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

WiKirby:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Abolish Proposal Rule 8 (16 November 2023 – 30 November 2023): Added new option to narrow scope of rule without abolishing it, per neutral comments)
m (→‎Abolish Proposal Rule 8 (16 November 2023 – 30 November 2023): the <!-- --><br> thing looks a bit weird in source but it fixes the issue where striking out the # makes a new list and not striking it out counts the rescinded vote)
Line 12: Line 12:


{{Option|1|Complete abolition}}
{{Option|1|Complete abolition}}
#Even outside of the multiple options scenario, I think the vote of whoever propeses should also count for something outside of presenting the idea, so support. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 07:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
#Even outside of the multiple options scenario, I think the vote of whoever propeses should also count for something outside of presenting the idea, so support. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 07:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)<!--
#Agreed, the proposer being barred from voting doesn't really work for multiple-option votes. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 13:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
--><br><s>#Agreed, the proposer being barred from voting doesn't really work for multiple-option votes. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 13:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)</s>


{{Option|2|Narrow scope of rule to two-option proposals only}}
{{Option|2|Narrow scope of rule to two-option proposals only}}
 
#Per reasons for voting for option 1 before this one was added, the main concern is multiple-option votes. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 21:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
{{Option|3|Leave as-is}}
{{Option|3|Leave as-is}}


Revision as of 21:58, 16 November 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:

  1. Proposals which target specific users (such as bestowing or removing ranks or rights).
  2. Proposals which violate the law, as specified in the general content policy.
  3. Proposals which seek to overturn a recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) approved proposal.
  4. Re-submitted proposals which were recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) rejected, and which have not been significantly altered.
Voting regulations
  1. Proposal adding and voting is open only to registered users who have attained Autopatrol status and above. Users who do not have Autopatrol+ may still participate in discussions.
  2. Users who are currently blocked will not be allowed to vote, and any outstanding votes they have on proposals will be removed. Any proposal made by a user who is blocked during the consideration period will also be removed.
  3. All votes must be signed with signatures (type four tildes (~~~~.)) Unsigned votes are automatically negated, regardless of any points made.
  4. After two (2) weeks of voting, a proposal will be immediately enacted if the number of supportive votes is greater than the number of opposing votes, or, in the case of multi-option votes, any option receives a plurality consisting of three or more votes. In the event of a tie, the proposal may be re-voted upon with a one week duration, or annulled by the administrators.
  5. In the event 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 (1) week instead of two.
  6. If a supported proposal is vetoed by the administrators, it is considered failed and should not be started again for at least 8 weeks (56 days).
  7. If a proposal fails to garner three (3) supporting votes (or 3 votes on any one option in multi-option proposals), it will not be considered.
  8. The original proposal maker may not vote on their own proposal if it only contains two options (i.e., "yes" or "no" proposals). However, proposers may vote on their own proposals if they have three or more options.
  9. All votes must be supported by a substantial reason from the voter. Simple and/or unproductive comments like "I agree" or "No that's stupid" will result in the vote being removed.
  10. The original proposer may cancel the proposal for any reason during the first three (3) days of its run, and it will not be considered failed. Admins may veto subsequent proposals if this is abused.
  11. Voting users may change their vote at any time before a proposal's deadline passes, but should update their timestamp if doing so.
  12. Discussion must remain civil at all times! Any uncivil discussion will result in the offending users' votes being negated, and possibly lead to strikes or a block.
  13. Excessive campaigning for any proposals will result in the campaigner's vote(s) being negated, or proposal being removed if applicable.
  14. Proposals about minor article manipulation (such as splits, merges, renames, or deletions) should not be created, unless the scope of the discussion is particularly large; otherwise, these should be handled on a case-by-case basis, through discussions or polls on the talk page of the article in question.
  15. It is recommended that a single user make only one (1) proposal at a time. Though simultaneous proposals from the same user are allowed, they are discouraged; this should ideally only be done if multiple issues are in question, and not many proposals are already active.
  16. For multi-option votes, voters are encouraged (but not required) to indicate a first, second, third, etc. vote. The exception to this is neutral votes, which must be the only vote if chosen.

