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

WiKirby:Proposals/Archive-2023

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

Dream Friends pages' colored titles, revisited (March 4th, 2023 - March 18th, 2023)

Two years ago, a proposal was made to give featured Dream Friends articles a special treatment by making their page titles colored. The reasoning for that was, that important characters deserve having their pages be unique and that it would be a nice, little detail. However, there are few problems as of currently.

First, the proposal only affected Dream Friends, who at the time were basically synonymous with "major character". But then the next game came along with Elfilin. Under what was established in the proposal, his article can't get a special color, solely because he had the unluck to debut in a game after Kirby Star Allies. And the Kirby series will still continue, and more characters will appear... It was not future-proof.

Second, the inconsistency. I don't believe that featured articles should be divided into better and worse just because they happen to cover a certain topic, and colored titles make that division. In addition, a lot people are confused on why some pages get that treatment and some don't--that's certainly not helpful either.

So, my solutions are:

  • Option 1: Give every Featured page special color (that would be my preferred)
  • Option 2: Make every Featured page white (opposite of Option 1)
  • Option 3: Revert to how it was before the 2021 proposal (Kirby had pink title font, everything else white)
  • Option 4: Give special color to every major character, not just Dream Friends (if the first issue is a concern but not the second)
  • Option 5: Do nothing (it's fine as it is)

Superbound (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Give every Featured page special color
  1. At this point it just makes sense to give colors to featured articles as we wish. We could perhaps try to find some sort of rules but ultimately I think we can do our own call. And we can keep some others as white anyway when there is no color to represent the article really. - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per the reasons given. My second choice would be Option 4, but I don't really think that exclusively characters should get this treatment. This would most likely leave out Ability pages, like Beam, and having that be orange-colored would be neat. Now, this do would leave out music and game pages, and while I kinda see why one would want that, having them colored would look good. There are games that kinda follow a color motif: Kirby's Return to Dream Land could have its title blue, while Kirby Battle Royale could have its in orange, for example. And as Gigi said, if giving some color to a page ends up being in some mess, we can just choose to keep that one white and that's it, we don't need to set in stone to have absolutely every featured page colored, but also it would be good to have the option to color some non-character page if it seems good. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 08:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Option 2: Make every Featured page white
  1. Since applying the special font to all Dream Friends without them all being featured is apparently unfeasible, I'm going with this as I'd rather keep things consistent. Giving every featured page colours would inevitably make determining colour hard in some cases and would look arbitrary to anyone not familiar with it, and giving all major characters colours is similarly a bad idea because if we aren't using the objective definition of "Dream Friends + Elfilin" (which I agree isn't future-proof), then there'll be difficulty determining which characters do and don't count as major. I'm also not voting for the third option as if we aren't doing this for any other character then I don't see a reason for Kirby to get special treatment - an all or nothing approach would be better for the sake of consistency. Hewer (talk · contributions) 21:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. After thinking it over, I think this will be my choice. I'm not the biggest fan of how the special colors turned out and I don't like the inconsistency. I think it would look cleaner to just keep the title font with no special color for featured pages. StarPunch (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. I would be fine with any of the first three options, just because we should be consistent. If consistency means giving everyone special colors or nobody special colors (except possibly for the namesake of the entire series) that would be ok, although I slightly favor no colors since choosing colors for every featured article could get tricky. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Option 3: Revert to how it was before the 2021 proposal
  1. "I want to emphasize that this creates an even larger inconsistency amongst page design and it's one that I would drastically prefer to not exist"—Jegman 2021. It looked terrible from the moment it was implemented and should never have gone forward to begin with. Revert pre-2021. Trig Jegman - 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Option 4: Give special color to every major character, not just Dream Friends
  1. I like this option. The colors truly characterize them, I feel that they make the articles feel more alive. As said above, some characters are too recent to have enough significant appearances, but it would feel fair if all relevant enough protagonists (maybe antagonists) had their own color. Colorless is just a bit bland, and coloring all featured pages would require some thought and become almost entirely subjective in a matter of seconds... ShadowKirby (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. I also like this option; it gives the relevant articles a little bit of flair (e.g., having Elfilin have blue text would signify that he is a major character in the series). We may need to define what a "significant character" is, however, so there is some consistency in when this is applied (both now and in the future). As noted above, colouring every featured page would likely be quite burdensome. Buildz17 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. It always confused me with the special titles for certain Dream Friends but not all of them, not to mention that characters from side games don't even get a chance at all. By having major characters with special colors, it helps to differentiate them from other character pages while also keeping in theme. Also, this option would help with consistency, without having to go through every single featured page. All in all, I just think it's an execellent idea without being too much work. GoldenDragonLeaf (talk · edits) 05:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  4. It shouldn't be a big hassle to put together a definitive 'major character' list, games-wise (we still have anime characters), as they come. Giving color to all articles would be an overkill and create an inconsistent mess, while no color would deprive the wiki of its creative and fun character. Focusing just on Dream Friends is KSA-centric. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 11:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  5. I'd really like if this happens, as this would further show the importance of certain characters, especially major antagonists and final bosses like Hyness and Void Termina, although I don't know if this would be applied to EX versions with their own pages too. - RHVGamer (talk · edits) 21:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  6. Since only featured articles get the special title font, this prevents the scope of 'characters sufficiently major enough to get coloured titles' from becoming too insane, and I suspect a process can be navigated much more easily for deciding title colours for character articles compared to articles in greater generality. —willidleaway [talk | edits] 04:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  7. I like this idea a lot!! Kirby will continue to exist through a variety of media and have characters that are noteworthy exist outside of just mainline games, and I believe that giving others a bit more of a chance to be recognized as such while also allowing for future characters to be introduced and given the same treatment is a better option than resorting to reverting everything. Also, I just find nice to have recurring characters use a special font. It's redundant, but it does give them a lot of character.-Amari!! :3 20:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Option 5: Do nothing

