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
Line 28: Line 28:
{{Support}}
{{Support}}
#I personally find this to be quite a good solution. The current category ''is'' confusing, and I find that this would be a really good step in a more ''easily navigable'' direction. {{User:Astigmautism/sig}} 20:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
#I personally find this to be quite a good solution. The current category ''is'' confusing, and I find that this would be a really good step in a more ''easily navigable'' direction. {{User:Astigmautism/sig}} 20:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
# I can't think of any better names for the categories besides attempting to put the "Ability" part first so that the subcategories are innately alphabetized, but I think providing simple clarity to something as essential to Kirby as getting Abilities from swallowing enemies and projectiles is a no-brainer. The proposed distinction between projectile and creature is also currently the only split we have to account for in terms of enemies, but leaves wiggle room to add more subcategories in the future if we ever encounter a third thing that Kirby can swallow that gives an Ability that isn't the enemy or a projectile it spits out. [[User:LeoUnlimited|LeoUnlimited]] ([[User talk:LeoUnlimited|talk]]) 20:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
{{Oppose}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
{{Neutral}}

Revision as of 20:45, 13 March 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

Better represent how abilities can be gained from entities via categories (March 13th, 2023 - March 27th, 2023)

Recent edits to add sub-categories of the big Creatures by ability yielded main category to basically every single entity that can give the ability in any form (either being inhaled by Kirby for enemies and mid-bosses, or for their attacks giving abilities) have caught my attention because it makes it confusing for readers to know what is going on for an enemy. And if you go to a category like the Bomb one, it has a list of all kinds of entities, from games to even anime, that make it hard to understand. For example, Vividria is there, but you can get Bomb from her projectiles, not from inhaling her, so it could mislead a reader to think that if you swallow Vividria you can get Bomb. While in article text you can very easily add a note that, for example, you can only get Bomb from one of Vividria's attacks, that is not possible with categories. Thus, my proposal is to split the ability-yielding categories into two, like this:

  • Creatures that yield [Ability] when swallowed -> this creature gives the given ability when swallowed by Kirby
  • Creatures that yield [Ability] from projectiles -> this creature gives the given ability from one of their attacks or weapons, not by being swallowed by Kirby

These names are of course subject to change (feel free to give suggestions), I would just prefer to give direct names to these categories, because from discussion about this on Discord, I noticed some people interpret "[Ability]-yielding creatures" as being from inhaled enemies already, while some see a more generic meaning to it, as in that Kirby can get the ability from the boss in some form. Now, if this proposal passes, I also think it makes sense to actually make the following category tree changes:

  • Creatures by ability yielded -> Creatures by ability yielded when swallowed -> Creatures that yield [Ability] when swallowed
  • Creatures by ability yielded -> Creatures by ability yielded from projectiles -> Creatures that yield [Ability] from projectiles

And...

  • Creatures by ability yielded -> Creatures that yield [Ability] -> Creatures that yield [Ability] when swallowed
  • Creatures by ability yielded -> Creatures that yield [Ability] -> Creatures that yield [Ability] from projectiles

So, basically, Category:Creatures by ability yielded would have the sub-categories Category:Creatures by ability yielded when swallowed and Category:Creatures by ability yielded from projectiles, as well as sub-categories Creatures that yield [Ability] for each ability. Then each Creatures that yield [Ability] when swallowed and Creatures that yield [Ability] from projectiles would have either Category:Creatures by ability yielded when swallowed or Category:Creatures by ability yielded from projectiles as a parent category, as well as the Creatures that yield [Ability] for the respective ability.

...If this all sounds confusing, two examples: the Creatures that yield Fire when swallowed category would be a sub-category of both Creatures by ability yielded when swallowed and Creatures that yield Fire, while the Creatures that yield Plasma from projectiles category would be a sub-category of both Creatures by ability yielded from projectiles and Creatures that yield Plasma.

Of course, only the "Creatures by ability yielded when swallowed" category would have an ability-neutral sub-category, as I think it would be pretty weird to note projectiles that do not give abilities with a category. And of course, if there are abilities which have no projectiles that give them (such as Ranger), we don't need to make categories for them. And finally, the "Creatures that yield [Ability] when swallowed" and the "Creatures that yield [Ability] from projectiles" categories would then be allowed to be assigned to articles, not the "Creatures that yield [Ability]" categories.

