MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60: Difference between revisions
Waluigi Time (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by PanchamBro (talk) to last revision by Koopa con Carne) Tag: Rollback |
LinkTheLefty (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 441: | Line 441: | ||
::I added guidelines for it [[Template:Foreign names#Meaning guidelines|here]]. An easy and intuitive way to remember it is this: ("no explanation necessary" = "no meaning param necessary") and ("the meaning should show as blank" = "the meaning param should be set to blank"). If the name ''should'' have a meaning then it makes sense to set it to blank since the idea is that ideally this should be filled in later. Articles that don't follow this currently can be updated over time. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 07:02, November 14, 2022 (EST) | ::I added guidelines for it [[Template:Foreign names#Meaning guidelines|here]]. An easy and intuitive way to remember it is this: ("no explanation necessary" = "no meaning param necessary") and ("the meaning should show as blank" = "the meaning param should be set to blank"). If the name ''should'' have a meaning then it makes sense to set it to blank since the idea is that ideally this should be filled in later. Articles that don't follow this currently can be updated over time. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 07:02, November 14, 2022 (EST) | ||
:::Fair enough, seems like this issue has been wrapped up quite neatly. I'll cancel this proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 09:54, November 14, 2022 (EST) | :::Fair enough, seems like this issue has been wrapped up quite neatly. I'll cancel this proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 09:54, November 14, 2022 (EST) | ||
===Remove external links to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and/or Triforce Wiki=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|no quorum|4-0-0-4}} | |||
Early this year, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57#Allow an external link to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and/or Triforce Wiki in the External links section of some The Legend of Zelda-related articles|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, [https://twitter.com/ZeldaWiki/status/1582831405142528000 this is no longer the case]. [[zeldawiki:|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''': {{User|PanchamBro}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': <s>October 27, 2022, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to November 4, 2022 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to November 11, 2022, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to November 18, 2022, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Remove both==== | |||
#{{User|PanchamBro}} Per my reasons. | |||
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mustard Machine}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|RealStuffMister}} Per proposal | |||
====Remove only Triforce Wiki==== | |||
====Remove only Zelda Dungeon Wiki==== | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - 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!) | |||
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} 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. | |||
#{{User|Scrooge200}} 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. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all. | |||
<del>#{{user|Wikiboy10}} - per Doc</del> | |||
====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. [[User:Wikiboy10|Wikiboy10]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 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. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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:|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. {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 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 [[MarioWiki:Coverage|wiki coverage]] (for the time being or not), so I didn't bother. Your Fandom example isn't applicable either, per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Allow articles on non-Mario subjects to link to their main Fandom wiki in their External links section|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 <u>'''''REALLY'''''</u> 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. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk: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.<br>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.<br>On a side note though, I think it's funny that the new independent wiki is called "Zeldapedia", considering there was previously [https://zelda-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Zeldapedia a Zeldapedia hosted by FANDOM] before they were assimilated by ZeldaWiki on FANDOM. {{User:Arend/sig}} 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. {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 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. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk: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. <small>(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 [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia#List of English translation mistakes and names from the Super Mario Wiki|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 [[zeldawiki:Special:Diff/744836#Plagiarism Concerns|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 [[zeldawiki:User:PanchamBro|bias]].)</small>. 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. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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 "[[Special:Diff/3791244|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 [https://archive.org/details/Nintendo_Players_Guide_N64_Legend_of_Zelda_The_Majoras_Mask/page/n45/mode/2up 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. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 13:17, November 16, 2022 (EST) | |||
::::I wasn't talking about no video, I meant [https://variety.com/2018/gaming/features/the-legend-of-zelda-encyclopedia-interview-1202850811/ 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? [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 15:36, November 17, 2022 (EST) | |||
