MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60

Split the WFC information box for Mario Kart courses
On every page for race courses and battle arenas in the Mario Kart series, there is an info box with some minor information about the course such as what games it has appeared in, what are the staff ghosts, etc. One of those sections is simply referred to as WFC, which stands for and links to the page for Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, which has the information on whether the track is still playable online or not depending on what game it is, such as saying the online is no longer available for Toad's Factory since WFC shut down so Mario Kart Wii is no longer officially playable online. However, as this may be fine when referring to Mario Kart DS and Mario Kart Wii, Mario Kart 7 and 8 use Nintendo Network and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe uses Nintendo Switch Online which doesn't work well for this section because WFC links directly to the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection page and not Nintendo Network for Mario Kart 7 and 8 and Nintendo Switch Online for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Because of this, I am proposing to split this section to add NN and NSO sections for Mario Kart 7, 8, and 8 Deluxe so it links the user to the correct page and not just the outdated WFC, I am also offering another alternative where is will not be split but renamed to simply 'Online Play' and unlinked from the WFC page and then add Mario Kart Tour's online status since Tour uses a generic service that doesn't use any of the aforementioned services but I feel more people will lean towards renaming the section to 'Online Play'.

Proposer: Deadline: October 9, 2022, 23:59 GMT

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)

 * 1) Per proposal. I am equally for either splitting or renaming to Online Play.
 * 2) This seems like the best option to go with.

Rename WFC section to simply 'Online Play' and unlink it from the WFC page

 * 1) Per proposal. I am equally for either renaming to Online Play or splitting.
 * 2) per my comment. if there was an option to simply remove the link and rename to "Wi-Fi", then i'd put that. after "experimenting", the length of "Online play" shouldn't be an issue.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
The "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;
 * If there are sections for each individual console, that would result in there being many sections all with roughly the same info on. Take Coconut Mall for example, that course was in Mario Kart Wii, Mario Kart 7 and now Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. That would mean it needs three sections, one for WFC, one for NN and one for NSO, all of which say the exact same thing; "Available". Of course that means the infobox becomes too big (the reason why the Tours section received a [Show] [Hide] system) and also too repetitive.
 * However, I am not too sure if "online play" has any undesired side effects because of its length, "WFC" and "Wi-Fi" are short, like the other headings, so im not sure if "Online play" will cause any issues because of that.

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) 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. 12:42, October 2, 2022 (EDT)

Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles
Starting with Mario Kart 8 on Wii U hitherto the time of this proposal, Mario games have exclusively referred to Koopalings using their first names: Larry, Ludwig, Wendy etc. These games include Paper Mario: Color Splash, Mario & Luigi games, Mario Kart Tour, Dr. Mario World, Super Smash Bros. games, and Mario & Sonic games (Rio 2016; Tokyo 2020).

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:
 * 1) " Larry, referred to in full as Larry Koopa and known as Cheatsy Koopa in the cartoons, [...]"
 * 2) " Larry Koopa, or simply Larry, known as Cheatsy Koopa in the cartoons, [...]"

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: Deadline: September 25, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 2, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 9, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 16, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support (option 1)

 * 1) Preferred option. Can't wait to make it easier to type out the names of these roster-padding sons of bitches.
 * 2) Per con Carne's proposal :)
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) After some thought, per all and per the support voters here.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Strongly per "most commonly used English name" which has been the basis every single time this comes up (I would say "List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip" too since I distinctly remember lines using his first name, but I'm not about to bingewatch to confirm if full name or first only is more common there).
 * 7) Per all, given that the "Koopa" parts of their names are not as frequently used. By the same logic, shouldn't Bowser's page be called "King Bowser Koopa" or Mario's page be called "Mario Mario"?

- Full_name parameter exists for a reason and the full names are rarely used, unlike say Kammy Koopa, who is referred to pretty much only as such. Switching to other option, same reasoning applies Honestly, either wording works for me, but could be best to roll with their first names only to match article titles.

