Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.

WiKirby:Proposals

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search
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

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 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:

  1. 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)".
  2. 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. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Support
  1. 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). - Gigi (talk • edits) 11:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. 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. ---PinkYoshiFan 17:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. 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. ~☆Starvoid⁠☆ (t · c) 03:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. 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. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Neutral

Discussion

End deletion of permabanned users' talk pages (1\26\2024 - 2\9\2024)

As is stands currently, talk pages of permanently blocked users 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. ---PinkYoshiFan 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Option 1: Always keep
  1. 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. -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. While I don't see a reason to keep empty talk pages around, there's not really any harm keeping them either. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Second choice, no harm in doing so but no use in it either. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Second choice, I don't see any downside with keeping these pages. NVS Pixel (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 2: Only delete if irrelevant to why they were blocked
  1. 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. -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. 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. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. 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. NVS Pixel (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 3: Only delete if empty
  1. 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 they don't have anything on them though, then it could be deleted, though. --Paistrie (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. 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. -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. 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. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. First choice, per the reasoning of others. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. First choice. Makes the most sense and there's no reason to keep these pages if they're empty. NVS Pixel (talk) 16:56, 2 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? - Gigi (talk • edits) 18:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's retroactive. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:28, 26 January 2024 (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=461662"