Discussion

Personally I like the idea of the title colours for the unique extra flair they provide, but the part that bothers me most is that only featured articles can get this treatment. Given that these colours are based entirely on the subjects of the articles, I don't think featured status should make a difference at all, and yet Marx, Gooey, Ribbon, and all three Mage-Sisters are excluded by this requirement. The title colour isn't even applied consistently among articles that are featured since it's missing from Rick, Kine, and Coo for some reason. So my ideal solution would be to just consistently apply these title colours to all Dream Friends (as well as Elfilin by the logic I explained here) regardless of featured status. Hewer (talk · contributions) 15:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason why only featured articles get this treatment is simply because they are the only articles that use the special title font. - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that the Dream Friend articles (and Elfilin) be an exception to that if we continue to use special colours, because I think it's too inconsistent and doesn't make much sense to restrict a distinction with no relation to article quality (or at least one that really should have no relation to article quality since it only concerns the article's subject) to featured articles. Hewer (talk · contributions) 18:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Then that would have to be a separate proposal because, as of right now, the title font is only applied to featured articles, and we cannot just use it for other articles to have colored titles. Plus, the argument that was made in the original proposal is that all Dream Friend pages should eventually be featured, which I don't disagree with. - Gigi (talk • edits) 20:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete spam account talk pages 020823—022223

I think we should delete the welcome template-only talk pages of obvious bot/spam accounts. There is no need to have pages for accounts that clearly will not edit the site or be used again, and it may make searching for valuable talk pages difficult in Special:AllPages. Given the current way WiKirby handles new accounts, this number of account talk pages should not increase. My criterion for deletion would be the following: 

*User names must follow the following format:
FirstnameLastname
or
FirstnameLastnameNumbers

*There are no contributions for the user.

*There is no main user page

*The talk page consists solely of the welcome message.

*The account is older than Jan 1, 2021.

I'd be happy to make a list and hand it to admin team or temporarily regain my admin role wiki-only and do it myself, whichever is more comfortable for staff. Trig - 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Support—Continue as listed
  1. Unnecessary pages should be deleted.--kirb 01:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. It seems like a waste of space to include those pages, so why not delete them? Seems logical to me. GoldenDragonLeaf (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Sounds good to me. Would we unregister the users themselves, too? Because I think that would be a good way to free up usernames. --DeepFriedCabbage 06:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. A really small, but imho good thing that would have its benefits should it come into action, even if it is not the grandest change ever. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  5. I was initially hesitant about the idea of having to manually go through all these page deletions, but it seems that we have the means to sort out and then delete them quickly, so I'll throw my support behind this. Shouldn't be too much trouble. --Samwell (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


Option 2: Support, but devise stricter criteria for deletion


Option 3: Do Nothing


Neutral
  1. I don't think it would be bad to do it, but I don't see any real benefit when AllPages isn't the way most people look for user talk pages and this doesn't really help clear up anything else as far as I know. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. I agree with the vote above. It's a good idea, but not really necessary as it's only getting rid of one thing and doesn't change much else. ~☆Starvoid⁠☆ (t · c) 01:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. This seems like a good idea, but I don't know, it doesn't convince me. I don't really have any reasons to oppose it though. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 19:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. I guess I don't really see the need for this to be a proposal, as it's not that big of an issue (in the specific case of AllPages, you can just search for user pages rather than user talk). Deleting them isn't going to save any real amount of space, either. Also, I just don't really see how going through the labor of deleting all those talk pages will help the wiki in the long run. If you have a nifty way of automating the process without targeting the pages of legitimate users, then I might consider supporting, but otherwise, it just seems like empty busywork. --Samwell (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