Support (option 2)

 * 1) Second choice.
 * 2) I'm surprised no one has voted for the second support option; changing mentions of the Koopalings to just their first names would improve reader and editor convenience, while using their full names as the very first words of each of their articles would help make their full name immediately clear (and help clarify that the article  refers to Roy Koopa, not Roy from Fire Emblem or Roy from Mario Tennis: Power Tour). This option makes sense to me because their full names are still commonly used, unlike Mario Mario, Princess Peach Toadstool, and T. Yoshisaur Munchakoopas. Additionally, it sets both an academic, professional standard and the standard already set by the edge cases of characters with intentionally long full names, like Squirps and The Old Psychic Lady.
 * 3) My preference would be an approach closer to this (also considering that the given full names are subject to modification, especially in old western media appearances).
 * 4) - Per
 * 5) Per all. (Professor E. Gadd on a similar boat?)
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all

Oppose

 * 1) Per Mister Wu in the comments and the previous proposal over this. The names are still sometimes used in-game with recent examples, and this largely seems to stem from the extended names just not being used in Japan. (You could bring in the "it's closer to Japanese" argument, but I don't really like the idea of using that to decide which English names should be used.)
 * 2) Per Waluigi Time. These names are still used quite frequently and don't need to be changed.
 * 3) I would agree with not referring to them by the full names for games that don't use them at all, otherwise per all.
 * 4) If the full names had been completely out of use after the first appearance or so like Boo Diddly, I would have supported this. And then there's few Koopa characters like Kylie Koopa whose first name was used in her follow-up appearance. I don't know the reason for Smash Bros. fighters having articles under their full names if they have any, but when I see an example like Wolf and Wolf O'Donnell, using full names looks valid enough and better over identifiers (like this).
 * 5) Per Waluigi Time, the names are still used on occasion enough compared to Princess Peach Toadstool.
 * 6) Per waluigi time
 * 7) - Really struggle to see any advantage to this. If the full names are still in use and there's no official confirmation they've been dropped, what's the point? How does typing "Koopa" on the end of the name, on the rare occasions you need to, waste any time at all? Also both example sentences provided for the support option are far more awkwardly worded than what's currently there.
 * 8) Until someone can elaborate on why policy discourages linking to redirects, I don't see the need to rename well-established names to simpler names that I feel were simplified for game-context reasons that aren't necessarily applicable to wikis.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.

Comments
I'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. Also, please, proposal votes based on personal hatred do no good to the wiki, especially since the only multi slot roster "padding" the Koopalings did since Mario Kart 8 and its Deluxe version was in the now defunct Dr. Mario World and in Mario Kart Tour (where it's pretty bold to compare it to the actual padding of the variants). They share the slot with Bowser Jr. in the Smash Bros. games and they are guests in the Mario & Sonic games, meaning that they only occupy one slot. --Mister Wu (talk) 15:31, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * Considering the tone of my statement of disdain and the fact that I added it at the tail end of a series of arguments made in good faith, I would say that it is very clearly meant to be taken as a joke. I have no strong attachments towards any video game characters, so your accusation that I'm using "hatred" as a thrust to my argument is not only insulting, but blown out of proportion. 19:10, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * Fine, I take that part back (although just so you know, fan votes have been a thing in the past, so be wary that some users did vote out of attachment to characters, meaning that jokes like this one can be misunderstood). In any case, sorry for the misunderstanding.--Mister Wu (talk) 09:14, September 19, 2022 (EDT)

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.
 * Origami King actually does use "Princess Peach" quite a bit: for example, there's Olivia saying "My brother and Princess Peach must both be in there..." and Bowser says "Anyway, where's Princess Peach?", both in the endgame. 19:37, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * The "Princess" title is still widely in use, such as in TOK as Scrooge said and on the Play Nintendo site. It would seem that only roster-heavy spin-offs refer to them with only their personal names. 19:42, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * That example does help me see the difference in this situation, mainly cause I'm comparing a title to a full name. I guess it makes sense that Peach and Daisy use their princess title cause it's a title. And it makes sense that the Koopalings don't go by their full names often cause that would literally be like going up to your best friend and using their full name just to refer to them. So from a realistic standpoint, it makes sense that games like Paper Jam or Color Splash don't just have everyone referring to them by their full names in dialogue like they would when referring to Peach as "Princess Peach" (I guess it's also worth mentioning that in Color Splash, Peach's introduction does use her full title while the Koopalings don't use their full names.) That being said, using spin-offs like Mario Kart might not be the best examples, since most characters go by their standard names anyway.