:::::How odd to act like I didn't have any [[User:LinkTheLefty/List of Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia mistakes and names from the Super Mario Wiki|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 [[User talk:LinkTheLefty/List of Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia mistakes and names from the Super Mario Wiki|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? [https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Thwomp Yes,] [https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Eyegore%20Statue yes,] [https://triforcewiki.com/wiki/Moldorm yes] [https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Ocean_Octorok and] [https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Lizalfos yes,] [https://triforcewiki.com/wiki/Syrup they] [https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Hand very] [https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Eye_Brute clearly] [https://triforcewiki.com/wiki/Stalfos_Knight do] [https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Small_Shield have] [https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/ReDead_Knight an] [https://triforcewiki.com/wiki/User:LTL/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Link%27s_Awakening_(2019)_enemy_glossary 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. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:55, November 17, 2022 (EST) | |||
:::::Indeed, [https://zeldapedia.wiki/wiki/Gargoyle a] [https://zeldapedia.wiki/wiki/Green_Slimy_Thing#Ocarina_of_Time huge] [https://zeldapedia.wiki/wiki/Red_Goriya discrepancy] [https://triforcewiki.com/wiki/Helmaroc_King certainly] [https://triforcewiki.com/wiki/Eox exists] [https://triforcewiki.com/wiki/Volvagia there]. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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''. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 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. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:38, November 15, 2022 (EST) |
Revision as of 22:33, November 18, 2022
Split the WFC information box for Mario Kart coursesRename WFC section and unlink it from the WFC page 2-6 Proposer: Skipper93653 (talk) Split section into WFC (for Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection on Wii and DS), NN (for Nintendo Network on 3DS and Wii U), and NSO (for Nintendo Switch Online on Switch)
Rename WFC section to simply 'Online Play' and unlink it from the WFC page
Keep as-isCommentsThe "WFC" section (which used to be called "Wi-Fi") was actually intended to only be for MKWii and MKDS courses, as specified on the page for the race course template. I guess people started putting info for MK7, MK8 and MK8D on there and no one thought to remove them. However;
Honestly, I think the best thing to do is to revert it back to "Wi-Fi" and remove the link to WFC, because "Wi-Fi" can refer to all online play, not just WFC. It also makes it not be repetitive, and means we won't have to go through all 127 (yes i counted) courses with it listed, when there is a much easier, more obvious, solution) - YoYo (Talk) 10:52, October 2, 2022 (EDT) It should be noted that Mario Kart Tour also has online multiplayer as of March 8, 2020 (although Gold Pass users were able to betatest it from December 18, 2019, to December 26, 2019, as well as from January 22, 2020, to January 28, 2020). I believe that courses in Tour would also have to be implemented in the Online Play section, though with some specific details that showcases which Tours they're available in as of which date (considering the overall course selection rotates every two weeks). Now, for Coconut Mall, this can be as simple as saying "Available" and then refer to the "Tours" section earlier in the infobox, but it's probably a bit more difficult for courses that have been in the game since launch, before multiplayer was added, such as 3DS Toad Circuit, which would have to refer to the Tours section above as well, but also specify that it's only possible since Trick Tour (2020). And that's not even accounting the courses that were available during the Gold Pass-only betatests, such as N64 Kalimari Desert, which has online play since the Baby Rosalina Tour, but was also available for the first week of the Holiday Tour (2019) and the second week of the Ice Tour. Now we could do it simple and only have to say "Available" concerning Tour, but it might not be entirely accurate due to the bi-weekly rotation and the fact that Tour didn't initially launch with multiplayer (plus the two beta tests before the official multiplayer launch). We cannot split it into its own section either, because Tour doesn't have a special branding for the online service it's using, unlike DS/Wii, 7/8 or 8 Deluxe, so I feel keeping these all merged into an "Online Play" section would still be the better option. rend (talk) (edits) 12:42, October 2, 2022 (EDT) Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titlesDo not rename the articles 7-7-13 The Koopaling article names on this wiki do not reflect this state of affairs: currently, they use the naming scheme established in old manuals, which is stylised by way of the word "Koopa" attached as a surname or nobiliary title of sorts. Said naming scheme has seen sparse use in more recent years, being specifically reserved to ancillary material such as the New Super Mario Bros. Wii Prima Guide, this video, and most likely more--I invite knowledgeable editors to expand this list for future reference. As dictated by the source priority policy, this material should not override what the games themselves put forward. In addition, the more concise versions of these characters' names would better serve readers and contributors alike. Given my statement above, the object of this proposal is to simply change Koopaling articles, and most pages directly related to the individual characters, to display only their first name. The page List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa is excluded from the proposal's scope, as its title reflects the character's name used in the SMB3 cartoon. The following is a list of affected pages, with target titles in brackets:
I would also like us to hash out how to phrase the opening paragraphs in their character articles; namely, whether to list the short name or the full name first. For this, I'm splitting the support option into two possible directions:
I suppose some editors may prefer the second direction, given that it's common practice in academic and academically-modeled resources to start out an article's text with the subject's full name, and not necessarily the best known version of the name. Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Support (option 1)
Support (option 2)
Oppose
CommentsI'd like to remind yet again that in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate the full names are all acknowledged - they also were acknowledged in the Wii U version of Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games that featured the Theme of Larry Koopa.
