WiKirby talk:Policy referendum

Place any proposals in this page under new sections. Debate will be open until 11:59:59 UTC on September 22nd, 2019! Please keep all discussion civil!

Allow anonymous users to edit unprotected pages

As it is, all users must create an account to edit pages. As Results May Vary (Talk) pointed out on the main talk page, however, it could be beneficial to the wiki to allow users to edit without an account. It may increase the risk of vandalism, yes, but this is easily reverted by a few button clicks. Oftentimes, anonymous editors are just users reading an article casually, see an error, and decide to fix it. They may not think it's worth making an account over, as they might not make any other edits to the wiki. Casual readers can very well catch errors that regular editors don't, and our current policy might be outright discouraging towards casual readers making a couple minor fixes. Plus, other major wikis such as the Super Mario Wiki and even Wikipedia seem to do just fine allowing IP edits. As RMV pointed out, we might also need to add the CAPTCHA to apply to any anonymous edits to prevent automated spam.

Overall, I think that the pros outweigh the cons and allowing IP edits would be beneficial to our wiki. What say you all? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by YoshiFlutterJump (talk • contribs) 19:23 September 8th, 2019. Please always sign your comments by typing ~~~~!

I agree. I think it will end up working well for the wiki. Vandalism can easily be reverted. Obsessive Mario Fan 21:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have spoken to tacopill on the Discord about this proposal, and while he personally does not think it's a great idea, he will not get in the way of it if you guys want this. As such, I will consider this proposal if more people on the wiki agree with it. From my perspective, I do not know what vandals might take advantage of anonymous edits, but I do know that so long as we continue to uphold the idea of not allowing userpage edits until a day and 5 edits, we will still avoid the sort of spam we used to get so much of. All in all, I do not have strong opinions on this proposal myself, so if enough of you want it, we will consider it. --Fubaka (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, it makes sense and is on most other wikis the norm. Pinkyoshifan (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've only just arrived here by warp star , but as an admin and longtime member of Nookipedia, I can say that we allow anonymous edits (even edits via mobile) and don't have very much trouble with vandals. It happens maybe a few times a month, but it's usually an easy fix. I will say that I was almost turned away from joining because I thought the human verification question was too hard. *sweatdrop* Sunmarsh (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Determine a solid naming priority policy

Believe it or not, WiKirby does not have set-in-stone naming priorities for article subjects. I'm thinking that setting a source priority order in policy would be helpful and beneficial, particularly for new editors. Here's what I have in mind:

1. In-game names. Newer names have highest priority.
2. Nintendo-published promotional material, including instruction manuals, website blurbs, and Nintendo-published strategy guides. If there are multiple names used among these sources, those that are most distinctive and commonly used take priority.
3. Any officially licensed non-Nintendo-published strategy guide. If there are multiple names used among these sources, those that are most distinctive and commonly used take priority.
4. Internal file names. Use only as a last priority, as these names tend to be either shorthands or early development names. However, these may be used as additional sources to back up names from point 3. These are also preferable to non-English names.
5. Any non-English official name, following the four above priorities as with English names.
6. Conjectural names. Use only if there is no official name of any kind to be found.

Feel free to suggest any changes to this as you see fit. -YFJ (talk · edits) 03:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have attempted to rectify this in the past, and I placed that attempt in the quality standards page. As I said before, I am looking to completely reorganize these pages to make that information easier to find and understand, so I'm not surprised you did not see it. Needless to say, I will be further tweaking the naming standard policy, so don't worry. It will happen.

That said, I'm not sure it should be a hard policy to only use newest names, since in the very newest Kirby game, we have an issue where a character was given a new name but is still referred to by the old name in a sticker, and that might cause confusion. It might be more prescient to have a policy stating that any new names are mentioned for their first appearance in the series, and then used as the main name if they reappear in the next game. Just my two cents. --Fubaka (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't use newer names in every case, and I was simply saying that the most recently used name takes priority. If two different names show up in the same game, then we use the one with the more significant and common appearance. I'm not too sure about waiting for the next appearance because that could take many years to set in place while we still use a potentially outdated name. It wouldn't be a hard policy to always use the newest names in every case, and changes like this should still be discussed, but I am simply saying that newer names are given higher consideration in these discussions.

I didn't see the naming priorities you had made before, but looking at them now I'll say that I mostly agree with it except for foreign titles coming before data titles. I dunno, I just feel that they still technically count as English names even if they're just file names within the English translation of the game, and as we are an English wiki, we should strive to use English names wherever possible. But that's just my opinion. -YFJ (talk · edits) 04:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I could be persuaded to change the order of things a little bit. I was just trying to note that internal names are not official names, and as such should not take priority over an official (if otherwise foreign) name. At the same time, readers are not likely to type in a name that they don't already know, so either way would ultimately be fine. All in all, your list is a pretty good one, and I think some leg room can be given for new names depending on how they are used.--Fubaka (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Adjust how users should write articles on the Kirby Wiki

This I see a lot on this particular wiki, but on most of the other wikis I've been on (some FANDOM ones, Super Mario Wiki, SmashWiki, etc.), everything is presented in an encyclopedic style which includes concise information to convey the point. This wiki, on the other hand, has lots of fluffy and/or flowery writing and in the most interesting of places. Now, the wiki in question is supposed to be an encyclopedia about Kirby-related things, but the flowery writing kinda makes the wiki as a whole look unprofessional. In fact, one of the help pages says that it encourages others to add their own take on flowery writing 'You didn't misread that. In fact, even recently created pages such as Up the Big 'Ol Tree also have flowery writing too. Probably thanks to the page encouraging others to do it. Not just that, but I have been reminded at least twice for trying to reduce the fluffiness in the past. This should be changed.

