MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Wednesday, November 20th, 07:59 GMT

Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. Voting periods last for two weeks. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options. For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
2. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
5. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
6. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
   • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
7. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
13. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
14. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
15. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first six days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
16. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
17. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
18. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
19. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

---

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as for proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by the additional rules below:
3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
4. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Expand and rename List of characters by game (discuss) Deadline: November 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Use Reclusa's in-game art for his infobox image (discuss) Deadline: December 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)

Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)

Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)

Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)

Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)

Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)

^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)

Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove external links to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and/or Triforce Wiki

Early this year, a proposal was passed to add external links to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki by 10-0; the intent was to add two links to two independently hosted wikis as Zelda Wiki at the time was hosted on Fandom.

Fortunately for us, this is no longer the case. Zeldapedia is now independently hosted and doing well. I think while Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki have served their purpose and are great resources for Zelda content, it would be embarassing (as a NIWA wiki) to continue using these wikis when it was originally intended to supplement a Fandom wiki that has since forked its content to become independently hosted once again.

Edit: After giving some thoughts, I've decided to allow users to either remove ZD Wiki or Triforce Wiki or remove them both.

Proposer: PanchamBro (talk)
Deadline: October 27, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 4, 2022 23:59 GMT Extended to November 11, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 18, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Remove both

1. PanchamBro (talk) Per my reasons.
2. SmokedChili (talk) Per proposal.
3. Mustard Machine (talk) Per proposal.
4. RealStuffMister (talk) Per proposal

Do nothing

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Disregarding my personal ties to Triforce Wiki, I'd actually support (and even prefer) allowing more specifically approved outside-NIWA indy wikis of Nintendo subjects to be included, if only for variety's sake. (Also, I am very happy for ZeldaWiki!)
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Agreed. Disregarding the biases involved with Triforce Wiki's approach being modeled after this wiki's, I think it's more in our interest to keep the line drawn at non-NIWA wikis that cross into Mario franchise coverage. I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a time when the Sonic News Network links were in question due to the Sonic Retro wiki, but it was decided to keep both because while the former isn't independent, it's more mature as a wiki? For our purposes, the relevant content is mature enough. Cutting off options does a disservice to readers.
3. Scrooge200 (talk) Having both of these links assists readers; if they find that one wiki doesn't have enough information, they can go to the other. Again, I'm admitting my bias, but I think having no links would hurt more than help.
4. Hewer (talk) Per all.

#Wikiboy10 (talk) - per Doc

Comments

Here's the thing, I'm more in favor of just removing Triforce Wiki. Zelda Dungeon Wiki, I feel, should still be kept for the reasons Doc has said. However, I'm more in favor of removing Triforce Wiki because the owner has had disturbing history on many NIWA wikis. Wikiboy10 (talk) 09:53, October 20, 2022 (EDT)

I tried my best to not mention it, but yeah the history of Triforce Wiki had been concerning for many. If people want to keep ZD Wiki and remove Triforce Wiki, I'd be happy to add it as an option. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 10:03, October 20, 2022 (EDT)

I'm going to let Doc touch on this since I don't know as much - being that I had never been in Discord - but know the bottom line is that the founder is no longer actively involved and I disbelieve that one's personal actions taints a whole. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:25, October 20, 2022 (EDT)

Um... TriForce Wiki was always my little pet project. RMV even said as much himself. Technically the domain is now hosted by grifkuba, I've banned RMV for his - quite frankly dangerous - behavior, and I am the de facto proprietor now - I've just been inactive due to being busy on this site. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:34, October 20, 2022 (EDT)

Disregarding the problematic history with Triforce Wiki (and thank god he's no longer involved), I have some issues with your argument @LinkTheLefty.

"I think it's more in our interest to keep the line drawn at non-NIWA wikis that cross into Mario franchise coverage. [...] Cutting off options does a disservice to readers."

