WiKirby

WiKirby:Proposals

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

Remove userlang templates for localized names (February 4th, 2022 - February 18th, 2022)

This refers to the entire remainder of Category:Personal settings templates. The only way to enjoy localized British game names is to choose the language in the Preferences, but with removal of spelling templates, for a signed-in British reader there is less reason to do so. On the editor part, same reasoning can be used as in the last proposal: confusing for casual editors, more difficult to handle even for seasoned editors, plus incompatible with {{Aboutfile}}. My stance on this matter is to either fully support British English, or not at all, and we're presently in an awkward halfway house situation. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 17:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. "If there was a way to implement this site-wide without templates then it would probably be a good thing. However, trying to manually get every instance of the word in any and every given page is too much, especially when new users usually have no idea that they exist, and when it's ultimately English both ways, there doesn't seem to be enough benefit to outweigh that."- My vote on the other proposal. Replace word with game name, and it's applicable here too. ---PinkYoshiFan 17:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support on this. I brought this up in the original proposal that did away with the other userlang templates, and since that passed, these should go as well for consistency. --Samwell (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral

Discussion

Remove non-userlang game abbreviation templates 013122–021422

These things here:

  • Template:K64
  • Template:KCC
  • Template:KDL3
  • Template:KEEY
  • Template:KPL
  • Template:KSS
  • Template:KSSU

We don't need em. They can't be effectively used on file pages anymore due to the rise of Aboutfile 2.0, and do not serve significant widespread purpose in main articles, given that they automatically make a link. Since they do not serve as a language switch like some of their counterparts (I.E. Template:KAv KGT), there is no practical use to keeping these around. While the wiki may be jovial in nature, we should not necessarily allow unprofessional shorthand through these templates still be the norm. Should this proposal pass, all instances of the above templates is replaced with a manual link (or replaced with just the written text, unlinked, if necessary) instead, and the templates are deleted.

Ciao. Trig Jegman - 05:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Support
  1. They are a handy shortcut for some, and unecessary for others. I think it's worth cutting down unecessary template transclusion for stuff that can be typed out or copy-pasted. ⁠–⁠Wiz (talk · edits) 06:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. I. genuinely didn't knew these existed until now haha. And I think it's enough to say they're really not neccessary, especially since typing the full game name is enough to get the aboutfile template to categorize files. | Halcyan (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  3. They're not needed, can result in linking to the same page over and over and over, and some are unused. Support. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  4. I also agree on how unnecessary they are in the long run. Definite support. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I think it would be a better idea to, rather than delete these, just make a set of shorthand templates that account for every game, a la Nookipedia's game name templates. That would save space in the long run, and also make things a lot easier if we keep the game userlang templates, since you'd just type {{KRtDL KAW}} rather than [[Kirby's Return to Dream Land|{{KRtDL KAW}}]]. StarPunch (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I personally don't see harm on these staying, and sometimes lazy me likes to just type {{KSSU}} instead of the whole manual thing. But then, I suppose that saves only some seconds of my time, and they are not exactly needed, so I dunno. But I will be fine with whatever the community decides for this one, honestly. - Gigi (talk • edits) 17:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. For me, this could go two ways. If in the long run we decide to keep the userlang game name changer templates, then not only would I want these to stay, but I would want to expand the range of templates to cover every major game in the series that we use abbreviations for. If on the other hand we eventually decide to remove the name changer templates, then it wouldn't make sense to keep these around either. I think we should have a more holistic discussion on this front, and decide first if we want to keep the name changer templates. --Samwell (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I am going to add a list of how many and which pages uses these templates, because in that way we can see more easily what would be the effect of this proposal if passed, plus adding links to the templates themselves because why not:

  • {{K64}} 13 Uses - 5 of them are File pages, 1 is a Disambiguation: 7 Mainspace ones
  • {{KCC}} 0 Uses ._.
  • {{KDL3}} 3 Uses - 1 of them is an User sub-page: 2 Mainspace ones.
  • {{KEEY}} 82 Uses - 1 of them is a File page, 1 is an Archive page, 8 are Categories, 2 are Templates, 1 is a Disambiguation: 69 Mainspace ones. Also linked to and used as an example of a "basic template" in Help:Creating templates.
  • {{KPL}} 0 too :T no, not "zero-two"
  • {{KSS}} Hahan't
  • {{KSSU}} 122 Uses - 51 of them are File pages, 1 is a File Talk, 1 is an Archive page, 8 are Categories (again), 1 is a Help page, 3 are Disambiguations: 57 Mainspace ones.

220 Uses in total plus one link, 135 in Mainspace. 3 of the 7 templates are completely unused, and 2 have very little usage, basically with 2 being actually and properly used.
If this passes, then 221 edits would be made, and it would affect 135 main pages.
If my count is wrong, I missed something and/or there is a better way to link or format something of this, feel free to directly edit my comment to make the correction(s). -Kirbeat (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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
 
Retrieved from "https://wikirby.com/w/index.php?title=WiKirby:Proposals&oldid=308219"