I'd actually like to take this a bit further by questioning Peach and Daisy; as of right now their article names are "Princess Peach"/"Princess Daisy", but much like how very few, if any, modern games ever refer to the Koopalings by their full names, very few, if any games references Peach and Daisy by their titles in game. Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario Golf, Smash Bros, they all just refer to them as Peach and Daisy. And if the fact that it's a title has anything to do with it, why isn't Bowser's article named "King Bowser"? I'd wager we could probably move their articles to just Peach and Daisy for the same reasons. Tails777 Talk to me!
@Opposition: The amount of media that refers to the Koopalings using only their first name (including, as mentioned in the proposal, almost every single game they appeared in during the last decade) far surpasses the number of instances where their full name is used. Participants to the previous proposal brought up isolated, relatively minor instances of the Koopalings' full names being used, particularly in merchandise and print media, and treated them as top-priority sources despite going counter to what the naming policy says. In the spirit of hopefully convincing people that it's misguided to do so, I raise another piece of merch, the Super Mario Trading Card Collection, released in April 2022 (so pretty recent), which respects the naming model used in games. Shouldn't it similarly be taken into consideration, and be measured against a random Larry Koopa toy and a Monopoly set? Because it's clear that merchandise releases are not consistent among themselves in the least, so why not turn to what the games already very clearly establish? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:10, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
@Opposition: I'm challenging someone to explain why "the names are occasionally used" (in things like Smash Bros. and merchandise no less, which as I've demonstrated above aren't even consistent with themselves) is being so strongly bandied around as an argument against designating the names that are put front and center in most appearances of these characters to their wiki articles.a So far, zero proper rationale has been given for the former direction in either of the three proposals that have concerned this matter, other than a couple of arguments that can be best defined as mental gymnastics. Nobody is arguing that we should get rid of the names altogether, just that using them in such a representative fashion isn't the proper way to go--and I've already proposed two methods to handle their full names in their lead, because, much like LinkTheLefty has previously stated, these names are significant enough to deserve a mention as such. That doesn't mean Squirps is a contender for a move to "Prince Squirp Korogaline Squirpina" though. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:30, September 21, 2022 (EDT)
"How does typing "Koopa" on the end of the name, on the rare occasions you need to, waste any time at all?"
I'm not ready to vote on this yet (even though I supported the previous proposal), but I would just like to say that I think the difference between the two support options is extremely trivial, to the point where I don't understand why the issue even warranted separate voting options for them. Both support options have users voting exclusively for them, which is only going to increase this prop's chances of stalemating, given how polarizing this is. 17:15, October 1, 2022 (EDT)
Create Category:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope Sparkscancelled by the administrators Currently, the articles for Sparks from Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope have several categories attributed to them, including Category:Lumas, Category:Rabbids, Category:Allies, and Category:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope characters. However, as far as I am aware, all 30 of the Sparks featured in the game meet these criteria. Therefore, per MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Categories, a more specific category should be created for these Sparks, named Category:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope Sparks. Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsUsually, categories that cover a group of species/characters do not include the game title, even when they only appear in one game (for example, Category:Flip-Flop Folk), so I don’t think including the game title in this case is necessary. Additionally, since this category already fits the criteria mentioned by the policy, I feel that it can be carried out whenever enough Sparks pages are created, and I don’t think a proposal is really necessary. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 13:14, October 17, 2022 (EDT)
I don't think this proposal is even needed, you can just make a category. Spectrogram (talk) 13:28, October 17, 2022 (EDT) I also agree it should just be called "Category:Sparks". Nightwicked Bowser 13:47, October 17, 2022 (EDT) Remove or Split trophy/spirit cameo in the Latest appearanceNo change 1-10
Proposer: Windy (talk) Support (option 1)Support (option 2)
Oppose
CommentsUpdated as 'Remove' to 'Remove or Split'. Split their physical appearance similar to other Nintendo characters. If the character doesn't have a physical appearance in the recent games since Smash's spirit, the infobox must be include (YEAR, physical). Windy (talk) 16:37, October 14, 2022 (EDT)