I'm not sure if this is a great argument. We already have issues with Smash coverage here, and at the moment they aren't linking to any other Smash wiki than SmashWiki. I might be getting into slippery slope territory by saying this, but I don't want an instance where we decide that if we provide enough coverage to a franchise, we should link to every wiki that covers that franchise. Relatively speaking, I don't want this wiki to start linking to https://animalcrossing.fandom.com (which is unlikely, but still). I don't think Zeldapedia minds about linking to other Zelda wikis, but I don't want this to set a precedent that quite frankly should be avoided. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 11:08, October 20, 2022 (EDT)

I was going to mention Smash before, but I thought that example was already implicitly inapplicable given the franchise's special scope in wiki coverage (for the time being or not), so I didn't bother. Your Fandom example isn't applicable either, per this proposal. Furthermore - and I'm aware this wasn't your intention when you made this but I want this to be clear - associating Triforce Wiki with one person/incident it has largely moved away from is REALLY unfair to Doc, who has been open about it being a pet project of hers and earned the title of current proprietor of the wiki, which is now hosted by Grifkuba among other NIWA wikis. That's all I really want to say about this matter. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:54, October 20, 2022 (EDT)

I think I'm going to wait a bit before weighing in with a vote. For now, I think it's best if we at least replace all links to the ZeldaWiki hosted by FANDOM with links to the new independent Zeldapedia, if that hasn't been done already.
I'm also happy that they finally went independent again, like how they used to. It kinda stuck like a sore thumb to have this one NIWA wiki to be hosted by Gamepedia/FANDOM when all the other NIWA wikis are independent.
On a side note though, I think it's funny that the new independent wiki is called "Zeldapedia", considering there was previously a Zeldapedia hosted by FANDOM before they were assimilated by ZeldaWiki on FANDOM. rend (talk) (edits) 11:05, October 22, 2022 (EDT)

Just to let you know, it's already replaced; the interwiki links now point to Zeldapedia instead of Zelda Wiki. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 14:26, October 22, 2022 (EDT)

@Scrooge200 If one wiki doesn't have enough info compared to the other, there's nothing to stop anyone from fixing this. But if all wikis update themselves so that they share the same info, what's the point in linking to anything other than the associate wiki if there's no difference? That would be redundant. SmokedChili (talk) 11:35, November 13, 2022 (EST)

Except there are noticeable organizational, presentation, and policy differences between the wikis that by and large make them fundamentally incompatible with each other, not the least of which would be the alternate perspectives on Dark Horse coverage. (And, biased side note, there -is- justifiable cause for skeptical voices to exist, especially considering Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia made everyone here more aware of their practices of fandom plagiarism - Zelda Encyclopedia is frankly a bigger beast than the Mario equivalent that might just need something along the lines of a Google Doc to properly document the localization's sheer, uncredited wiki-tracing, and Zeldapedia and Triforce Wiki particularly take opposing, hardline stances on it, as Zelda Wiki had made clear. While I'm at it, I think it's fair to be open with the fact that the opposition isn't the only side with a bias.). For this reason among others, you can have superficial similarities on a casual level, but editors could not be allowed to write much of the same material due to their fundamentally different philosophies. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:02, November 13, 2022 (EST)

Like that would stop wikis from basing their content on the same sources and tiptoeing around the imcompatibilites; if the information a reader can recieve from all of them is the same despite the organization etc., all you'd have is equal presentations in different stules. That's exactly why it would be redundant. Also, the more I look into Zelda Encyclopedia issue the more convinced I get that it's from assuming Dark Horse can't be trusted just because of their work on Mario Encyclopedia, and that Doc threw a temper tantrum and inferred (read: took a wild guess) that the names ZE used are Zelda Wiki originals because of how many uncited ones matching with the book couldn't be a coincidence. By the same logic, it can't be a coincidence either that names on Zelda Wiki for, say, Twilight Princess stuff match with the Prima guide, so surely they must come from the Prima guide. ZE has its faults but I don't see plagiarism as one of them, and I rather trust the editor Patrick Thorpe's word about the translation process on this. SmokedChili (talk) 11:19, November 16, 2022 (EST)

I've read Zelda Wiki for a long time and own all of DH's Goddess Trilogy. I have also extensively played every main TLoZ game except the not-too-accessible Four Swords Adventures. I know fully well what I'm talking about, trust me. A lot of their information contradicts in-game naming. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:55, November 16, 2022 (EST)

