or European versions, and the wiki is going to cite them (like with boss captions), I do support of having them both, but either as two tabs, like in here, or as two tables, like in the Smash Bros. trophies as Gigi suggested, instead of using the userlang template.
   In short, these templates requires a lot of work with very little overall benefit. The outcome of ditching out these templates is way more balanced, and thus I support on discarding them. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 22:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. For now, I'm going to stay neutral on this proposal, because I think there is a case to be made either way, and I really want to see what the community at large thinks before I pick a side. --Samwell (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Neutral about spelling (at least for now), but I support stoping usage of UserLang to hide information from other users. I also slightly lean towards removing regional name changer templates and stuff like that, since they can't be applied everywhere (such as tabs or aboutfile) and causes clutter. Superbound (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
3. At that point, there's not much reason to keep regional game name templates either. We should explicitly either fully support British English or not at all. Something that wasn't mentioned - metric and imperial units - should both be listed. I generally agree with other arguments; they can be complex in some cases, although I don't think newbie editor confusion should be the main reason we remove features from the wiki. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 22:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

So, I want to have a list of every template that will get affected if this passes through. For what I get, the following templates will get deleted, along with a description of what each one does, for quick reference ("us" is if the reader has the language set as American English, while "gb" is if it is set as British English):

• {{er}} us=er - gb=re
• {{gray}} us=a - gb=e (gray - grey)
• {{installment}} us=l - gb= (installment - instalment)
• {{l}} us= - gb=l (l - ll)
• {{maneuver}} us=euver - gb=oeuvre (maneuver - manoeuvre)
• {{o}} us= - gb=u (o - ou)
• {{tire}} us=i - gb=y (tire - tyre)
• {{z}} us=z - gb=s

If there is a template missing from the list, add it please.
If there is a template in the list that won't get affected, delete it please.
If there are some templates that won't get deleted, but that still will get affected in some way if this passes, please add it/them to the list in some way.
If there is some error here, or you feel that some wording/structure of the list could be better in another way, feel free to change it. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I will go ahead and put it out there that this general template will be affected as well. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If the proposal passes and the templates are deleted, which spelling will we use? Or will there be no rule, and users can use any spelling they want to? Superbound (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The regional game variants of the UserLang template (Kirby's Return to Dream Land/Kirby's Adventure Wii, for example) will be here to stay, as mentioned up-top. Seems that the generalization equivalents for stuff like colour, favourite, grey, etc. are going to go if the proposal passes. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk)

If we get rid of the UserLang templates but keep the regional game name templates, what will we do with instances like the first line of Kirby's Return to Dream Land? StarPunch (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As specified on the Discord, I think the best idea for now would be to default to the American English name as a title and in the description, with the British name as a redirect going forward. The original userlang template (linked on my comment above) would be archived and go unused in mainspace. When/if someone makes another proposal for the regional game templates, we can sort out more then. I also want to address the comment Vipz made by saying that the removal of these isn't primarily because of "newbie confusion". That was mostly something obscure I noticed while thinking about this. I would say the large effort and confusion overall for all of us, just for a few people, is the main reason I'd like to abolish this, along with wanting consistency to be prominent.

Hopefully all of that makes sense. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'm kind of in the same boat as Vipz, and think that if we are going to do away with the userlang templates, then the game name changer templates should go as well. Leaving those in place would create another awkward halfway house situation like what we had with the reception sections. As for imperial vs metric units, I think it's fine to list both generally speaking. --Samwell (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I getcha. Will most likely make another proposal for those after this one (unless someone beats me to it). I just didn't feel comfortable with requesting that much of a change in one proposal without having some discussion first. I basically thought a small step first would be best. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception sections on game pages: Yes or no? (January 2nd, 2022 - January 16th, 2022)

Time for the first proposal of 2022. Looking around the wiki, there are a handful of game articles which contain sections for "Reception", referring to how a game was perceived both critically from review sites and at large by the public, including sales figures where applicable. Having a section like this on a game page is traditional for places like Wikipedia, and is done on several other NIWA wikis. However, there has been a fair amount of reticence towards the idea of having these sections on WiKirby for a number of reasons, which mostly come down to personal preference, and that is part of the reason why most games do not have such sections. However, I think it's important for us as a community to decide one way or the other definitively, rather than maintaining this awkward halfway house approach.

So, here are the choices in short:
Vote Support if you are in favor of adding reception sections to every game page that warrants one, and expanding existing sections to be more complete.
Vote Oppose if you would rather WiKirby did not do reception sections at all, and remove the ones that currently exist from pages.

Vote now with your phones (or other computerized devices). Please do not vote by carrier pigeon, as that service is discontinued. --Samwell (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Support