Current Proposals

Abolish Proposal Rule 8 (16 November 2023 – 30 November 2023)

I know, I know. "Isn't that just one free support vote for every single proposal?" Hear me out.

First off, many proposals aren't as simple as yes or no. Sometimes there are multiple options, and the original proposer may not like one but include it anyway as a courtesy. Alternatively, a person may wish to make a proposal to settle a controversy, and he or she may still prefer to do nothing. In any case, I think there are sufficient reasons not to rule the proposer unable to vote at all, especially since, in many cases, the proposer is the one with the strongest opinions on the topic.

Of course, I'll leave that decision up to you all. --YFJ (talk · edits) 07:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: I have added a new option per the comments in Neutral. Though I still support the complete abolition of the rule, as I feel the proposer's opinion should still count for something (and as said before, there are reasons one might choose to oppose or remain neutral on one's own proposal), it's certainly a preferable option to the status quo. --YFJ (talk · edits) 21:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Complete abolition
  1. Even outside of the multiple options scenario, I think the vote of whoever propeses should also count for something outside of presenting the idea, so support. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 07:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    #Agreed, the proposer being barred from voting doesn't really work for multiple-option votes. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 2: Narrow scope of rule to two-option proposals only
  1. Per reasons for voting for option 1 before this one was added, the main concern is multiple-option votes. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 3: Leave as-is
Neutral
  1. I feel it should be fine but only on multi-choice proposals. For proposals like this one, where it's just support, oppose, neutral, allowing the person who posted the proposal to vote will basically mean a free support vote for it. For multi-choice, I can see the point since the person who wrote the proposal will have one prefence among many others. So, personally, if this passes, I would prefer that it would with that note. - Gigi (talk • edits) 13:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. I pretty much agree with what Gigi wrote above. While the argument of "it's just a free support vote" doesn't apply to multi-choice proposals, I do feel like keeping the rule for yes or no proposals only would make for a better change. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Change voting rules for multi-option votes (16 November 2023 – 30 November 2023)

Our proposal header warns of the infamous spoiler effect. I think we can do better than that.

For the uninformed: the spoiler effect occurs when, in a three-option proposal, Option A and Option B both score 30 % of the vote while Option C scores 40 %. Option C wins a plurality, but if Options A and B are similar, this means that the majority opposed Option C and it still won out. It's a strong weakness of plurality voting and encourages strategic voting (voting for a less-preferred option in order to prevent the least-preferred option from winning). What can we do about it? Here are our options:

Instant runoff voting: The best solution, in my opinion. Sometimes called "ranked choice voting", it essentially allows you to give differently-weighted votes to different options. I'll give you an example right now: this is my first choice, "multi-option voting" is my second choice and "plurality voting" is my third. If "instant runoff voting" has the least first-choice votes, my vote doesn't lose significance; it instead moves to "multi-option voting", my second choice. This single-elimination process continues until one option remains. Note: Neutral voters would not be allowed to vote on any other option, unless they remove their "neutral" votes.

Multi-option voting: Didn't understand the last option? This might be simpler. You can cast a vote on all options minus one, if you so choose. These votes would all be equally weighted. This is the system preferred on some other NIWA wikis, such as the Super Mario Wiki, to give you an idea. Note: Just as in the above option, neutral voters may not vote for any other option.

Plurality voting: Self-explanatory: do nothing and leave the voting system as-is.