If you want to move options after updated, do so. Windy (talk) 15:11, October 17, 2022 (EDT) Decide what Paper Airplane Chase isConsider Paper Airplane Chase to be a part of the Mario franchise 6-0-0
Proposer: Spectrogram (talk) Mario game
Guest appearanceCameo appearanceCommentsStandardize citations for archived pagescancelled by administrator Many web pages that are used as citations on the Mario Wiki are no longer available at their original links. Consequently, the citations use links from web page archival sites such as archive.today or the Wayback Machine. This can be seen on articles that reference the English translation of the Mario Portal, such as Banzai Bill, as well as other articles, such as Nintendo GameCube. Including archived citations is especially important for web pages that are volatile by design, such as online store listings for merchandise. However, nowhere does MarioWiki:Citations feature a template for how to properly cite archived web pages; therefore, an example of a citation for an archived page should be created under the heading What to put as references. EDIT: Per Koopa con Carne's comments, I've revised my recommendations for a standardized template below. The current basic template for citations of non-archived pages looks like this:
In order to make citations of archived pages as simple as possible, they should only link to the archived page, followed by the date and timestamp (if available) of the archived page, along with the name of the archival website:
This is what an actual citation would look like under this standard, using one of the references on the Nintendo GameCube article as an example:
Here's another example, using the citation of the Mario Portal on the Banzai Bill article (because this specific page does not have an author nor a release date attributed to it, these details are omitted from the citation):
As a clarification, this proposal does not mean to mandate that every citation of a web page should include an archived link; that should be left to editor consideration. However, in cases where archived links are necessary, such as volatile links or links that are already dead, a standard method of citation would be useful to implement. Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsCan you articulate some specifics for this standard? Namely, would it suffice to include the link to a snapshot, or would editors be requested to also add the time, date, and name of the archivation website of that particular snapshot? You are putting forward the Banzai Bill citation as a template and, though I agree on encouraging comprehensive fact-checking and easy readability/access (as the user who basically pushed for this whole format across the wiki over the past years), I reckon some editors may not like being forced by policy to tick so many boxes when structuring their links. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 00:50, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
So, is the proposal now championing the prohibition of first-hand links in favour of archived links, or just a guideline recommendation for using the latter? The last statement of the proposal is in direct contradiction with the rest: "As a clarification, this proposal does not mean to mandate that every citation of a web page should include an archived link; that should be left to editor consideration." -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:04, October 11, 2022 (EDT)
My sincere apologies for writing this so late, but I'd like to request that this proposal be cancelled. Koopa con Carne has made several valid points of opposition; on top of this, the proposal has only received three support votes other than mine (with one doubting its effectiveness). I still agree that standardized guidelines are generally better than a lack of guidelines, but I'd rather not have a policy change go into effect unless it's agreed upon unanimously or nearly unanimously (i.e. more support votes and less valid criticisms of what the proposal entails). ThePowerPlayer 20:42, October 23, 2022 (EDT) Include non-Smash appearance in an infoboxcanceled by proposer Example for Kritter Before: After: Proposer: Windy (talk) SupportOpposeCommentsI'm pretty sure this proposal shouldn't be allowed per proposal rule 7, as it hasn't been long enough since the failure of the last one to re-propose it. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:00, October 28, 2022 (EDT) Merge all non-Mario universe Super Smash Bros. Stages into a collective articlefailed to reach consensus 1-6-9-9 This is probably the most radical proposal in the trimming of Smash content so far giving the stages are a big part of the Super Smash Bros. franchise. However if we are no longer going to have seperate artciles for Items and Bosses then I think it now has to be questioned to wherever or not non-Mario stages should be also still have seperate pages given this the Mario Wiki that they based on locations that have nothing or very little to do with the Mario franchise and that seperste artciles of these stages exist on Smash Wiki. Given that this the Mario Wiki that all stages based locations from the Mario and the sub-franchises should keep their artciles. By keeping them split it will emphasis that this the Mario Wiki by given increased focus on elements from Smash that are based on Mario. Therefore should this propsoal pass stages from these franchises which are covered by this wiki remain split:
One series where I think there is question mark to wherever they should be split or merged are Smash oringal stages, ie Battlefield and Final Destination. I would be also keep these with their own articles as these stages have the most hertiage of all Smash stages in the series and that they are not specfially based on a non-Mario franchise. I will therefore provide two options for merging one that sees the Smash oringnal stages remain split and the one that sees them merged. As for all the other franchises inclduing not listed above they would all be merged into an idvidual artcile with the page names being replaced by redirects and include external links to Smash Wiki. I'm very much aware that if this proposal passes it would be a very signifcant change for the wiki. But I beleive now given the trimming of smash content that has been taking place it is one that I beleive should hapoen. (Amendments made to proposal in comments below) Proposer: NSY (talk) Merge all non-Mario universe stages excluding stages orignal to SmashMerge all non-Mario universe stages including stages orignal to Smash
Merge only non-Mario adventure mode and subspace emissary stages
Keep all Smash stages split
CommentsI'm very conflicted about this. I think non-Mario Subspace Emissary stages such as Battleship Halberd Bridge or The Path to the Ruins need to be merged, but regular stages that shape Smash Bros. into what it is are fine. Not to mention, Battlefield according to the last Smash proposal will be merged with Fighting Polygons and other teams, so that would mean merging a stage that was already just merged. Keeping it unsplit alone would also be seen as weird. Your proposal also does not make an exception for Wrecking Crew (stage). Please add an option to only merge non-Mario Subspace Emissary levels Spectrogram (talk) 13:07, October 1, 2022 (EDT)
Thanks for all the feedback given on this proposal, I created this proposal because I feel like it should either be all or nothing when consdiering Smash content, either it should be all merged or all split and I felt based off the pervious proposals held that the consenus of smash content leaned towards it being merged. By having items and bosses merged but stages split i feel it is middle of the road but i do understand the points made of stages being more important. It seems very likely that this proposal is not going to pass but i'll going make amendments based of the things said to see if changes any minds. Firstly as per comments from Spectrogram and 7feetunder I've added the extra option to merge non-Mario adventure mode subpace emissary stages. Secondly in regards to infobox removals and trimming of content, i've decided to strike that off from the proposal given ideas clearly sound unpopular. Thirdly in regards to Wrecking Crewe I completly forgot that stage existed and if this proposal were to pass then that would also stay split. Lastly if this proposal passes then maybe rather than one aritcle it be mutliple articles perhaps one per game to avoid it being messey. That being said even despite these ameadments the consenus clearly belevies the stages should remain split and fully see where all of you are coming from the points made but I curious to see what you all think of these amendments. NSY (talk) @KoolKoopa, no, it doesn't. Smash series is an exception in the coverage policy, which allows such proposals to be made. It wouldn't imply removing content from other crossovers. Spectrogram (talk) 13:58, October 18, 2022 (EDT) @KoolKoopa "By that logic..." Erm, no? Mario Kart is a pure, distinctly Mario game spin-off with non-Mario stuff in it, and said non-Mario stuff gets covered as a result. Smash is not a pure, distinctly Mario game. It's a 50-ish way crossover with its own unique stuff in it on top of that. Those two situations are Apples to Fruit Punch levels of different. Merge most of what's listed in DiamondMerge Diamond articles 5-0 Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat's the deal with Captain Toad's Super Gem? The current Diamond page says it's sometimes called a "diamond", but I don't recall that being the case in the game's English version. It will be kept a separate article whether this proposal passes or not, since it's a distinctly-named fictional object, but if Super Gems indeed have this secondary descriptor, they should be linked through an "about" tag at the top of the Diamond article. IMO. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:55, October 22, 2022 (EDT) Visual EditorDo not add the Visual Editor as an editing option 4-6 Proposer: Johnjohn2001 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis is not something that can be done via proposal but something that is up to our site owner (Porplemontage (talk)). Besides, while the source editor does have a difficulty curve compared to using the visual editor in fandom for beginners, I wouldn't say it is all that difficult to learn. Ray Trace(T|C) 17:01, October 25, 2022 (EDT) Personally, I'm not even sure a Visual Editor like the one FANDOM uses can be implemented. FANDOM, even back when it used to be called Wikia, tends to implement a lot of features that no other wiki farm has, such as their default skin, user blogs, message walls, comments and the Discussions feature (this also extends to discontinued skins and features). I don't think any of these FANDOM-exclusive features are compatible with other wikis outside of FANDOM.