@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? 19:10, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * The thing is, they're not contradictory (or even different, technically) names, and it's not even really an inconsistency. Sometimes they use the full name, other times they use a shortened version. I don't see any harm in using the full one if it's still in use. -- 19:51, 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. 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. 10:30, September 21, 2022 (EDT)


 * I've already explained at least for my part that I think it's fine keeping the full names since the most commonly used ones are just simplifications of those names, and the full ones are still in use. If the full names had been dropped entirely for an extensive period of time, yeah I could see that, but they're clearly still around. I don't think that's mental gymnastics myself, but if you feel that the arguments presented so far aren't "proper rationale" I'm not sure there's much more to say. -- 12:16, September 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * "since the most commonly used ones are just simplifications of those names, and the full ones are still in use" This straight up argues doing the opposite of what the policy I cited above says to do. 17:30, 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?" Except they're not "rare" as you claim. I found myself piping links to their articles far more often than not, because--and I re-reiterate--their one-word names have seen infinitely more use in various media throughout the years. I didn't put a lot of focus on this point in the proposal, but having to only type in one word whenever I link would definitely save some effort. "Also both example sentences provided for the support option are far more awkwardly worded than what's currently there." If you have anything better, provided a scenario in which this proposal passes, I'm open to it. 07:46, September 23, 2022 (EDT)
 * Well... to address the second point, you don't need to change it at all? To address the first, this is all basically just opinion so there's no definitive answer to this, but it's just 5 extra letters. You would need to type it, at a stretch, once per article if it's not already linked - or you don't even need to type them at all, as their first names redirect to their articles anyway. Unless there's suddenly been a massive flood of new Koopaling media/appearances I'm not sure how this could cause any real issue, and the solution the proposal suggests is effectively already in place. If it's causing that much of a problem, you could just leave it for someone else to edit. 10:54, September 23, 2022 (EDT)
 * Those 5 letters, "Koopa", need to be typed out in addition to re-typing the Koopaling's unique name for the sake of piping the link to their article (the wording has to be apposite to what the game in question uses anyway--see Naming--and that's most games really). Piped linking has to be done because current policy discourages linking to redirect pages. "Unless there's suddenly been a massive flood of new Koopaling media/appearances" -- there has. Assuredly, for almost a decade now. And there have been very, very few instances, verging on non-significant, in this past decade where their full names were used. (This has to be about the fifth time I'm stating this.) I encourage you to look at and compare the examples everyone brought up so far in this discussion as well as in previous relevant talks. 11:16, September 23, 2022 (EDT)
 * It might be the fifth time you've said that, but it's an assumption, not a fact. It's not even true if you count the Smash Ultimate and Mario & Sonic examples Mister Wu mentioned, or the merch where it's used. Why does it matter anyway, why does that justify changing the name? There's no sign the full names have been dropped completely, so it's nothing to do with the naming policy, and the fact that they were used in the past - in games that are often re-released - means they're relevant. Also, piping the link is... really not a huge task. If anything it's a very minor inconvenience, which would take at most a minute to resolve if you had to do it for all seven - and something you're unlikely to run into more than once every few months, at a stretch. It's also something you need to do everywhere on the website, why is it particularly bad in this case? Just feels like removing relevant info for a pointless reason, if I'm honest. 11:30, September 24, 2022 (EDT)
 * When facts stated ad nauseam are being brushed off as "assumptions", and that they "don't justify changing the names", it's when I officially give up arguing. If a handful of (obscure) instances in a total of two/three titles out of 10 back to back + some 2017 Monopoly game are enough to overpower the rest, then fine: by all means go against policy if you so wish. This same line of thinking can be used to rename Squirps to the character's full name, as I've mentioned above. "If anything it's a very minor inconvenience, which would take at most a minute to resolve if you had to do it for all seven" Most links concerning Koopalings have to be piped; it's as inconvenient as typing the same word twice everytime it comes up. I've been active enough around these parts for the past several years to know what I'm talking about. 12:10, September 24, 2022 (EDT)
 * @MrConcreteDonkey: No one is claiming that the full names have been completely dropped, nor is anyone calling for their removal from the wiki. We're just saying that most of the more recent games use the shortened names without mentioning the full ones, so we should retitle the articles while still making the full names immediately obvious in the lead and infobox. I don't see how this can be classified as 'removing relevant info for a pointless reason' when no info is being removed here. 14:49, September 24, 2022 (EDT)