Rest assured, I am aware of that video, SmokedChili. For one thing, it's not very convincing when you factor that the creator had to skirt the issue because their knowledge of localization was self-admittedly minimal. Second, in it, it's hard to take his word on it when the topic of wiki plagiarism wasn't even brought up in what's shown of the interview. It's known enough that Dark Horse had wiki plagiarism issues that by their next video game encyclopedia, Sonic Encyclo-speed-ia, they specially made sure to credit both Sonic wikis to minimize blowback. For reference, I own physical Japanese editions of Hyrule Historia, Hyrule Graphics, Hyrule Encyclopedia, and Master Works, and I've personally analysed the much simpler Hyrule Graphics and had to put Hyrule Encyclopedia on the backburner due to its scope (I'm eyeing basically the entire book for a comparison project except the archives section, which is approximately 2/3 of it). I could give tons of examples laying around in how categorization, names, and even wording were lifted to far greater degree than Mario Encyclopedia, but I don't want to veer too off-topic. So, no, I have to say that I severely doubt you have the "research" on your side. But as I said, that's not the least of it. How about their weird syntax rules, including how their "canon" policy overdoes it and hinders sensible navigation? How about how citations are needlessly overwritten and oddly selective on what counts as a "name" ("Odolwa's Insect Minions" being can easy example that anyone using Internet Archive can debunk, with "insect minions" originally being an obvious descriptor for both his moths and scarab beetles, and in fact another official English guide uses an individual term much more appropriate and closer to the Japanese text, which in no way refers to Odolwa unlike what the wiki with its misplaced defense of Encyclopedia would have you believe)? Etc. I could go on. Again, I've been admitting that I have my biases, but it doesn't come from a position of ignorance. Bottom line, all three wikis have different tastes in mind from the top-down and a random editor wouldn't be able to enact the bottom-up changes needed to make them nearly identical. That's partly why a third option came into existence in the first place. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:17, November 16, 2022 (EST)

I wasn't talking about no video, I meant this article where Thorpe discusses his work. Practically rushing the job between translation outsourcing, fact-checking and consulting with Nintendo, and he acknowledges how obsessive fans can get. With the way you're trying to find plagiarism, sounds like there's the risk of the work losing its credibility with the impression of going in with complete oversensitivity, nitpicking the smallest bits, perceiving connections and wild guessing how they support the argument. Doesn't help my opinion of this that you assumed I was talking about some video earlier. As for the wiki styles, is it really such a big deal that a subject covered in one wiki has a different presentation and style on another if the overall info, from subject's appearance to statistics, is the part that a editor can edit to and the reader can find the same? Which leaves the policies, and who says those couldn't change or be circumvented? Like Triforce Wiki's Encyclopedia ban with which they revise the history of Zelda timeline? SmokedChili (talk) 15:36, November 17, 2022 (EST)

How odd to act like I didn't have any experience with the Mario Encyclopedia article. I'm well aware that oversensitivity can give an amateurish perception, which is precisely why I made certain early on to reel things back whenever I saw that there was some room for doubt. Anyway, it doesn't really matter in the slightest what I imagined you were referencing, because he says a lot of the same things and he still isn't asked the question we're looking for. Now if I was paid to "nitpick" 2/3 of the book, that could sure give me a decent incentive to shift priorities and rush it through, but I have to go at my own pace, so the regional change aspect remains under-scrutinized for now. Need I remind you that Zelda Encyclopedia has its own bibliography section, and despite substantial regional changes (I suppose you'll ignore the blatant "Odolwa's Insect Minions" example), that page is a direct translation of the Japanese text, providing no reason why the English version was changed so much. I really don't know what else you expect me to say in that regard beyond that without having to leap wildly off-topic here. And yes, I know that some might prefer stylistic choices of other wikis, but you're making the mistaken assumption that wiki policies and admin attitudes could have little to no affect what the core info even is. In short? Yes, yes, yes and yes, they very clearly do have an effect. It's not as easy as you're making it out to be for editors, especially outsiders, to convince each inner circle that they ought to do things the way their rivals are doing. I'm honestly a bit surprised on your naivety on this one. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:55, November 17, 2022 (EST)

