|
|
Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
| |
|
| ='''Current Proposals'''= | | ='''Current Proposals'''= |
| ==Allow qualifiers in (music) redirects (Jan 25, 2024 - Feb 8, 2024)==
| |
| I will keep this concise, since de facto what I am about to suggest is already done in practice despite its status in theory.
| |
|
| |
| Per our [[WiKirby:Deletion policy#Redirects and disambiguation pages|Deletion policy]], if "[pages] are redirects containing qualifiers in parentheses", they are the deemed "suitable for deletion". This rule has been ignored in a few cases for music pages, all of which I believe have a solid reasoning:
| |
| #A theme named after a subject with an existing article's name is a partial arrangement of something else (such as "[[Secret Island (theme)]]" for "[[Fountain Gardens (theme)]]", "[[Circuit Speedway (theme)]]" for "[[Welcome to Wondaria (theme)]]".
| |
| #The case above, but an official name of the base version or a direct remix exists but is not the name of the article (applies to "[[Goal Game (theme)]]" in the context of "[[Sparkling Stars (theme)]]", and the proposal was sparked for "Cookie Country (theme)", an early official name for "[[Four Adventurers: Cookie Country]]".
| |
|
| |
| I think that if a redirect is an official title (which... it should be?), it doesn't actually matter if it has qualifiers or not. It's better to have a redirect with qualifiers than force the reader to figure it out by their own (such as guessing that "Four Adventurers" is a part of the name for Cookie Country's theme). I believe the same could be said for any case besides music as well, although I don't know any examples to go off of. In any case, I'm formalizing the discussion so we can settle it once and for all. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| {{Support}}
| |
| #Full support. I never understood why redirects with qualifiers are not allowed ever. The argument of "no one uses then" feels, really weird and makes me go "citation needed". I'm the believer that anything with an official name needs to be at least a redirect, since maybe someone will search that term and we can help them guide them. This is particularly useful for music pages, as explained, but also other cases exist (like [[Waddle Dee (novel character)]] also being named Bandana Waddle Dee). My only note is that we should clarify somewhere that we shouldn't create multiple redirects with qualifiers for the same name (ie. have stuff like "Cookie Country (theme)", "Cookie Country (music)" etc, or even things like "Kirby (character)" redirecting to Kirby). {{User:Gigi/sig}} 11:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Support. I can easily see them getting used by people who are searching for old names or remixes, and there's no real downside to having more redirects if they help the reader. Also agree with the thing Gigi mentioned about not making multiple qualifiers. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 17:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Agreed. There's always gonna be at least one person who can't find what they're looking for, so qualifiers feel like a really good thing to have. {{User:Starvoid/sig}} 03:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Support. It feels important that we help readers find whatever they need and I think allowing qualifiers will help with that. [[User:NVS Pixel|NVS Pixel]] ([[User talk:NVS Pixel|talk]]) 17:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| {{Oppose}}
| |
| #I’m not so sure about this one. I honestly can’t see many people typing in a “theme” qualifier to find a stage theme. More likely, they’d go to the stage infobox and see the theme there. Furthermore, in one case you mentioned, [[Cookie Country]] already has a redirect template to direct people to the theme. If the qualifier were actually part of the song name, that’d be another story, but that’s almost never the case. What it all boils down to is that we don’t have identifier redirects because people don’t use them, and I fail to see how music pages are any different. {{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| {{Neutral}}
| |
|
| |
| ===Discussion===
| |
| {{clear}}
| |
|
| |
| ==End deletion of permabanned users' talk pages (1\26\2024 - 2\9\2024)==
| |
| As is stands currently, talk pages of permanently blocked users [[WiKirby:Deletion policy#Talk pages|get deleted]]. However, sometimes the content on the user talk page is the reason they get permanently blocked, and even if not, they can still be a part of wiki history. As such, I'm proposing that we stop deleting talk pages of permanently blocked users (and undelete the talk pages of previously blocked users). However, since there can be cases where the talk page isn't important, there are options for only deleting them if the talk page is irrelevant to why they were blocked (e.g. they just started vandalizing pages) or only if it's empty (just the Kirbot message). In any case, kept talk pages of permanently blocked users would be protected to prevent editing, effectively archiving them. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| {{Option|1|Always keep}}
| |
