MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 21:30, August 13, 2024 by SeanWheeler (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, September 11th, 03:31 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • 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 registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (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 one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 administrators.
    • 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.
  6. 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.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. 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.
  9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  10. 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% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support 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.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to 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).
  12. 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.
  13. If the administrators 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.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. 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.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. 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, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "September 11, 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 mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  5. 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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
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 New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)
Remove excessive Pokémon lists and images, Super Mario RPG (ended August 28, 2024)
^ NOTE: Proposal is requesting image deletions, which require admins
Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024)
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)
Characters with multiple galleries should have them divided by decade, not medium, Nintendo101 (ended September 8, 2024)
^ NOTE: still needs to be applied to Luigi, Peach, Toad, Bowser, Wario, Waluigi, and Donkey Kong
Prioritize Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) names for all recurring Paper Mario items that appear in that game, PaperSplash (ended September 9, 2024)

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)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove remaining uses of tabber

This one's probably a long time coming. Tabber is currently only approved for usage in two infoboxes, which is pretty confusing (to make matters worse, the original proposal allowing it for the minigame infobox seemed to only have Mario Party in mind). I've seen users implement these outside of the approved uses, which is a pretty understandable mistake. If you see a template used in one situation, it makes sense to use it in comparable situations, right? You'd have to go to the template page to find out that it's only for very specific scenarios. More importantly, further attempts to allow tabber have failed under heavy opposition, mainly because tabber requires JavaScript to work. If it's disabled or not supported by your device, it displays the content of every tab at once in an unseemly vertical stack.

Based on the general sentiment in the past two proposals and the inconsistent application on pretty arbitrary standards, I think it makes sense to just repeal the original two proposals and remove the remaining uses of tabber completely. Whether tabber is deleted or remains in a deprecated state will be up to the judgment of the staff.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: August 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per me.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - In any case, slideshow is preferable to tabber. Per.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Tabbers not functioning on all devices kills them for me.
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. Additionally, I personally find tabbers cumbersome to use as a reader and I am not a fan of how widely they have been integrated into our affiliate ZeldaWiki, where I feel they have substantially degraded the quality of the articles. I would prefer Mario Wiki not go down a similar path, and I think I would support the removal of tabs even if they did not require JavaScript.
  5. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal and courtesy of users without JavaScript.
  6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all.
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. Mario (talk) Something that stuck with me since August 19, 2015: "Tabs are the devil". Even without the javascript issues there's likely fundamental useability issues; tabber I still think(?) is more gimmick than utility. I browse some wikis, I'm usually annoyed to try finding an image I want, only for it to be buried in tabs (ZeldaWiki is an example, the Keese article supplied is a maze of tabs and I actually find it difficult to just easily pinpoint how a Keese looks like in a particular game or across games; Battle Bat does not even provide all images in a gallery section, so I have to click on all these tabs just to see how these bats look like in different games; I'd rather just view all of them).
  9. YoYo (talk) per all.

Oppose

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Perhaps it is overkill to have tabber in every single circumstance, but using it to compare between different iterations of the same thing (like Mario Kart courses or Mario Party minigames) is convenient for quick visual comparison and does not clutter the infobox.
  2. Hewer (talk) I think tabber is fine to use in the two cases we currently use it for, as it allows us to show all the race course/minigame iterations in the infobox neatly and without having to just pick one (I think it always looked weird how we used to prioritise older images for just these infoboxes, but tabber provides a handy solution to that problem). As for the JavaScript argument, to quote Camwoodstock in this discussion, "any system too old to load tabbers are too old to connect to the internet at this point--pretty much only leaving severe bandwidth issues causing them to fail to load outright or devices specially configured to prohibit JavaScript in the first place as the only scenarios where tabbers wouldn't work".
  3. Tails777 (talk) I can understand if tabbers are an issue, but I just agree more with the opposition here, especially with the usage for the Mario Kart tracks/Mario Party mini-games. Per Hewer.

Comments

Waluigi Time (talk), for clarification, what are the two instances where tabbers have been permitted? Do you have examples of other pages where tabber has been overimplemented? - Nintendo101 (talk)

Currently it's approved for the minigame infobox (the original proposal was only for Mario Party minigames, but it's crept over to WarioWare) and race course infobox. Aside from the WarioWare edge case, a couple of mistaken uses of it have been on the Wario Land series and Expert world in MvDK. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:31, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

Which mini-game/race course would get priority in the info boxes should tabbers be removed? Would it return to using the images from their original games or would the newest games get priority? I ask that mostly because the proposal regarding this question was aiming to decide that answer, but the tabber idea passed in general. So I'm questioning which image would get priority. Sprite of Yoshi's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Tails777 Talk to me!Sprite of Daisy's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