Indeed, a huge discrepancy certainly exists there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:49, November 18, 2022 (EST)

Your point is cherry-picking the worst examples from competition vs yours? How intellectually honest. Now, you want me to adress Odolwa's Scarabs, fine, and that's where I'll leave this. When Zelda Wiki added Odolwa's insect minions or Odolwa's ”insect minions” as the edit summary puts it, that's acknowledging what they were called in the source wasn't a proper name. The part where ZW fumbles with the plagiarism concern explanation given years later is saying ”name on (their) article” where they explain its origin. With ”the name originating from NP guide” they say Encyclopedia used the guide as the source for the etymology. So, ZW actually acted properly on this, it's on ZE for turning it into a proper name. Of all the cases this being the most eye brow raising, it's still not as clear-cut as you say. It's not even close to the conjectural names ESMB lifted from this wiki. SmokedChili (talk) 17:34, November 18, 2022 (EST)

Whether or not their sourcing is valid is only tangentially relevant to the debate at hand (and I'm not sure why you're repeatedly trying to discredit LTL and me; note we posted examples from our own wiki that look very off compared to the others, and I maintain a long-standing respect for Zelda Wiki). The point is still simply to allow more options for users. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:21, November 18, 2022 (EST)

Yet it was the wiki's outward presentation that led Dark Horse to assume it was a "proper" name in the first place, sidestepping how "his insect minions" (a generic description for the group of scarabs and moths) morphed into the book's "Odolwa's Insect Minions" (the scarab despite the fact the actual name for it does not translate into any of those words), and how the book writes it in plural -exactly- like the wiki did and unlike other bestiary entries, which goes full circle to prove my point on how presentation makes a difference. If that somehow does not demonstrate citogenesis in action, then I just have to say it seems contrarian. And coming from you, that is truly a shame. I feel you must not pleased with how we chose to cover Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:55, November 18, 2022 (EST)

Okay, I think I should finally give some thoughts with how many people have addressed this problem and after hearing what others have to say. I think there are indeed some merits to keeping some wikis around as external links even if another wiki (Zelda Wiki) exists in the interwiki link. I think what really stemmed this proposal was in fact my discomfort in regards to association, even if they've been removed permanently. I'm sorry if I meant harm for Doc and the others.

If we consider if "the relevant content is mature enough" to qualify a wiki being on the external links section, then the two other Zelda wikis we link up to (Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki) are considered mature to have their place. The lack of engagement until very recently probably is also a clear sign that there are better priorities necessary than addressing these links. At the very least, we should establish a guideline for future external link-related proposals so that they're not...contentious with how they are being dealt.

In other words, my proposal is going to be cancelled. I do hope that the MarioWiki community continues to support independent wikis and NIWA in general and try not to cater too much on Fandom. The Zelda Wiki fork definitely helped momentum in that regard. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 22:05, November 14, 2022 (EST)

Proposals can only be canceled by the proposer within the first three days. This will have to run its course. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:38, November 15, 2022 (EST)

Changes

Include non-Smash appearance in an infobox

The last proposal was failed due to considering only for deletion. Split was added but failed. However, there is a second chance, and Smash Wiki also including their non-Smash appearance. See "Most recent non-Smash appearance". Also the other-Nintendo or third party characters have included their first appearance and Mario-related media appearance together in MarioWiki. To make easily check the last physical appearance in the non-Smash games.

Example for Kritter

Before:
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (spirit cameo) (2018)

After:
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (spirit cameo) (2018)
Mario Super Sluggers (2008, non-Smash appearance)

Proposer: Windy (talk)
Deadline: November 25, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) Opposing for the same reason as last time: it's still an appearance of the character and it's not like Smash is the only time characters have cameos like this.
2. RealStuffMister (talk) per Hewer, an appearance is an appearance. a cameo is a cameo.

Comments

Haven't decided what to vote for yet, but I should point out that bringing up how other wikis handle certain situations is not a good argument as they often work vastly different from how we do. Nightwicked Bowser 14:12, November 18, 2022 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.