So what'll it be? My preferred option is instant runoff voting, but that's for you all to decide. --YFJ (talk · edits) 07:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Instant runoff (ranked choice) voting
  1. It took a bit to grasp, but it seems right to count a vote towards something else if another one fails. Would note that one should be able to choose to vote for one option and one option only if they so choose. This option seems to prevent proposals from getting stale due to having more popular options unresolved. Not entirely sure how it'd work in practice but in theory I like this. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 07:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. If I'm understanding this correctly then it does seem like the best option. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Certainly agree about the whole thing about multi-choice proposals. I've often come across times where I notice many people don't want a certain choice to win but then split on voting on two or more options, then the option with most rejection wins still. This would be my preferred method to counter that. I just wonder how to format the voting, but I suppose people can just comment on each option and go "this is my first choice", "this is my second choice" etc. - Gigi (talk • edits) 13:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Using a system that discourages strategic voting seems like a good idea. I support it. Typman (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 2: Multi-option voting
Option 3: Plurality voting (leave as-is)
Neutral

Discussion

@ShadowKirby: I should clarify that this would not preclude the option to cast only one vote. The effect of this is that, if a user votes for only one option and that option loses, the vote has no bearing on the standing of the other options, which is the same as in the status quo. It's effectively equivalent to a last-choice vote. (Should also note: one would not be able to make two first choices, or the like; ranking should occur linearly or else options not preferred should be excluded.) --YFJ (talk · edits) 07:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds perfect :) ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 07:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Disallow links in quotes, flavor text, etc (November 16th, 2023 - November 30th, 2023)

I will admit this is minor all things considered, but this has bothered me for a long time. To give an example, take Magolor's quote from his page:

“ Hi there! My name is Magolor. I'm from another dimension, but I just love Planet Popstar. I can't get enough of it! Things got a bit hectic when I first arrived, but that's all in the past, thanks to Kirby. ”
— Magolor's opening dialogue from New Challenge Stages in Kirby's Dream Collection Special Edition

As you can see, this features colored text. Orange and... wait a second, blue text?

Well, yeah, these are links to other pages. However, from a quick glance, one could confuse them with colored text, since there is colored text from the actual game before (in orange). Keep in mind I am only talking about Magolor's own quote, not the text after that has links to New Challenge Stages and Kirby's Dream Collection Special Edition: those are fine to stay, as they aren't quotes.

Take another example from Magolor's page:

“ Anyway... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The time has come for your planet... No! The time has come for the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to bow down to me. And for being such a big help in all of this, your planet gets to go first! Prepare to bow, Popstar! Welcome your new overlord! ”
— Magolor in Kirby's Return to Dream Land

This one actually features no colored text from the game, but the link to Popstar makes that blue, and one could think this is blue in the game, no? I mean, the emphasis on Popstar would make sense. In short, this misleads the reader.

But you may argue that in Kirby games all colored text is orange/red/yellow, so with the links being blue it's not a problem, since they will always be clearly links. Well, that is the problem: there is colored text with blue text.

New Challenge Stages challenge descriptions like Sword Challenge (New Challenge Stages):

“ Can you master the king of weapon-based Copy Abilities? ”
— Sword Challenge Caption

Pause descriptions in Kirby Super Star Ultra like Suplex:

This burns with fighting spirit! Grab foes and throw 'em! Learn all 8 throws to be a champ!

Just to name a few. So, personally, we should just get rid of links in any text like that to prevent confusion. And last but not least, another reason I don't like links in text like this is how they often use piped links. Take this one about Kracko as an example:

“ YOU...! Did you think I'd forget? The time you smashed into me with your Hi-Jump! That time I was betrayed by Helpers! Or when I was replaced by that mechanical cloud! I-I... Sniff... there's something in my eye... ”
— VS Kracko (Very Hard) Pause Screen description in the American English version of Kirby Fighters Deluxe


It feels really unprofessional to add piped links to "YOU...!", "time" and "when", and the one for "mechanical cloud" like spoils what this is about. I dunno, I never liked it for this reason as well.