Here's some terms and specific details that should help make the Kirby Wiki a bit more like a professional encyclopedia. I've borrowed them from the Super Mario Wiki, as shown on this specific article:

1. Summaries that aren't – Story sections on articles should just cover a summary of the plot; specific details can be saved for other articles.
2. Pseudo-walkthroughs – If a game doesn't have a complex plot, the Story section should be short.
3. Padding – Short articles and/or sections aren't bad if there's not much to talk about.
4. Everything but the kitchen sink – Padding on steroids. Basically, don't fill articles with descriptions of things that are only superficially similar to what the page is about.
5. Captain Obvious – Don't explain something if the name already specifies what it is.
6. Flowery writing – Overly fancy writing is kinda painful to read.
7. Epic writing – Over-the-top writing also makes things painful to read.
8. Grimdark – Don't blow specific content out of proportion.
9. Reading between the lines – No speculation.
10. Fan worship – Character pages shouldn't have huge paragraphs or excessive details.
11. Fusing gameplay and story elements – Don't treat gameplay mechanics as if they were part of the story.

So, what do you think? Should we go with these terms or should we use some of them? If there's some disagreement about this or if someone wants to suggest how this proposal could be improved, let me know. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I am in the process of writing the new policy pages as we speak, and I understand the concern about fluffy writing. As I've said though, I want to encourage it in moderation. One of the other key things I have in the new policy however is brevity and clarity. As such, pretty much all of the points you've put forward here are expressed in different wording in the new policy. I just want to give people the option to have a little fun on the side while they write. If you think there's anything on the pages that is too cheesy, feel free to change the wording, but don't just delete stuff because you don't like how it's written. --Fubaka (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've only just arrived here on the scene, so I don't feel it's my place to offer an opinion on this one way or the other, but I agree that my recent edits do not have an encyclopedic tone, and are perhaps a step beyond even the allowances in the current Quality Standards. Really I was just having fun with it and wanted the readers (and players) to enjoy the content. The game has an endearing charm to it and that's what I was trying to impart to the page. I will say that I agree with all of the points listed above, and while I wouldn't consider the writing I've done 'flowery', it is childish and bit naïve. I do intend to make a few more pages, and can tone it down a bit, although it will make things admittedly less fun to write. ;P (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As a further note, I also make it clear in the new policy that WiKirby is beginner-friendly. As a result, the "professionalism" of the wiki is naturally going to suffer somewhat. I want new editors to feel safe editing here without the fear that someone is breathing down their neck with a ruler and an abacus. More professional writers are here to guide and teach, rather than punish. The encouragement of flowery writing in moderation is a way to let other editors know that we won't be handing out Fs unless they obviously aren't trying. --Fubaka (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I heavily oppose encouraging flowery writing. I makes article downright harder to read and get information out of. If someone writes flowery, then it should be rewritten. We can make the site beginner friendly by explaining calmly (And not in a condescending way) how to improve their writing, while also giving exhaustive guides. Plus, we can even be very lenient when it comes with warnings if we want to, I just don't want to sacrifice quality for easy accessibility. Doomhiker (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Combined with the qualifier "in moderation" and the focus on brevity and clarity, I think it will be fine. I have more specific instructions lain out in the new policy, and I will hear and address any issues that may result from the policy, as I have done up to this point. The wiki will not become a fluffy mess on my watch. --Fubaka (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, that's good. I don't want to come off as rude, especially since I just joined this site, it's just that one of the main problems with a lot of wikis is fluff. Doomhiker (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I also dislike flowery writing and I try and make my best effort to not add flowery words. On the other hand however, I cannot help but think the Kirby series and dialogue is flowery, and a wiki with such writing would acknowledge that from the series. Results May Vary (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A wiki doesn't need to represent how a series is written, though. Doomhiker (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's true, it doesn't need to, but it's what I want. That said, the series does take itself a lot more seriously than most give it credit for, and so shall we. --Fubaka (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Allow the usage of (verified) content gained through illegitimate means

The idea is simple. The wiki shouldn't outright hide content that is valid just because it was gained illegally. We can still document without condoning it. Doomhiker (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

While we have little way to verify what information is obtained illegally and what is not, the policy going forward stipulates that users should not knowingly upload illegal content. In order to keep the wiki safe, I cannot in good consciousness approve a policy that allows for otherwise. --Fubaka (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I should also stipulate that I do not consider datamining to be illegal if the miner obtained the game legitimately. --Fubaka (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify a bit. ROMs and the like definitely should be banned. It is more the "does not allow coverage of details on unreleased content" part that I think needs to be changed. If unreleased content was found, we should cover any information we have, as long as we obviously do not condone or link to it. If Kirby had a Star Fox 2 (Before being officially released) then how would we cover specific nuances found through a leaked rom? We wouldn't need to even state it came from a rom, or link to it. Also, I do agree with you on datamining. Doomhiker (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. When I said unreleased, I meant games that are coming out in the future, not games that were cancelled. I should probably be more specific about that in the new policy as well. --Fubaka (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok then. I agree that future games that are illegally gained should not be covered until they are released, and thus can be covered, legally. Doomhiker (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)