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
Tag: Replaced
 
(421 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="position: absolute; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</span>}} __NOTOC__{{ProposalRules}}
{{#css: .firstHeading{display:none} }} __NOTOC__{{ProposalRules}}


='''Current Proposals'''=
='''Current Proposals'''=
==Autopatrol Badges on Userpage-less Members 031522—032922==
This proposal is pretty short and sweet to the point:
*'''The administration team should not create userpages for users to exclusively add the autopatrol badge.'''
I believe that users should have the choice as to whether or not they have a page representing themself, and that other users regardless of the reason should not be permitted to create these pages. I have seen at least six users get pages solely because of the autopatrol badge. All users already have a talk page, and I do not see any reason why it cannot simply be added there instead. If the lack of a user page is seen as an issue, why not request one is created while informing them on their talk page about their rank raise? This isn't inherently a ''problem'' as much as I find it to be a courteous formality. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 16:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Support}}
#Some users probably don't want a userpage, and I support the idea that they shouldn't have a blank userpage created for them by somebody else solely for a badge. Now, if they create their userpage sometime after being granted a rank, they might forget to add the badge. I'm not sure if displaying a badge is absolutely necessary. This situation could be solved by initiating a conversation, and only granting Autopatrol after the user replies back and preferably creates their userpage by request. {{User:Vipz/sig}} 22:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Oppose}}
#It is my firm belief that any user who enters any rank above Autoconfirmed should have a userpage, even if there's not much on it. I think if we're going to change policy on this, it would be to require users to create a userpage for themselves before they can be given Autopatrol, rather than making a blank page for them. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 18:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Neutral}}
===Discussion===
I can see the reasoning behind this, but shouldn't it have been brought up as an informal discussion first? This seems too minor for a proposal. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 16:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
{{clear}}
== Ease image quality standards regarding sprite-based screenshots (March 1st, 2022 - March 15th, 2022) ==
Greetings. I'd like to ask for a simple change to our current image standards regarding sprite-based screenshots. As is currently the case, only pristine-quality PNG screenshots may avoid the image quality tag. This makes sense in theory, because we want to present the best-quality images we can. However, I feel like, for screenshots at least, this is unnecessary, since we are not The Spriters Resource. As long as the image can be clearly read, I don't believe it needs to be absolutely flawless.
As such, I would like to propose that ''jpg screenshots of sprite-based games no longer be tagged with the image quality template, provided they are the correct resolution and have no significant problems''. Mind you, this does not mean the images are automatically eligible for "Good" status, simply that replacing them is no longer a priority. What say you all? --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 03:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Support}}
#I never really saw the point in controlling the extension. While jpg is lossy, it doesn't really matter if an image is lossless or lossy so long as the compression doesn't cause any issues with the quality. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 19:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
#I'm in agreement with this. It feels unnecessarily restrictive to have it this way, and this will shift the focus to [[:File:KRtDL Landia EX Battle.png|images that are ''actually'' low quality]]. -- {{User:MetaDragon/sig}} 21:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
#I don't think that JPGs should be as high up as a priority as some other things. They capture the image well, just not as perfect as PNGs. They are good enough for people to look at them, and understand what going on. Although I am new here, I still understand that everything does not need to be perfect. From looking at this website before registering, and after most of the time, I did not even notice the JPG images. --[[User:BasicPerson|BasicPerson]] ([[User talk:BasicPerson|talk]]) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Oppose}}
#For a wiki to provide high-quality information, I would prefer to have images be of high-quality. I believe that great strides have already been taken to work on getting new images and would not like to deincentivize that movement. What I could suggest is that this policy is upheld until [[WiKirby:Project Clean-Up|Project Clean-Up]]'s replacements are resolved to mostly resolved and then we re-discuss the boundaries of loosening restrictions. I would be against ever letting non-native JPG capture screenshots be marked for good, but agree that if there are a substantial minority (>5%) of these screenshots, that it may be acceptable not to use Image-quality but rather just have a maintenance list found on the PC-U. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig Jegman]] - 03:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
#Slight oppose; I would also much prefer to have PNG screenshots in general over JPG screenshots. I think it's fine if they aren't tagged with the "low quality" mark, but I do think replacing them should be a priority. Even if it's not visible at a glance, JPG screenshots do still have significant detail loss compared to PNG, and to me it'd be preferable to present sprite-based images as close to the original console as possible. [[User:StarPunch|StarPunch]] ([[User talk:StarPunch|talk]]) 00:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
#Voting this last minute after thinking for a long time, I will oppose. Sprite based game are called that because they use sprites, and you lose the quality of the sprites when they are saved as jpgs. While one may argue that is not visible many times, that is still an issue, and I do think screenshots of sprite games should be marked low quality when they are jpg files. jpg files have a whole spectrum of image quality, and I don't think that just become some look fine that they shouldn't be treated as low quality. Ultimately, if we stopped marking them as low quality, I feel we would pretend there is no issue, when in reality we do plan to replace them all with pngs in the future. So, factoring all this, opposing. {{User:Gigi/sig}} 23:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Neutral}}
#It doesn't matter much to me either way. As long as we have the JPG images on a list somewhere, it should be fine for them to not be marked low quality. It's also kinda nice to have them marked. {{User:Kirb/sig}} 16:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
===Discussion===
Just to be clear, this proposal will '''not''' apply to ripped game sprites. Those will still need to be PNG and as clean as possible. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 03:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, addressing Trig's opposition:
*This proposal does '''not''' seek to mark non-native-resolution jpg screenshots as "Good". It doesn't even seek to mark native resolution jpg screenshots as good. It merely seeks to remove the label of "low quality" from these latter screenshots.
*This proposal does '''not''' seek to "deincentivize" getting replacement screenshots for the wiki. The images I am proposing be removed from the "low quality" list may still be replaced at users' discretion with PNGs if/when they want to.
*I challenge the statement that the screenshots addressed by this proposal are not high quality. See [[:File:KSqS Gamble Galaxy Stage 1.jpg|these]] '''three''' '''images''' for examples of what I am talking about. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 15:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
To address BlazeBlade's point, it is planned for these images to still be listed on [[WiKirby:Project Clean-Up]] if this proposal passes. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 20:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
{{clear}}
='''Proposal Archive'''=
='''Proposal Archive'''=
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]}}</br>
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]</br>
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]}}</br>
[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]</br>
[[WiKirby:Proposals/Withdrawn Archive|Withdrawn proposals]]}}


{{clear}}
{{clear}}
{{Navbox-Help}}
{{Navbox-Help}}
[[Category:WiKirby]]
[[Category:WiKirby]]

Latest revision as of 00:58, 3 May 2024

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

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=473353"