Remove the list and table exception from MarioWiki:Article sizeRemove the exception 7-0 So basically, our article size policy has this weird exception stating that "This policy does not apply to list or table pages such as Places and Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Brawl), just actual articles." I tried asking why this clause was made and the reasoning behind it (especially considering that lists are like, 700% easier to split than normal pages) but got nothing more than a single vague answer from Doomhiker. ("Happened because of a forum discussion." - What forum discussion, when the forum discussion took place, and the actual rationale behind it are still a mystery to me.) But what I find the most alarming is that so far, this exception has been violated twice in recent months; namely, for List of tours in Mario Kart Tour and List of favored and favorite courses in Mario Kart Tour. Spirit (Super Smash Bros. Ultimate) was also split, but that had a proposal specifically for it, so I will let it slide. Rather than argue for re-merging those two list pages, I'm instead going to be arguing for the removal of this exception clause. From what I can tell, the policy was made back in the blissful perfect days of the early 2010s, back when the biggest article was Bowser and not several list pages on Mario Kart Tour-related subjects. And the list pages we have now are massive; the latter example that I gave that breached the list and table exception was over a million bytes long before it was split. When has something like that ever happened before on any wiki using any wiki-style across the internet including Wikipedia itself??? And even with the lists we have merged now, our current largest page (List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U) is also a list and is twice as large as Bowser's article is now. This, this is ridiculous. Not only do these super long pages take full minutes to load completely and are impossible to edit concisely, but our policy explicitly states that we're not supposed to split them if they're lists, which several of our largest pages are. Considering the negatives of having massive several-hundred-thousand-byte-long list pages and the fact that lists are extremely easy to split into separate articles, and the fact that several of these articles (namely, the lists for Mario Kart Tour related stuff) show no signs of slowing down their growth, what reason is there to say that list pages shouldn't be split up a bit? Please note that if this proposal fails, the two exception-breaching list splits I mentioned before (List of tours in Mario Kart Tour and List of favored and favorite courses in Mario Kart Tour) will be re-merged into their main list pages again. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Proposer: Somethingone (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsFor clarification, the question that Spectro asked on Discord was what I interpreted to be a question as to why the favored and favorite page was split regardless of policy. They asked why lists couldn't be split after asking why that page was still split, I responded to the latter. The forum discussion in question can be seen here. Doomhiker (talk) 15:34, October 29, 2022 (EDT) Decide when to substitute the meaning/explanation of a foreign name with a hyphencanceled by proposer I've always taken the hyphen to indicate that it's redundant to explicitly note the meaning of a subject's name in a given language, either because it's an untranslatable name, the same as that subject's English name, or composed entirely of common English words. However, to my knowledge, no policy dictates using it as such, which leads to potentially confusing variances in the way information is formatted and conveyed; as an example, a recent edit to the "Foreign names" template assigns a different purpose to the hyphen, automatically rendering it where a "Meaning" argument doesn't exist in the template itself. We can't have it more than one way, so let's put our foot down on this.
If the first course of action ends up with the most votes in this proposal, it will be stated as a rule on the aforementioned "Foreign names" template's page. If the second course of action does instead, the template's own use of the hyphen will be explicitly noted on said page. Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Option 1
Option 2
Option 3CommentsThe recent edit doesn't change the meaning of the hyphen, it simply provides a streamlined way to display it which saves on wikitext (omitting the M parameter rather than manually setting it equal to "-"). --Steve (talk) 20:10, November 13, 2022 (EST)
Remove external links to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and/or Triforce Wikino quorum 4-0-0-4 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) Remove both
Remove only Triforce WikiRemove only Zelda Dungeon WikiDo nothing
CommentsHere'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)
Disregarding the problematic history with Triforce Wiki (and thank god he's no longer involved), I have some issues with your argument @LinkTheLefty.
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 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.
@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)
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) |