Discussion

Solidifying character names and attributes in article writing (January 29th, 2023 - February 12th, 2023)

So, I've noticed recently that there's been some edits made to character and enemy pages in regards to gender pronouns. In particular, there was a push on the Kracko and Dyna Blade pages to refer to them by different genders based on which game was being discussed (since genders are not always consistent in in-game flavor text). I find this to be highly inappropriate for any characters that have been established as individuals (unlike, say, Broom Hatter, which refers more to a class of characters rather than a single entity). This incident has brought up a larger issue with how to treat attributes of characters and other entities which span multiple games and whose names and other characteristics may differ from one to the next. I come to you now offering a new standardized way to handle this, though it needs to be done in multiple facets which can be voted on individually. I will introduce each particular point and describe the proposed change in its own subsection. Cheers. --Samwell (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Change 1: Solidifying character gender

To summarize what was said above, I believe we need a clause in place to prevent established characters from being referred to by different genders in text based on erroneous or inconsistent in-game flavor text. As such, I'd like to add this to the writing standards:

"For characters established as individuals, their gender must be consistent throughout article text and based on the most consistently-used pronouns in games ("he/she/they" generally takes priority over "it"). It is not appropriate to refer to these characters using different pronouns based on the game unless there is a specific special story or lore-based circumstance for doing so. Note that this rule does not apply across different canons (For example, Kracko in the games VS. Kracko in the anime.), only within canons."

Support
  1. Kracko: "While his pause screen flavor from Kirby Fighters Deluxe, implies that he fights Kirby to get a comeback for his previous losses, however, in Kirby: Triple Deluxe, it appears it attacks Kirby because of Taranza's command." <= possible shenanigans that could occur with changing pronouns by appearance. Thus, I support to make it an official rule. Superbound (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. I 100% agree with this. I was looking at the idle animation page and noticed that Driblee was referred to with female pronouns, while on the actual Driblee page the enemy is referred to with it as pronouns. And it doesn't help that Driblee is referred to with all types of pronouns as well. GoldenDragonLeaf (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. The devs being inconsistient doesn't mean that we need to be inconsistient. ---PinkYoshiFan 16:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. 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 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  5. At first I was worried that in some cases two or more pronouns would be used simultaneously back and forth between games, (Broom Hatter comes to mind), and so we wouldn't be able to decide which one should appropriately be used. The more I thought about it the more I realized that wouldn't happen all that often, but it still could be a concern so I will bring it up in the discussion here. Aside from that, this will definitely be good to help prevent confusion and I'm all for it. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  6. I prefer to keep things consistent. Yoshi's Island 11:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. I don't think enough guidelines are set for me to warrant voting on this. There may be cases where use is too inconsistent to officially suggest one path or another. Trig - 16:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. For what it's worth, I don't feel like this particular issue "deserves" a strict guideline. As Trig said, cases of great inconsitency, which I consider to be fairly likely, could arise. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. I don't really have any preference on this. First, its seems that this would only apply to established characters, not common enemies, so it seems that this won't apply to Driblee nor Broom Hatter, and thus this will have a pretty small scope. For the ones that it does apply, like Kracko, I also have those concerns that us choosing specifically one pronoun over the rest would probably be a mess, and I don't know if one is definitively more prominent than the other. For example, for Kracko, I don't know what would make us decide which one to choose between "him" and "it" over the other. Still, I do like consistency, and I really resonate with the reasons to do this. I just don't punch hardly either way. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 19:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Change 1 discussion

the most consistently-used pronouns in games

So just to clarify, if we were making Kracko's page in 2014, even though Triple Deluxe refers to Kracko by "it" and it's the most recent Kirby game, considering Kracko had been consistently been referred to as "he" before, we would still use "he", and if the next games started to use "it" for Kracko we would change the whole page to refer to Kracko as "it", but if it didn't, we would just keep using "he"? - Gigi (talk • edits) 16:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think if we got to the point where so many subsequent games started using "it" consistently, then we'd have to conclude that "it" is what they intend, so yes, in that case we would change the whole article to "it". That would be an extreme outlier case, though, as far as I am concerned. --Samwell (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

So for the point I brought up in my support comment (the same one Trig and Infinite are likely worried about), how would we handle having a character who switches pronouns very regularly and one doesn't seem to take priority over the other?
"this rule does not apply across different canons"
I figured that this meant that pronouns used in the main-series games would overall take priority (and so maybe that would resolve this issue). I would still like to ask about it though. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Change 2: Solidifying entity names

This part of the proposal has already passed. See below for details.