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)
 * I admit I wasn't really expecting the proposal to be polarising in the first place, hence my lack of foresight. Trying to sort out minor, secondary issues with separate voting options in a proposal is a practice I will reconsider doing from here on out. 07:46, October 2, 2022 (EDT)
 * Aside from the issue of splitting the vote for something pretty trivial, something like figuring out wording (when it's as minor as this) is probably better suited for a discussion either during the proposal or after it passes, for future reference. And uh, if it passes, then the wording is technically enforced by proposal and can't be rewritten without another proposal to overturn it, which is a pretty weird situation for something that's not controversial. -- 13:07, October 2, 2022 (EDT)

Create Category:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope Sparks
Per rule 15, a proposal isn't necessary to create this category if it already sufficiently meets the standards and there's no controversy.

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 Manual of Style, a more specific category should be created for these Sparks, named.

Proposer: Deadline: October 24, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Comments
Usually, 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. -- 13:14, October 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * The only reason I recommended the category to include the name of the game was to distinguish it from other types of Sparks (see Spark (disambiguation)), but I suppose that point is moot when those Sparks have their own articles anyway. I'll probably just create myself and request that this proposal be cancelled.  14:41, 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". 13:47, October 17, 2022 (EDT)

Remove or Split trophy/spirit cameo in the Latest appearance
Non-physical appearance being listed in the Character Infobox. Most of the DK characters had this information. Especially, they haven't appeared in the game in over a decade. Tiny Kong hasn't appeared in a game since 2008. Excluding remakes, Toadsworth hasn't make an appearance in a new game since 2013. We recommended that remove or split any trophy/spirit cameo appearance in infobox that anyone can appeared on. Or we split their physical and overall appearance. An infobox similar to other Nintendo or third party characters.


 * 1) Do not include cameo appearance in infobox
 * 2) Separate their physical and overall appearance in infobox.

Proposer: Deadline: October 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support (option 2)

 * 1) Appearing as a PNG in Smash Bros. should not overwrite their last actual appearance. Keeping them is fine, but not when it removes information about the last time Tiny Kong herself was actually in a game.

Oppose

 * 1) Even if the character doesn't make a physical appearance, their presence is still in the game so I think it's still worth reflecting that.
 * 2) per Swallow. Also, I have no idea why you didn't even choose an option for your proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per Swallow. It's still an appearance, it counts.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) per all (Also since you made the proposal you should probably add your support on)
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
Updated 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)
 * As the proposer, you should put your own vote in one of the supporting options. 16:47, 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 is
Paper Airplane Chase is a DSiWare game that was made based on the minigame Paper Plane (minigame came first). If this game wasn't made based on the WarioWare minigame, the answer to how MarioWiki should cover it would be obvious: a cameo appearance. The characters just appear on the background and serve no gameplay functionality. So the question is, how should Paper Airplane Chase be covered on this wiki?


 * Part of the Mario franchise: Paper Airplane Chase gets considered a full part of the Wario series, since it originated from the WarioWare minigame. This option results in the game receiving full coverage
 * Guest appearance: Not sure how to justify this option. The page remains, no full coverage
 * Cameo appearance: Paper Airplane Chase gets considered nothing more than a cameo appearance, resulting in the article getting removed

Proposer: Deadline: October 22, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Mario game

 * 1) It's a direct spin-off of Wario, and I'm pretty sure that makes it count as a game in the franchise by our policy.
 * 2) It's taken directly from WarioWare and still keeps the elements of that series, I don't see why we should do anything else.
 * 3) I think it makes sense to give the game full coverage if it is based directly off of a WarioWare subject and continues to contain some elements from the series.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.

Standardize citations for archived pages
As requested by proposer.

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 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: "Author Name (January 1, 2000). . Publisher. Retrieved January 1, 2022."

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: "Author Name (January 1, 2000). . Publisher. Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC via Archival Website. Retrieved January 1, 2022."

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: "Satterfield, Shane (August 25, 2000). Nintendo's GameCube Unveiled. GameSpot. Archived September 5, 2015 via Wayback Machine. Retrieved July 15, 2022."

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): "Game Archives"

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: Deadline: October 24, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support
I think I'd rather have it link to both the archive and the original, but I can see why that might not be ideal and this is still better than nothing so per proposal.
 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I agreed with making it a formal encouragement to treat archive links as supplementary to authentic links, thereby easing the process of swapping them when the latter are discontinued. However, I don't see a use for replacing perfectly fine, working links with archived counterparts, much less so extending that to policy. Generally speaking, archived snapshots load slowly and can be a fuss to instate in the first place; making their use obligatory and exclusive, on top of what I just said, might discourage editors from actually sourcing their information. Besides, ignoring this aspect, all in all this reads to me like trying to make an amendment for an issue that doesn't exist.