I would prefer to take the safe route and revert back to the originals for now, and then a new proposal(s) can be made to deal with them afterwards if anyone wants to. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:05, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 Why drag other wikis into this? Why Zelda Wiki in particular? If you take a look, loads of NIWA wikis use tabber. To give a few examples, the Mario article on SmashWiki; the quotes and game pages on WiKirby, the The Forest of Hope on Pikipedia, Marth on Fire Emblem Wiki, Cerebus on the KHWiki. I'm sure there's more. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:42, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

This is tangential, but in a past life, ZeldaWiki was the primary NIWA wiki I contributed to, before they ever incorporated tabs, so I have more baseline familiarity with it than the other wikis, and I also personally believe it is the most egregious example of how tabs could be used. Many of the tabs within their infoboxes are completely empty, varyingly proportioned, or contain screencaps/assets best viewed at smaller resolutions. The tabs also obstruct visual material that otherwise could be readily viewed and compared all at once in a gallery if they did not use tabs, and I guess I prefer having that material more immediately available. I understand Zelda entries often adopt widely different artstyles from one another, but I think it would be healthier for their articles to pick one image curatorially for the infobox, and place the other ones in galleries at the bottom of the page. I do not bring up the use of tabs on that wiki to pick on their community; they are good and hardworking people. But it is immediately where my mind went when I started to see tabs incorporated into infoboxes on Super Mario Wiki, and I would rather not see something like that integrated here.
Their use of tabbers came from internal community discussions and proposals, so it does not really matter what I personally think - they should be the ones deciding how they organize their articles - but I do wish they would reconsider the benefits of incorporating tabs of t-posed models and empty files within their infoboxes. Fire Emblem Wiki and KHWiki are not using tabs to flip between varyingly proportioned images that push the text underneath them around; they are instead being used to provide different pieces of information and I think that looks quite nice.
I am honestly not a fan of the examples you have provided from Pikipedia or WiKirby either because of how they shift the underlying text (it makes it a little cumbersome to passively read, a problem shared with ZeldaWiki), but at least none of their tabs are empty. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:18, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

We're abstaining personally (while we still think tabbers have a use, we do fully acknowledge their use is contentious and it's a bit of a hot button issue where to even draw the line), but we would like to ask that, if this passes, to NOT delete the tabber template outright... Mostly to prevent situations where older page revisions in edit histories just become incomprehensible due to changes in template infrastructure. (Seriously, it's bad enough when infoboxes get renamed, and it would feel a bit silly in this case when one of the reasons for removing them is "they break things if Javascript isn't available"... ;P) ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:58, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

I see one potential good use for tabber, and that is not infoboxes, but rather for character stat tables on game pages... for instance, showing the information on entities for overbloated games like Mario Kart Tour so it can be communicated without severely increasing the vertical space the page takes up. That of course, would be its own discussion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:45, August 9, 2024 (EDT)

I know it's entirely subjective what I am about to say here, but I think that the use of tabbers, especially on the Mario Kart course articles, is just visually so unappealing, especially considering most images have inconsistent or low-res images. Most courses in MKDS, especially retro tracks, will also have images that have the hud, and a lot of tour courses don't even use in-game screenshots. It just is so yucky to look at, for a lack of better words. Only having the image of the original iteration of the course, and then having the remaining images throughout the article, is just an infinitely better way of doing it. I was against tabbers for this exact reason to begin with. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 15:57, August 11, 2024 (EDT)

Changes

Decide how to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link

Since there are articles about subjects from the Final Fantasy series that have appeared in Mario Hoops 3-on-3, Mario Sports Mix, and/or certain Super Smash Bros. games (Nintendo 3DS / Wii U and/or Ultimate), I'm looking forward to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link. The issue is that there is also a wiki from Fandom (powered by Wikia) that is also named Final Fantasy Wiki. The good news, I've come up with three options:

Option 1
Change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages AND add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link.
Option 2
ONLY add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link (even if confusing).
Option 3
Do NOTHING.

Here is an example on the use of the interwiki link for the Final Fantasy Wiki:

{{iw|finalfantasywiki|Cactuar}}

Cactuar

{{iw|finalfantasywiki|Cloud Strife|Cloud}}

Cloud

That way, we'll be able to use the Final Fantasy Wiki interwiki link once it gets added right after either Option 1 or Option 2 passes, as well as change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages right after only Option 1 passes.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: August 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My primary choice
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.