To conclude all this, basically, to put it another way, my proposal is to disallow links in any text that is not authored by a wiki editor, so quotes (both from characters and developers), flavor text, official descriptions, translations of anything else that applies, and so on. Just how right now the formatting specifics says that links in section headers should be avoided, my proposal is to also write something like that in that page about quotes, flavor text etc. What do you all think? - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Agreed, I can definitely see how it can get confusing. ---PinkYoshiFan 15:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Hm...not too sure about this one. On one hand, it does make the colored text subject less confusing, but on the other hand, the links would help some people understand the context of certain quotes... --Paistrie (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Just a couple things I noted on Discord that may help clarify why I also suggested this proposal:

  • Most of the time I see links in descriptions or quotes they are repeat links or subjects linked can be linked in article text. Basically, they are almost never needed
  • In a way adding links and stuff (basically editing a text you didn't write) always felt to me like we are editing something we didn't make, which for me is wrong. That's why often if someone quotes someone and for example bolds the text, something like "emphasis mine" is added to clarify their edits to the original text

So, basically, I don't see why these links are needed, and they do more harm than good. - Gigi (talk • edits) 17:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  1. I understand what you mean here, but I still think that the links are helpful for context. When I first started reading article pages on this wiki, some of the links did help me understand what some characters meant (the "mechanical" in that Kracko quote for example). However, of course, I can only speak for myself here. Maybe, if possible, the links could be recolored? (If that's impossible, then the links could be deleted.) --Paistrie (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Adjust/Remove Proposal Rule 15 (16 November 2023 – 30 November 2023)

As can be seen dueing the time of this proposal, technically it's already being bent, but it would be good to get things straight. There is no real reason to have the "1 proposal at a time per user" rule, because, realistically, either a user with good ideas would have to wait to share them, or a productive user just simply wouldn't have a second+ idea to share. Making proposals is limited to Autopatrol+ anyway, so it's not like we have to worry about the quality and good intentions of the user making the proposal. In short, I don't think this rule is necessary. However, when brought up on Discord, there was the thought that it should still be discouraged to have more than 1 up, which would be a warning against funny business. That's where the voting comes in (for logical reasons, a vote for either of the first 2 options is still a vote in favour of changing the rule, the difference is in the extent of the change). ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 18:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Remove rule
  1. Strongly support its complete and total abolition. It is, for all intents and purposes, useless. It unnecessarily delays proceedings and discredits ideas simply because the same user proposed another one. If it really became a problem, that's what admin vetoes are for. Not that I think that'd ever happen. --YFJ (talk · edits) 18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 2: Discourage but not disallow
  1. I feel like most people would try to keep the number of proposals down to a reasonable extent anyways, but I think discouraging it would still be good. ---PinkYoshiFan 18:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 3: Keep as is (Opposed)
Neutral

Discussion

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals
Withdrawn proposals

Basic help
Getting started • Categories • Colors • Disambiguation • File uploading • Formatting • Formatting file pages • Moving pages • Protected Page • Redirects • References • Tables • Talk pages • Templates • User Navigation Bar • Userboxes
Advanced help
Advanced tables • Creating navmaps • Creating templates • Custom Signatures • HTML • Page history • Special pages • Tabs • Template documentation • Using infoboxes
Policies
Abbreviations • Article creation • Article manipulation • Audio standards • Blocking of users • Categories • Citing • Community polls • Conjecture • Cookies • Copyrights • Deletion of content • Disputes • Featured content • File use • Formatting specifics • General content • General disclaimer • Glitch disclaimer notes • Glitches • Image standards • Infoboxes and Navboxes • Interwiki • Language • Layout • Localization • Long pages • Naming • Non-Kirby content • Personal content • Privacy • Sourcing standards • Stubs • Talk pages • Trivia sections • User accounts • Videos • Writing style • Writing specifics
Useful links
About WiKirby • Affiliates • April Fools • Archive • Current events • Dedication • Discord • Featured Article Nomination • Featured Picture Nomination • Good recommendations • IPA • Maintenance (Project Clean-Up) • Proposals • Ranks (Bots • Check user • Editor-in-Chief • System Admin) • Sandbox • Social media • Special pages
KSA Parasol Waddle Dee Pause Screen Artwork.png
Retrieved from "https://wikirby.com/w/index.php?title=WiKirby:Proposals&oldid=448850"