Comments
Can 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. 00:50, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I've edited the description of my proposal to reflect your criticisms. If there's anything else I was unclear about, please let me know. 11:57, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't disallow snapshot timestamps. I recognise that the presence of such info creates an inconsistency with the way the original link's access date is formatted, but one could argue the timestamp is a defining, unique attribute of the snapshot. I.E., a snapshot taken at 09:00:00 UTC on January 1, 2000 is stored separately from another snapshot taken 17:00:00 UTC on the same day, and (on Wayback Machine at least) there's a set waiting period before a new snapshot can be created, so there exist no two simultaneous snapshots of a given web page. Another proviso in your proposal I would like to address regards the way broken links are handled: it's fairly counterintuitive to put forth a link that doesn't work and treat the working archive link as secondary; the way I've gone with this has been to treat the archive links as any other regular link, complete with its original website's name and access date, and sandwich the archival details in-between the former two, like so:". website. Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC via Mayback Wachine. Retrieved January 1, 2022." An additional practice I've seen on Wikipedia is to also append the original link as an accessory, as "Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC from the via Wayback Machine", which I suppose makes documentation more thorough--if a bit overly so, which is why I suspect some editors may find fault in this addition.  20:30, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I've made more revisions to the template I recommended for citing archived links. I elected to simply include only the archived link within the citation, both because the original link is always available on any credible archived page, and for simplicity's sake so editors don't find it too tedious to implement said template. 23:35, 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." 18:04, October 11, 2022 (EDT)
 * For additional clarification to that final sentence in particular, users should decide on their own whether to use an archived link in their citation (especially for pages that are volatile or already dead on the live web), or if using a regular link would be sufficient (this applies to most pages). However, if the user decides that an archived link would be appropriate, the standardized template described above should be used. There should be a template for citing archived links in addition to the existing template for citing regular links; that was the goal of this proposal in the first place. There will always be outliers and exceptions (for example, the reference on Il Piantissimo's article would be difficult to fit into a standard template), but having these guidelines is good practice because it sets the standard for credible and accessible citations. 21:33, 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). 20:42, October 23, 2022 (EDT)

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: Deadline: November 4, 2022, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: October 28, 2022

Comments
I'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. 06:00, October 28, 2022 (EDT)

Merge all non-Mario universe Super Smash Bros. Stages into a collective article
Throughout the past few months the wiki has been trimming down on Super Smash Bros. content. Mutliple propsoals have now been passed supporting the trimming of Smash content including propsoals merging items, deleting general technqiues and most recently the merging of bosses. Up until I recently beleived that Smash should receive full coverage on this wiki becuause of the high level of represention Mario and its sub-franchies recive in these games. However the recent trimming of content combined with the existence of Smash Wiki I have changed my mind on this. The next step that should be taken in trimming smash content is would be to merge the stages into one collective artcile.

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:


 * Mario
 * Donkey Kong
 * Yoshi
 * Wario

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. Futhermore the infoboxes for the non-mario stages are removed and the text body should be limited to one paragrah per stage.

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: Deadline: October 8, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended until October 22, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended until October 29, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge all non-Mario universe stages excluding stages orignal to Smash

 * 1) Per proposals, first prefrence

Merge all non-Mario universe stages including stages orignal to Smash

 * 1) Second prefrence.
 * 2) I'm in agreement with the proposal, and generally also with the original proposition to have some of the information trimmed, such as the soundtrack listings (although I wouldn't exactly restrict stage entries to only one paragraph, but I digress). The way Super Mario Wiki covers Smash content is an infamously messy attempt at a compromise between the practices of a bygone era of the wiki and its current efforts to curate information. Most of these stages, while not entirely out of the wiki's scope given their presence in a crossover game, have too tenuous a connection to Mario to have dedicated articles; related information is much better conveyed on Smash Wiki, i.e. someone can go there to see Dream Land's track selection if that's a concern. For the record, I would support a similar treatment for fighters that haven't appeared in Mario media.
 * 3) After some thought, I think this is also a fine option.
 * 4) Per Koopa con Carne. I see little to no reason to keep entire Smash articles with little to no relation to the Mario franchise if said information is documented far more comprehensively on SmashWiki; it just sets a standard of redundant documentation. People aren't visiting the Mario Wiki to learn about Brinstar.
 * 5) Since simply deleting Smash content that is irrelevant to Mario doesn't seem to be an option for this wiki for some reason, this is the best compromise I guess. Per proposal.
 * 6) I was opposed to merging the bosses before, but now that they are merged, why are we prolonging the inevitable? It makes little sense that things that amount to a backdrop & a floor have more priority than the actual items and bosses and every other mechanic (minus the players) in the series. Per proposal.