#Arend (talk) I suppose it makes sense to add it; HOWEVER, SeanWheeler makes a good point that the independent wiki is VERY incomplete and full of red links. For instance, Mario Hoops 3-on-3 features the Mimic enemy and thus should also be covered on our wiki with an article (which we do, but for some godforsaken reason, is shared with the Mimic enemy from Dragon Quest), and would also be useful to link to a Final Fantasy Wiki article covering the same thing. The independent wiki doesn't HAVE an article on the Mimic enemy, but the Fandom wiki DOES. So I should stress that the Fandom wiki links are NOT to be removed when the interwiki link gets added until we find a more complete independent wiki (or this one actually gets completed at some point).

Option 2

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My secondary choice

Option 3

  1. SeanWheeler (talk) The independant Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete compared to FANDOM's wiki.
  2. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) We shouldn't be adding wikis to the interwiki links just because their independent wikis, they should be added because they contain relevant info. The Final Fantasy wiki mentioned is fairly barren and there is little to no actual activity on there either. The point of interwiki links is so readers can get more informantion on a given topic, by sending them to a wiki that covers franchise we do not, it completely misses the point to link to a wiki that does not have any info in the first place.
  3. Shoey (talk) In theory I would agree with linking to the Final Fantasy Wiki. But the independent one is hot garbage and there's no reason to link to a site that doesn't actually have good coverage on it's stated topic. Basically per Sgow.
  4. Superchao (talk) Per SGOW. Just because a wiki is independent doesn't mean we should link it based on that alone, when the non-independent one has far superior coverage. All it does is direct our readers to an inferior resource that might not even help them, solely to try and make a point.
  5. Power Flotzo (talk) Completion > independence. Per all.
  6. Arend (talk) As I stated in my initial vote: SeanWheeler (and the rest of the opposers, at this point) makes a good point that the independent wiki is VERY incomplete and full of red links. For instance, Mario Hoops 3-on-3 features the Mimic enemy and thus should also be covered on our wiki with an article, and would also be useful to link to a Final Fantasy Wiki article covering the same thing. The independent wiki doesn't HAVE an article on the Mimic enemy, but the Fandom wiki DOES. Independent wikis are normally preferred over Fandom wikis, but as Shy Guy on Wheels says, we redirect people to other wikis so they can get more information on a given topic that falls out of the scope of our wiki, and in that case, where the wiki is being hosted should hardly matter if the wiki contains barely anything, since a barren wiki is completely useless for readers.

Comments

The Fandom wiki is not actually called "Final Fantasy Wikia", not to mention that Fandom not even refers to itself as "Wikia" anymore, to the point that they also dropped that "Powered by Wikia" tagline. Wouldn't it be better to instead refer to it as "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" to differentiate the two wikis? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:40, July 25, 2024 (EDT)

Also, what even is the "text" being referred to in the proposal that needs changing? When do we need to refer to the Fandom Final Fantasy Wiki? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:43, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure they may be referring to External link sections, e.g. here. Currently, the Super Mario Wiki links to specifically the Fandom wiki when it comes to anything Final Fantasy (even outside External link sections), since we don't have an interwiki link for an independent Final Fantasy Wiki yet. I imagine they wouldn't simply replace the Fandom wiki link with the independent wiki link and rather include both wikis. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:50, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
Last week, I replaced "Wikia" with "Wiki (Fandom)." How do you think the proposal looks? GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 10:00, August 1, 2024 (EDT)
Why are you saying this a literal week after making the change, instead of (nearly) immediately after? Wouldn't that make more sense? Or are you asking this only now, because you're either subtly asking me to vote again, or trying to drum up more engagement again, because your proposal did not get any votes?
Either way, while it's good that you applied the change, I'm still abstaining because I'm unsure which option is better. And in case I need to make it clear, I'm NOT obligated to vote, and NOT obligated to say why I'm not voting, and I should NOT be obligated about either option JUST because I engaged in the comment section. As I said before: "no one is forced to vote for an option, even if they're joining in the conversation, so I'd appreciate it if I'm not being pressed into voting for something." And this feels like teetering into just that again.
I'm sorry if this was a genuine question, but after two previous times where you tried to drum up engagement (either by asking commenters to vote, or by bargaining other changes when people weren't disagreeing at all) after no one voted or commented on it, this feels like another feeble attempt to get more votes, and I personally think this vote-bargaining thing is getting really annoying. You probably should've said and asked this "How'd you think the proposal looks now" thing a LOT sooner, and/or at the very least answer Hewer's question (by corroborating what I told him, for example). That way I could suggest what could be added BEFORE the 3-day deadline of being able to change the proposal has reached, AND would've drummed up engagement in a more natural way. NOW, it feels like you're asking people to vote, and someone had gotten blocked for doing just that. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 11:59, August 1, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler I do not think I agree with this option. Even if the independent Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete, there is still a possibility that the Super Mario Wiki can add the interwiki link to the independent Final Fantasy Wiki. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 19:50, August 7, 2024 (EDT)

