WiKirby:Proposals: Difference between revisions
WillIdleAway (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{{Support}} | {{Support}} | ||
#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. {{User:Starvoid/sig}} 14:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | #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. {{User:Starvoid/sig}} 14:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
#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. {{User:WillIdleAway/sig}} 15:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{Oppose}} | {{Oppose}} | ||
{{Neutral}} | {{Neutral}} | ||
Revision as of 15:11, 29 January 2023
| Your opinions matter! |
|---|
|
Welcome to the Proposals page. Here, WiKirby's editors may propose changes to the way the wiki operates, including how to handle certain categories of content, quality standards, or even just making aesthetic suggestions. Any user who has Autopatrol status or above may make a proposal or vote on one, and after two weeks of voting, if it passes, it will be incorporated into policy. Please see below for the specifics on how to make and/or vote on a proposal. |
| How to make a proposal |
|
Please use one of the following templates to make a new proposal: Single vote: This is for proposals which only propose a single change to the wiki. ==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
===Discussion===
{{clear}}
Multi-option vote: This is for proposals which include many possible changes to a particular element of policy. One option should always be to keep things as they were. It is recommended that no more than 8 options are given in a single proposal, including the "no change" option. ==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Option|1|(option title 1)}}
{{Option|2|(option title 2)}}
{{Option|3|(option title 3)}}
{{Option|etc.|(option title etc.)}}
{{Neutral}}
===Discussion===
{{clear}}
Multi-facet vote: This is for proposals which want to make several smaller changes to a single element of policy (for instance, making several changes to how the main page looks). Each change needs to be voted up or down individually. There should not be more than 5 parts to a proposal like this. This type of proposal should not be made without approval from wiki administration. ==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert summary of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
===Change 1===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 1 discussion====
===Change 2===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 2 discussion====
===Change 3===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 3 discussion====
etc.
{{clear}}
Once a proposal is made, the voting period begins (see voting regulations below). Voting period for a proposal ends two weeks after it starts, at 23:59:59 UTC on the 14th full day of voting. An administrator can veto a proposal at any time, although such action should always be justifiable and agreed upon by multiple admins. Administrators should not use this right to add more weight to their own opinions. |
| Restrictions |
|
Users may propose many different changes or additions to the wiki. The following things, however, may not be voted on:
|
Voting regulations
|
|
Current Proposals
Solidifying character names and attributes in article writing (January 29th, 2022 - February 12th, 2022)
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."
Change 1 discussion
Change 2: Solidifying entity names
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).
- 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)
- 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)
Change 2 discussion
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
- 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)
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)
Proposal Archive
Successful proposals
Failed proposals
Withdrawn proposals