Merge only non-Mario adventure mode and subspace emissary stages

 * 1) Merging all stages seems like biting off more than we can chew right now, but these in particular aren't really significant enough to warrant separate articles for them.
 * 2) Per my reasoning in the comments
 * 3) I think that the main stages are prominent enough to remain separate, per Waluigi Time’s vote below, but I feel like these stages are less significant and can be merged.
 * 4) Per TheFlameChomp. the adventure mode and subspace emissary stages don't need separate pages.
 * 5) Per all, the arguments for stages being too prominent to merge don't really apply to the adventure mode stages.
 * 6) Per all. I agree to this most.
 * 7) Second choice; per all. Even if most non-Mario-related stages won't be merged, I strongly feel that these stages have too little relation to Mario to be split.
 * 8) The main stages are just as essential to Smash as the fighters, so I see no reason to merge them. Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Keep all Smash stages split

 * 1) Creating a single page to contain every non-Mario stage in the series history, as this proposal seems to aim to do, is going to be way too messy. I'm also strongly against this specific sentence: "Futhermore the infoboxes for the non-mario stages are removed and the text body should be limited to one paragrah per stage." By doing that, we either lose information while trying to keep it trimmed to an arbitrary maximum (why?) or we have all the information we can talk about regarding each stage clumped into a single paragraph, which isn't nice to read. Take a look at Dream Land (Super Smash Bros.) for example, and try to think of how this would look merged. It's not pretty. Stages are a big enough part of the series gameplay that I think they're fine keeping separate, and frankly, I wasn't really too happy about items being merged either, but at least that was easier to pull off.
 * 2) - Too much, too far. Engaging pushback mode.
 * 3) I feel stages are the second to only playable roster in terms of prominence in a Smash Bros. game (I mean we didn't get an "Everything is Here!" for stages 😒) so I feel a lot of other content should be merged first before we consider stages.
 * 4) I may consider The Subspace Emissary, which is mostly Smash-original content (and the parts that aren't, aren't Mario-related), but Adventure mode mostly consists of normal stages, and one of the nonstandard stages gets utility outside of the mode via Event Match.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all. At least, until we can adequately address the issues brought up by other users.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) By that logic non-Mario Mario Kart courses would also be merged which doesn't make a lot of sense.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
I'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)
 * I agree with merging Subspace Emissary stages, along with Melee Adventure Mode stages barring Mushroom Kingdom. 17:23, 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.

@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 Diamond
All of the disambiguated objects on that page that bear the appearance of a diamond and are named "Diamond" (e.g. Diamond (Wario's Woods), Diamond (Wario Land 4), and Diamond (Dr. Mario World)) are the same generic subject, just with different functions--and that principle isn't used to break apart Frog, Heart, Mushroom, and other similar pages. (In fact, a proposal to split the latter ended in a failure.) This proposal aims to bring together all the aforementioned objects into one page. Regarding the diamonds that appear in a collection of functionally-identical objects, such as the diamond treasure in Wario World and the gem category in Luigi's Mansion 2, I should probably clarify that I don't intend to have them split from their parent page with this proposal, just give them a quick mention alongside the more individual diamond items on the repurposed Diamond article.

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal
 * 2) Diamonds are diamonds. Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.

Comments
What'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. 15:55, October 22, 2022 (EDT)

Visual Editor
Editing articles using the current editing format (aka, Source Editor) is difficult. There needs to be another editing option to making editing easier. This is something Fandom has and works wonders.

