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
Line 4: Line 4:


='''Current Proposals'''=
='''Current Proposals'''=
<!--''None at this time.''-->
''None at this time.''
==Files with Template:Link needed should be ineligible for Good status (112821–121221)==
Currently as set in the [[WiKirby:Featured content policy]], the parameters for a Good image are the following conditions:
*a high quality image with no significant aberrations OR a high-quality audio file with no significant distortion.
*sound of format (no improvement notice templates are present).
*has complete documentation with source (where applicable).
*properly licensed.
*properly categorized.
*used in at least one article.
While <nowiki>{{Link needed}}</nowiki> primarily focuses on files that do not have links to listed source files. This proposal sets to claim that any file that uses Link needed is ineligible for Good status, and any files currently utilizing sourced but unlinked files immediately enter into the revoke good process. The reason is primarily in the following terms:
*sound of format (no improvement notice templates are present).
*has complete documentation with source (where applicable).
*properly licensed.
Licensing is the least likely, but there is a very rare chance a linked file may NOT be used without permission or that it is released under an alternate license that is incorrectly registered on this site. The larger two issues revolve around sound of format; That the file has no notice templates whereas Link needed qualifies as a notice template, and Complete documentation with source. Because there is not a link to the source so that readers may track to the original source, it would stand to say that this does not qualify as complete documentation, and should therefore fail Good qualifications.
<br>
An alternate way to describe this scenario is that an ordinary "Good" file has no more reasonable edits to make on it while on-site. This is not the case for Link needed files, as they should feature links to the sources which would require an edit to correct.
 
Thank you for your time. <small>[[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 05:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
 
===Discussion===
Just out of curiosity, how would this proposal affect images whose sources cannot be directly linked to, such as a press kit release? --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 11:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
:I am not 100% clear how those are formatted. If there aren't direct links available or they aren't say legal to share elsewhere, then press kit should just be listed as the source and Link needed template should just be removed. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 17:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
::In that case, I'm not entirely sure what the key change you want to make is, aside from using the link needed template in place of the file source template. As far as I was concerned, both templates cover the same ground. Only reason any file with the file source template on it might still be listed as Good would be because we hadn't gotten around to revoking it yet. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 21:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Well, the difference is that while something that would have used File source has ''no'' listed source, a Link needed file ''has'' a listed source--just not with a link to it. Some may justify that with a listed source but no link, that a source is complete. I serve to argue that it is not. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 21:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
::::Yeah, file source is meant to cover situations like that. Might reword existing policy to make that clearer, but it sounds like a proposal isn't needed for this. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 22:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
::For clarity's sake, files without listed sources, those that would use File source or with empty source parameters in Aboutfile 2 are already ineligible for good. The fork from File source template into no listed source in Aboufile or link needed template complicated this however, because instead of a general "Help needed" template, I split them into two specific categories of no link and link needed did not fully specify how the conditions of Good would work. This sets to resolve that. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 14:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Do files have to go through {{t|Revoke Good}}, because neither policies nor the template mentions files? I agree with Samwell here, this is ''de-facto'' already in practice but should be clarified on the policy page, including exceptions (e.g. [[:File:Nintendo Power V68 Super Power Club.png|non-own book scans]] from an unimportant imageboard I don't want to link). {{User:Vipz/sig}} 22:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 
(Separate from current discussion) Wouldn't link needed already cause files to be not good due to the no improvement notice templates condition? {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
::Yes, it does. This redundancy is further reason I would like to make it absolutely clear this qualifies. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 17:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:::So what's the point of making link needed make files ineligible for good if it already effectively does that? {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 22:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
{{clear}}


='''Proposal Archive'''=
='''Proposal Archive'''=

Revision as of 18:28, 4 December 2021


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

None at this time.

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed 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=269735"