You really should try to reply to things a bit sooner, instead of waiting out until the last day of a deadline. That oppose vote is nearly two weeks old. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 04:37, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

By the by, aren't these recent edits jumping the gun a bit? The proposal hasn't even ended with a solid conclusion and you're already replacing Wikipedia links with independent Final Fantasy Wiki links by using the {{plain link}} template. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 05:00, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

Yes. I like to think that the interwiki link to the independent Final Fantasy Wiki would make more sense. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 10:01, August 8, 2024 (EDT)
That's not what I was saying. At all. What I was actually saying is that, with these edits I linked earlier, I'm concerned that you're possibly acting out on the proposal before it has even ended with a conclusion. Some would say that one would only add the Final Fantasy links to the page when it has ended in either of the two option's favor, correct? Given that it's about not only adding the interwiki link to the wiki, but also how to apply them on pages, right? That's literally why Options 1 and 2 are split like that: as it determines whether the interwiki links should replace the Fandom wiki links, or just be added alongside the Fandom Wiki links. And you practically just acted out on the latter, with the the {{plain link}} template . ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 10:15, August 8, 2024 (EDT)
The quality of a wiki should matter more than independence. The SEIWA Final Fantasy Wiki is very much incomplete. It doesn't have an article on Cloud's mother, while the FANDOM wiki does. SEIWA's article on Mako is a stub while the Wikia has a full article on that stuff. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:49, August 12, 2024 (EDT)
Well, do you have any recommendations before we can add SEIWA's Final Fantasy Wiki interwiki link? GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 20:21, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
If you want the SEIWA Final Fantasy interwiki link so badly, I suggest you work on that wiki to make it good enough so that it could earn it. Clean up all the stubs. Clear the {{plain link|https://finalfantasywiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages&limit=500&offset=0%7Cred links]. If you can clear the red links, that can make it better than the FANDOM wiki. In that last comment, I was going to make a point about how SEIWA had nothing about Mimic while the FANDOM wiki had a disambiguation page, but that disambiguation page has two red links in it. For every red link, create a page. However, to avoid duplicate titles, some red links like Mako energy and Avalanche should be either relinked to the correct titles of Mako and AVALANCHE or made into redirects. Oh, and all the stubs have to be expanded to completion. If there's no more red links, no more stubs and the wiki page count is more than the FANDOM wiki, then we can try this proposal again. But right now, the FANDOM wiki would be the preferred Final Fantasy wiki. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

Shorten disambiguation identifiers "(Super) Nintendo Entertainment System" to "(S)NES"

The console names "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" are way too long and clunky, so much so that the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles throughout the wiki, even though we usually don't use abbreviations. And yet, we still use the full console names in the disambiguation identifiers of article names:

The identifiers are so long that they take up more than half of the article name and are less immediately legible than their respective abbreviations. This is particularly jarring on the Mario is Missing! disambiguation page because the abbreviations are used on the page (e.g., "Mario is Missing!, the NES game") but it links to articles with names containing the full console names ("Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)").

That's why I propose to shorten "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" to "NES" and "SNES" respectively in disambiguation identifiers of article names:

  • Mario is Missing! (NES)
  • Mario is Missing! (SNES)
  • Wario's Woods (NES)
  • Wario's Woods (SNES)

Please note that there is already an article which uses an abbreviated identifier: "Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)", although if we decide to keep the full identifiers, maybe we should rename it to "Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for Super Nintendo Entertainment System)" for consistency?

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support (SNES)

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal and similarly passed earlier proposal on shortening identifiers of the second and third Donkey Kong Country games.
  3. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  4. Mario Shroom (talk) too long, agree.
  5. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
  6. SeanWheeler (talk) Let's simplify the names.

Oppose (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)

Comments (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)

now there's a bit of a grey area here, what about consoles like Nintendo 64, Nintendo Switch and so on? It'd feel somewhat weird to abbreviate one but not the others, there'd be an inconsistency. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 09:33, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

The thing with those is that the "Nintendo" part is needed or else it could just be confused as a random number (64) or word (switch). They also just aren't as long. Technetium (talk) 09:57, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
Besides, as I said in the proposal, the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles, but other console names are not abbreviated as frequently. For example, here is an extract of the LodgeNet article: "for the SNES, Nintendo 64, and Nintendo GameCube"; note how only the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's name is abbreviated whereas the other console names are written in full. Jdtendo(T|C) 10:09, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
I think the shortening of N64, GCN, GBA, etc. could use another propasal. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4327680"