Proposer: Deadline: November 1, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Rare unpopular opinion, but I just don't see why a very popular and widely used Visual Editor cannot be a second option. It doesn't take away anything and encourages newer users who don't yet have experience with source editor to contribute.
 * 3) Although I personally vastly prefer source editor and would never use a visual editor if we did have one, I don't see the harm in having it as a second option for people who do prefer it.
 * 4) Wikipedia itself has one, so the notion that it would be confusing to experienced editors is completely moot. Plus, visual editors are more designed for new editors to help them edit things easily and help them grasp the concepts of editing. I personally do not see the danger in this.

Oppose

 * 1)  VisualEditor isn't entirely perfect, it can mess up how wikitext looks like for experienced editors. I like the concept of editor accessibility, but it can be said that it would be preferable to make the basic rules of wikitext easier to read and utilize. In other words, I think source editing is fine as it is, and we don't need VisualEditor to supplement it.
 * 2) Per PanchamBro and Ray Trace’s comment. Coming from a relatively new user’s perspective, the current source editor used is fine. It was a bit hard to get the hang of at first but I quickly got used to how to use it.
 * 3) Per Killer Moth. As someone who just came back from a 14 year hiatus, it doesn't take long to get used to it. It's based on html which is universal across many sites.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) i think theres nothing wrong with the source editor, the visual editor, however, can cause numerous issues because it isnt used to more precise, specific things like tables, templates and so on.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
This is not something that can be done via proposal but something that is up to our site owner. 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. 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. To be fair, though, Wikipedia has its own Visual Editor, so a feature like that isn't impossible. But FANDOM's visual editor came first, and uses different UI compared to that of Wikipedia. Plus, Wikipedia is the only wiki outside of FANDOM that actually has a visual editor (as far as I know anyway), so it might still be difficult to implement. 07:37, October 26, 2022 (EDT)
 * Other wikis do have VisualEditor enabled (e.g. Inkipedia), but is just more of a preference that source editor is more in-depth compared to VisualEditor.
 * And about VisualEditor, it was made by the Wikimedia Foundation in collaboration with Fandom. Both teams worked to develop the shite software so they can both have this interface for their editors. 13:05, October 26, 2022 (EDT)

Remove the list and table exception from Article size
Okay, I tried starting a discussion on this first, but the lack of debate on this is ridiculous.

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: Deadline: November 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Let's keep our policies up to date with the reality of Mario games, please and thank you.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal, very unneeded and unenforced guideline.
 * 5) Anything that keeps the bloat off these already-huge pages is fine by me.
 * 6) Those two MKT pages would be a nightmare to edit if they were re-merged.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
For 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. 15:34, October 29, 2022 (EDT)

Decide when to substitute the meaning/explanation of a foreign name with a hyphen
This is part one of a motion to enforce consistency regarding the use of hyphens (-) in "Meaning" sections of "Naming in other languages" tables. A minor technicality, but it's always better to adhere to a firm convention rather than being spotty about it.

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.


 * Option 1: Use the hyphen solely to signal that a subject's name in a given language localisation, in its entirety, uses English words and is self-explanatory.
 * Option 2: Use the hyphen solely to signal that the code behind a "Foreign names" table lacks a "Meaning" variable for a given foreign name (e.g. a subject's Spanish name is noted in a Spa= field, but no corresponding SpaM= exists). This means that self-explanatory foreign names will be reproduced in "Meaning" parameters (e.g. Dut=Hot Wario | DutM=Hot Wario).
 * Option 3: It doesn't matter; leave as is.

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: Deadline: November 27, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

 * 1) Preferred option

Option 2

 * 1) Although this could be seen as redundant, it's my preferred option because it leaves less ambiguity as to what the hyphen means and makes the tables look more complete in my opinion.

Comments
The 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 "-"). -- 20:10, November 13, 2022 (EST)
 * And was there an express intent to have this done whenever a foreign name speaks for itself in English? Because some articles omit the M parameter where the respective foreign name actually requires explanation (see German name entries on most Wario Land: Shake It! level articles, e.g. Riverbloat Rapids). There should be more clarity on this. 04:39, November 14, 2022 (EST)
 * I added guidelines for it 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. -- 07:02, November 14, 2022 (EST)
 * Fair enough, seems like this issue has been wrapped up quite neatly. I'll cancel this proposal. 09:54, November 14, 2022 (EST)

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: 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) Per my reasons.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal

Do nothing

 * 1) - 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) 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) 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) Per all.
 * 5) - 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- 12:38, November 15, 2022 (EST)