#Honestly, after looking through our current reception sections within pages, I really don't want to just throw them away, because it's some pretty interesting stuff. I agree that going further with them regarding information could be tricky, but we'll be fine as long as we know where to put the right boundaries, imo. That said, I moreso want to see these sections on all appropriate game pages, rather than possibly extending them beyond reasonability.
It could be argued that reception is mostly unofficial, but I really can't follow that line of thought, since we cover similarly unofficial material on the wiki, like glitches and speedrunning, which are cases of something more or less unofficial eventually becoming enough of a considerable impact in the games and the community at large that they're worthy of the spotlight on wikis like this. I will admit that reception is still a bit of a different case for a few reasons, but hopefully that gets my point across.
Might change my vote once others put their two cents in, since I'm personally in a numb spot right now that might be spinning all of this around for me, but this is where I stand for now. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm really only in opposition because of how difficult it is to quantify this kind of information in a standardized way. Sales is a good metric, and review scores are tricky but still fine, but beyond that how much can we really say that isn't personal interpretation? It's not a bad idea, just one that would be hard to keep consistent across the wiki, and it just doesn't give that much to users coming to the wiki.LeoUnlimited (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
2. These sections don't add much value to a seasoned fan reader, and whatever we already have can just be donated to Wikipedia. If they have anything interesting to say, for example how the game plays, just adapt it into the Gameplay section. When it comes to covering community-oriented content, no adequate site exists for glitches, while one does for speedrunning and another for unused content, rendering our weaker coverage redundant. Sales are a good figure, but I feel iffy to opinions, however reputable. Primary/official magazines like Nintendo Power will always praise/promote the games on another hand. For official information, people would look here. For how the game fares, people would look into review sites. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 05:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Okay. Thanks to those who gave their opinions and gave me a clearer insight on this whole thing. Apologies if what I said before made absolutely no sense. I forgot to consider just how vague and subjective reception in general can be, even on so called "professional" sites, making it considerably difficult to settle on a proper way of doing things overall. I can generally see now what the problem with these sections are, and would think the best way to "settle things" would be to retire this reception concept. Scattering any solid information throughout the article(s) sounds just fine. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
4. After thinking about this for a couple days, I've ultimately decided to go against it. While I don't have any strong feelings in either side, I am opposing because I don't feel they add much to articles and, as mentioned by others, are usually pretty subjective. While we could use bigger sites like Metacritic and only use reviews from there, reviews are still subjective. I think everyone else will agree with me that the internet reviews like that of Kirby games are often widely different from the fandom itself, praising the more experimental games like Canvas Curse and Epic Yarn while considering games important to the franchise like Return to Dream Land as okay games. I do want to mention however, I like listing of sales, so I would at least like to see sales listed, but I am also okay if they aren't. - Gigi (talk • edits) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
5. I personally do not like game reviews, it can easily make people skip a game that has the potential to actually be a fun experience for them. Besides, I don't think it has its place on a wiki, but otherwise I don't have much more to add since the others already summarized my thoughts on this. Halcyan (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
6. Reception sections usually end up full of personal opinions of reviewers and wiki editors. As well as specifically in the case of this wiki, most Kirby games are generally regarded/received the same way regardless of game by reviewers and general gaming community. In the end, I think subjective content does not really belong on a wiki.SaviroZenu (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I personally think that a reception section would be a good thing, but they are also based (almost) entirely off unofficial material, so I could go either way. ---PinkYoshiFan 14:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
2. I don't want to delete what we currently have for reception sections, but personally public reception is a no-go. Review sites give one score and that stands, public reception often changes by a drastic amount over time and there's almost allways two sides at minimum, as the Sonic Community taught me. So if I was the being with unlimited infinite power around here, I'd only let reception from review sites be on the game pages and nothing else. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
3. I don't feel that these sections are something that this wiki should aim to do so much, as "WiKirby seeks to provide the most accurate, complete, and concise information about the Kirby series" (- WiKirby:About ) and I don't think that reception about video games are completely accurate, complete and/or concise.
   This doesn't mean that I am in complete opposition with them, because experience (and thus, reception) of games are essentially part of the games themselves, some inconveniences like not knowing about which sites are the most "professional" to take reception off can be solved "innerly" between editors by choosing some specific ones (like just building reception sections around just IGN, Nintendo Life and Polygon, to give an example; but also choosing some specific reviewers to evade polemic reviews like IGN's "7.8 too much water" about Pokémon ORAS and "5" about Star Fox 2) and that there are some points that couldn't be mentioned in article pages, like Star Allies' main Story Mode being perceived a lot as being ultra easy. Although I don't mean that I am in complete support either, as nor me nor every reader gets into WiKirby to see specifically the reception about the games, and choosing which specific reviewers opinion would be used to build said sections would be a chaos, so I am fine either way.
   In any case, I don't think that having some game pages with reception sections and other without them (as it is right now) is good; either all of them have reception sections, or nor of them has them, so I am against leaving the receptions that we have while prohibiting any new ones, if "Oppose" wins.
   Lastly, I do am in favor of including completely objective information like sales numbers (which could be included either at the end of the opening paragraph or in the game's infobox), and "whether the game meets some other objective(s) set out by the producer(s)" as Samwell mentioned. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

So, naturally, I cannot vote on my own proposal. However, I would like to give my own thoughts on things relating to it. Some have made the case that the voting choices lain out here are too all-encompassing, and that a middle ground solution where we only consider reception from dedicated professional review sites be considered. This sounds fine on paper, but I would like to point out that there have been several instances of so-called professional review sites (IGN being the perennial punching bag example) giving reduced scores for games based on things generally agreed to be silly or unimportant. As it turns out, it's not actually possible to objectively evaluate a game's quality. The closest you can get, I suspect, is to judge how well the game sells, whether or not it has value to the consumer (in whatever form that value takes), or whether the game meets some other objective(s) set out by the producer(s).

Because of this subjectivity, it is my opinion that leaving the reception section in a situation where only "professional" review sites are considered would be creating another awkward halfway house situation, where it could then be further debated what does and does not qualify as "professional". That's why I think it's preferable to either have reception sections that include things like user aggregate data and overall public perception, or to just decide that WiKirby does not have an obligation to cover this aspect of games at all. Considering the potential difficulties that would come with verifying such information, I personally lean toward us not doing reception sections. --Samwell (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Where in the policies does this proposal belong? WiKirby:General content policy? ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 20:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

That would probably be the best place to put it. I was initially thinking about putting a note on it in the layout policy, but that page generally does not talk about what shouldn't be in articles. --Samwell (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)