Change 3: Infobox representation

Admittedly, this one's not really an issue right now, but I still think it's important to have a firm decision on this point. For the main infobox of the page, the image used of a character or other entity should be the most representative/consistent image, not necessarily the most recent one. This rule has largely been followed in practice, but a formal clause should be put in place so nobody thinks to put whatever temporary makeover King Dedede gets in the next game up as his main infobox image like what was attempted when Kirby and the Forgotten Land was the upcoming game. :P

Support
  1. Not much to add here other than I completely agree. It's been an unwritten rule for a while so I fully support making it an official one. - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Agree as well, provided that accompanying the policy is a document with a few different example entities showing examples of representative and un-representative images for each. —willidleaway [talk | edits] 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. The infobox is meant for the character as a whole, not for the character in one game specifically. ---PinkYoshiFan 16:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Kind of surprised we weren't doing this already, to be honest. Trig - 16:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. As long as we the editors can come to a consensus on what is the most "representative" image of a character, I support this. Epic Yarn is a good example of why using the latest official artwork of a character is not always the best action. --kirb 17:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  6. Not a lot for me to say here. This sounds good to me. There will be some discussions on what the "most representative image" is sometimes, but that's natural. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  7. Not a lot for me to say here outside of consistency. Yoshi's Island 11:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  8. Basically turning unwritten into written. Support. Superbound (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  9. I support this, but not under the notion of "choosing the most representative/consistent image", but instead both under the notion of "not choosing necessarily the most recent image" and under the notion of "treating it in a case-by-case basis". What image to choose depends on the character/article. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 19:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Similar to change one, there may come up some things where a "most representative" image would need proper deciding between editors first. So while I'm not exactly opposed to the idea to make it a real guideline, I can't say I'm really convinced either. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Change 3 discussion

So, at the risk of opening a can of caterpillars but just to have a point of reference ... with the example of Dedede, what would be considered the most representative/consistent image? (It's definitely not the KatFL design, true.)

And for enemies that only appeared in sprite-based games, would we consider official out-of-game artwork to be more representative than the in-game sprite where appropriate, or vice versa? It seems like Twizzy (my beloved) is a good case study in that (in my eye) the official KDL artwork is clearly inconsistent but the KNiDL artwork (which is the current infobox image) is reasonably consistent with all of the in-game sprites and much higher-resolution (and thus should stay the infobox image). —willidleaway [talk | edits] 15:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We can probably formalize some finer details, but basically right now an image like that would be any artwork when available, from the most recent game that accurately represents the character. Sure the specifics of that is hard to put into words, but using Dedede again as an example, he is using File:KRtDLD King Dedede.png which accurate represents him. We didn't use File:KatFL King Dedede artwork.png when FL was his latest appearence because that's his appearance as a boss only, which for an article about Dedede as a whole would be innacurate as he's more often an ally than foe lately. Another examples of images that wouldn't fit his main infobox would be File:King Dedede SSBU.png (as it's from Smash), File:Buff King Dedede KSA artwork.png (again, boss form), and File:K30AMF King Dedede artwork.png (using a design from a real world event and not a game). - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I actually like this way of framing it—in ambiguous situations like this, counterexamples are often the best way to suggest what is acceptable. (Tangential example: one might show an example of an acceptable photo for a passport or ID card, followed by several mildly amusing examples of clearly unacceptable photos, suggesting regions of acceptable and unacceptable images without actually having to draw the border.) To that list of Dedede counterexamples I would also add File:King Dedede ball KCC artwork.png, potentially also to argue that designs should be from mainline Kirby games as opposed to spin-off games wherever possible, and File:KDB_Character_Treat_Kirby_riding_King_Dedede_artwork.png, since it's low-res and an indirect appearance (even if the most recent one out of all the released games—this would also preclude a Keychain somehow ending up as the infobox image). —willidleaway [talk | edits] 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with this, since it has long been an unwritten rule, but I have one small question, what if the design stays same, but the artstyle is different (both minor, like everything having thick outlines as it is seen in KRtDLD, but also more major, like Kirby: Canvas Curse or Kirby and the Rainbow Curse)? Superbound (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO we should probably treat it case-by-cases, but minor artstyle changes I would say should be fine to use, drastic ones probably not, but for example I'm not sure if I consider Rainbow Curse a major one, but Canvas Curse and Epic Yarn I would. - Gigi (talk • edits) 16:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I see. Superbound (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from "https://wikirby.com/w/index.php?title=WiKirby:Proposals/Archive-2023&oldid=413458"