So, what you do all think? If this passes, I know we will have a lot of work to reorganize the categories, but I am willing to do it. - Gigi (talk • edits) 19:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. I personally find this to be quite a good solution. The current category is confusing, and I find that this would be a really good step in a more easily navigable direction. -Amari!! :3 20:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. I can't think of any better names for the categories besides attempting to put the "Ability" part first so that the subcategories are innately alphabetized, but I think providing simple clarity to something as essential to Kirby as getting Abilities from swallowing enemies and projectiles is a no-brainer. The proposed distinction between projectile and creature is also currently the only split we have to account for in terms of enemies, but leaves wiggle room to add more subcategories in the future if we ever encounter a third thing that Kirby can swallow that gives an Ability that isn't the enemy or a projectile it spits out. LeoUnlimited (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral

Discussion

Dream Friends pages' colored titles, revisited (March 4th, 2023 - March 18th, 2023)

Two years ago, a proposal was made to give featured Dream Friends articles a special treatment by making their page titles colored. The reasoning for that was, that important characters deserve having their pages be unique and that it would be a nice, little detail. However, there are few problems as of currently.

First, the proposal only affected Dream Friends, who at the time were basically synonymous with "major character". But then the next game came along with Elfilin. Under what was established in the proposal, his article can't get a special color, solely because he had the unluck to debut in a game after Kirby Star Allies. And the Kirby series will still continue, and more characters will appear... It was not future-proof.

Second, the inconsistency. I don't believe that featured articles should be divided into better and worse just because they happen to cover a certain topic, and colored titles make that division. In addition, a lot people are confused on why some pages get that treatment and some don't--that's certainly not helpful either.

So, my solutions are:

  • Option 1: Give every Featured page special color (that would be my preferred)
  • Option 2: Make every Featured page white (opposite of Option 1)
  • Option 3: Revert to how it was before the 2021 proposal (Kirby had pink title font, everything else white)
  • Option 4: Give special color to every major character, not just Dream Friends (if the first issue is a concern but not the second)
  • Option 5: Do nothing (it's fine as it is)