| #Second choice, though I doubt there’d be much value in keeping pages with Kirbot only, everything else here is the same as option 3. {{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Second choice. While I don't see a reason to keep empty talk pages around, there's not really any harm keeping them either. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Second choice, no harm in doing so but no use in it either. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Second choice, I don't see any downside with keeping these pages. [[User:NVS Pixel|NVS Pixel]] ([[User talk:NVS Pixel|talk]]) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #This is my second choice. I'll admit that keeping any talk pages that's just the bot-generated welcome message might be clogging things a bit, but working together with others is give-and-take, after all. – [[User:Owencrazyboy17|Owencrazyboy17]] ([[User talk:Owencrazyboy17|talk]]) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #First choice. If we are going to stop deleting them, might as well keep it simpler and not delete any of them. I will admit I'm not a fan of deleting stuff so this is in part why I lean more to this. {{User:Gigi/sig}} 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #It always baffled me a little that we do this. Interaction on user talk pages are often a showcase of user's conduct, so deleting them feels like hiding evidence to me. {{User:Superbound/sig}} 15:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| {{Option|2|Only delete if irrelevant to why they were blocked}}
| |
| #Third choice. It’s somewhat subjective as to what’s relevant and what isn’t, but at least this way we keep the important parts. {{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Third choice. Reasonable if we want to be minimalistic, but everything can count, as long as the talk page isn't empty. If something exists on the talk page other than the welcome message, that is valuable by itself. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Third choice. I agree it is subjective on what is relevant and what isn't and I can see this sparking pointless debates over users who aren't here anymore. [[User:NVS Pixel|NVS Pixel]] ([[User talk:NVS Pixel|talk]]) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #This is my third choice. Other users have pointed out how it can be difficult to reasonably determine what counts as a "relevant" talk page, but I'm sure that can be sorted out on a case-by-case basis, whether on the Discord server on on other user talk pages. – [[User:Owencrazyboy17|Owencrazyboy17]] ([[User talk:Owencrazyboy17|talk]]) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| {{Option|3|Only delete if empty}}
| |
| #First choice. You know, I actually think that these pages ''should'' be kept. That way, they could be used as examples of what NOT to do (or how to respond to people) on this Wikipedia. If the pages don't have anything on them though, then they could be deleted. --[[User:Paistrie|Paistrie]] ([[User talk:Paistrie|talk]]) 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #First choice. Seems like a given to delete pages that only have the welcome template, but otherwise there could be useful content on the talk page to keep. I’d also say this should apply retroactively—that is, while we’re not required to undelete every blocked user talk page in the wiki’s history, it should remain an option. {{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #First choice. I don't really see a reason to keep the talk page around if it's empty save for the default welcome message. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #First choice, per the reasoning of others. {{User:ShadowKirby/sig}} 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #First choice. Makes the most sense and there's no reason to keep these pages if they're empty. [[User:NVS Pixel|NVS Pixel]] ([[User talk:NVS Pixel|talk]]) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #This is my first choice, for reasons already stated. If the reason a user got blocked happened solely on their talk page, for instance, and it's not there anymore...then how are people supposed to figure out from a glance what caused them to get banished to the shadow realm? On the other hand, if nothing of interest is on their talk page besides the bot-generated welcome message, then there's no harm in getting rid of it. Per all. – [[User:Owencrazyboy17|Owencrazyboy17]] ([[User talk:Owencrazyboy17|talk]]) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| #Second choice. I suppose that if we don't want to keep things super simple, this one makes the most sense, as option 2 could be a bit arbitrary in some cases, and this one is objective. {{User:Gigi/sig}} 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| {{Option|4|Keep deleting (no change)}}
| |
|
| |
| {{Neutral}}
| |
|
| |
| ===Discussion===
| |
| Would this apply retroactively or just for users blocked after the proposal passes, if it passes? {{User:Gigi/sig}} 18:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| :It's retroactive. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| {{clear}}
| |
|
| |
|
| ='''Proposal Archive'''= | | ='''Proposal Archive'''= |