Superbound (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Give every Featured page special color
  1. At this point it just makes sense to give colors to featured articles as we wish. We could perhaps try to find some sort of rules but ultimately I think we can do our own call. And we can keep some others as white anyway when there is no color to represent the article really. - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per the reasons given. My second choice would be Option 4, but I don't really think that exclusively characters should get this treatment. This would most likely leave out Ability pages, like Beam, and having that be orange-colored would be neat. Now, this do would leave out music and game pages, and while I kinda see why one would want that, having them colored would look good. There are games that kinda follow a color motif: Kirby's Return to Dream Land could have its title blue, while Kirby Battle Royale could have its in orange, for example. And as Gigi said, if giving some color to a page ends up being in some mess, we can just choose to keep that one white and that's it, we don't need to set in stone to have absolutely every featured page colored, but also it would be good to have the option to color some non-character page if it seems good. -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 08:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Option 2: Make every Featured page white
  1. Since applying the special font to all Dream Friends without them all being featured is apparently unfeasible, I'm going with this as I'd rather keep things consistent. Giving every featured page colours would inevitably make determining colour hard in some cases and would look arbitrary to anyone not familiar with it, and giving all major characters colours is similarly a bad idea because if we aren't using the objective definition of "Dream Friends + Elfilin" (which I agree isn't future-proof), then there'll be difficulty determining which characters do and don't count as major. I'm also not voting for the third option as if we aren't doing this for any other character then I don't see a reason for Kirby to get special treatment - an all or nothing approach would be better for the sake of consistency. Hewer (talk · contributions) 21:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. After thinking it over, I think this will be my choice. I'm not the biggest fan of how the special colors turned out and I don't like the inconsistency. I think it would look cleaner to just keep the title font with no special color for featured pages. StarPunch (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. I would be fine with any of the first three options, just because we should be consistent. If consistency means giving everyone special colors or nobody special colors (except possibly for the namesake of the entire series) that would be ok, although I slightly favor no colors since choosing colors for every featured article could get tricky. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Option 3: Revert to how it was before the 2021 proposal
  1. "I want to emphasize that this creates an even larger inconsistency amongst page design and it's one that I would drastically prefer to not exist"—Jegman 2021. It looked terrible from the moment it was implemented and should never have gone forward to begin with. Revert pre-2021. Trig Jegman - 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Option 4: Give special color to every major character, not just Dream Friends
  1. I like this option. The colors truly characterize them, I feel that they make the articles feel more alive. As said above, some characters are too recent to have enough significant appearances, but it would feel fair if all relevant enough protagonists (maybe antagonists) had their own color. Colorless is just a bit bland, and coloring all featured pages would require some thought and become almost entirely subjective in a matter of seconds... ShadowKirby (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. I also like this option; it gives the relevant articles a little bit of flair (e.g., having Elfilin have blue text would signify that he is a major character in the series). We may need to define what a "significant character" is, however, so there is some consistency in when this is applied (both now and in the future). As noted above, colouring every featured page would likely be quite burdensome. Buildz17 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. It always confused me with the special titles for certain Dream Friends but not all of them, not to mention that characters from side games don't even get a chance at all. By having major characters with special colors, it helps to differentiate them from other character pages while also keeping in theme. Also, this option would help with consistency, without having to go through every single featured page. All in all, I just think it's an execellent idea without being too much work. GoldenDragonLeaf (talk · edits) 05:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  4. It shouldn't be a big hassle to put together a definitive 'major character' list, games-wise (we still have anime characters), as they come. Giving color to all articles would be an overkill and create an inconsistent mess, while no color would deprive the wiki of its creative and fun character. Focusing just on Dream Friends is KSA-centric. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 11:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  5. I'd really like if this happens, as this would further show the importance of certain characters, especially major antagonists and final bosses like Hyness and Void Termina, although I don't know if this would be applied to EX versions with their own pages too. - RHVGamer (talk · edits) 21:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  6. Since only featured articles get the special title font, this prevents the scope of 'characters sufficiently major enough to get coloured titles' from becoming too insane, and I suspect a process can be navigated much more easily for deciding title colours for character articles compared to articles in greater generality. —willidleaway [talk | edits] 04:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  7. I like this idea a lot!! Kirby will continue to exist through a variety of media and have characters that are noteworthy exist outside of just mainline games, and I believe that giving others a bit more of a chance to be recognized as such while also allowing for future characters to be introduced and given the same treatment is a better option than resorting to reverting everything. Also, I just find nice to have recurring characters use a special font. It's redundant, but it does give them a lot of character.-Amari!! :3 20:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Option 5: Do nothing

Discussion

Personally I like the idea of the title colours for the unique extra flair they provide, but the part that bothers me most is that only featured articles can get this treatment. Given that these colours are based entirely on the subjects of the articles, I don't think featured status should make a difference at all, and yet Marx, Gooey, Ribbon, and all three Mage-Sisters are excluded by this requirement. The title colour isn't even applied consistently among articles that are featured since it's missing from Rick, Kine, and Coo for some reason. So my ideal solution would be to just consistently apply these title colours to all Dream Friends (as well as Elfilin by the logic I explained here) regardless of featured status. Hewer (talk · contributions) 15:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason why only featured articles get this treatment is simply because they are the only articles that use the special title font. - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that the Dream Friend articles (and Elfilin) be an exception to that if we continue to use special colours, because I think it's too inconsistent and doesn't make much sense to restrict a distinction with no relation to article quality (or at least one that really should have no relation to article quality since it only concerns the article's subject) to featured articles. Hewer (talk · contributions) 18:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Then that would have to be a separate proposal because, as of right now, the title font is only applied to featured articles, and we cannot just use it for other articles to have colored titles. Plus, the argument that was made in the original proposal is that all Dream Friend pages should eventually be featured, which I don't disagree with. - Gigi (talk • edits) 20:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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=411777"