MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Delete the and  templates
It's been four months since My last proposal to create interwiki templates to various wikis (like NIWA) has been declined, and the and  templates are still there. In fact, the Super Mario Wiki does not need these. Like Steve said, when the prefixes work just fine. If you don't want to type things twice, just do either  or  ; the following will work: Mario for Wikipedia and Mario for Fandom. Just like that!

Proposer: Deadline: October 2, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Just because there is a relatively short alternative way, it doesn't take away from the fact that the template names are even shorter. Especially the Fandom one.
 * 2) Per Axis.
 * 3) *cough* *sigh* "There is no point in change for the sake of change."
 * 4) Per Axis. The template names are already as short as they can get short of full-on one-letter templates of borderline incoherence, and we probably don't need to lengthen these names arbitrarily if anyone editing these already understands WP is Wikipedia and Fandom is... well, Wikia/Fandom. Besides, it saves time in inserting these links and in some extreme cases (read: basically any scenario involving Fandom articles) can even shrink the overall page size--both of those are very good things to have on particularly large articles!
 * 5) Per all, these templates are some added convenience that have no reason to be removed, and having just two such templates that are commonly used and easy to remember is quite different to the labyrinth of abbreviations suggested in the previous proposal (not that I really feel very strongly either way about the inclusion of those other templates, I just don't see the need to remove the ones we already have).
 * 6) Per all. I don't really see the point of doing this.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) the amount of times ive used the wp template specifically is just too many times to even make a change like this be merely plausible.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
Axis@undefined Doesn't that logic mean the previous proposal should have passed, though? The templates proposed there had shorter parameters to type out, but people decided it was unnecesary. Shouldn't the same apply here? 13:31, September 25, 2023 (EDT)
 * Well, and  are very commonly used and quite nifty interwiki link templates (the former because, well, it's Wikipedia, and the latter because it's the largest and most well-known wikifarm that hosts thousands of wikis: linking to a specific wiki on Fandom is in itself a bit complicated as it is, too). That whole laundry list of the previous proposal, though... they're mostly there just because they're NIWA wikis. Some of them, such as for Zelda Wiki and Nookipedia, make sense to have a template for, since Super Mario has some connections with Legend of Zelda or Animal Crossing, and thus interwiki links would be commonly used, but then there's those for Wapopedia, Dragalia Lost Wiki, and Kovopedia, which represent series that barely have any connection to Mario, and so is barely linked by this wiki, so in turn the template would barely be used as well. Not to mention it's a lot of suggested shorthands to keep track of. In such a case, it would be easier to just type kovopedia:Magical Vacation whenever the one occasion we have to link to one of these games makes itself apparent  21:37, September 27, 2023 (EDT)

Do not rename articles until the relevant media has released
What this proposal aims to enforce is that if a subject is confirmed to have a new name in an upcoming game, the article must not be moved to the new name until the game has released. A prime example is the recent situation with Psychopath, which the Nintendo of America Twitter account referred to as "Thought Peek" for the remake and the article was immediately moved, but was since moved back to Psychopath as it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name, so this proposal should also prevent jumping the gun like this. The new name can still be mentioned in the article, but as stated must not be the article title until the game's release regardless of source.

EDIT, PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING: I get the feeling a lot of people are going to see this and completely misunderstand my motive here, I'm not saying that we should completely ignore or distrust all pre-release marketing, this proposal is solely aimed at returning subjects in games and if they are eligable for a rename, all I hope to accomplish is establishing a rule like with latest appearances and infobox images, in that the move doesn't happen until release. Obviously it would be impossible to apply this to new subjects and I would not try and halt the creation of those articles, any form of official pre-release marketing for those would be perfectly acceptable.

Proposer: Deadline: October 5, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Not even just for games, content overall. Not to dig up old cases (and not to sound insensitive or anything), but we've | jumped the gun before on upcoming content so I support the idea of waiting until everything is fully known before making any moves.
 * 3) Per all. Doesn't seem like it could hurt, it's not like keeping the older name for a few months is the end of the world...  Or is it? 
 * 4) This seems sensible enough and consistent with how we generally handle upcoming media in other areas. Also saves us the headache of fixing things a second time if a pre-release name differs from the final product, which is always a possibility.
 * 5) Per all. Also there's always the chance of differences between American/British English localizations to take into account as well.
 * 6) This makes sense. As anyone acutely familiar with game development will tell you, things change mid-development, even (and in some cases especially) after promotional content says something about the game, all the time. And even if things don't change, all it takes is one blunder of cyclical reporting to accidentally trip people up anyways--remember God Slayer Bowser? Better safe and wait for the game to release than pre-empt it and get caught with our proverbial pants down if they walk back on it for whatever reason. And as Herobrine mentions, Nintendo has held different English translations between American English and British English for awhile now--who's to say this isn't another case of exactly that?
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Let's just say that I have unfortunate reason to believe that the retranslation situation is in a way more precarious position than all of us would've liked, but since I really should not get into that here/now/ever, I'll just say "I agree it's a good idea to treat everything as a placeholder until release" and leave it at that. (Also, I thought this was already standard practice.)
 * 9) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I can understand not immediately moving based on one social media post, but this easily has the potential to just seem silly if a rename is ever made very clear in pre-release material. This would also create a bit of an inconsistency with pre-release material being acceptable for the names of new subjects but not returning ones. This should probably be case-by-case in my opinion.
 * 2) I see no reason to distrust official social media and other pre-release marketing material in cases like these.
 * 3) Per PaperSplash's reason.

Comments
@PaperSplash I'm not saying to distrust official social media and pre-release marketing, I'm just saying to hold off from moving article titles until release like with latest appearances and infobox images. 15:56, September 28, 2023 (EDT)
 * Then why hold off? And apologies for misunderstanding, but I didn't know how else to interpret "it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name". It makes sense to wait until release for latest appearances, and while I don't necessarily agree with our current rule on infobox images I can see the reasoning for there, but I don't here. I don't think the DS Mario Circuit edit Tails777 cited is a good enough argument for a policy change across the board because Mario Kart Tour and the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass have a rather unique situation of having content released (and seemingly developed) concurrently. (Also said edit and the reason given for it in the edit summary feel rather contradictory to me...) This also isn't like God Slayer Bowser since we're dealing with an actual official source here. I'd also like to point out that Nintendo had largely put a stop to separate American English and British English localizations by the beginning of the Switch era; pretty much all the games that still have them separate are ports of games that already had them separate and are seemingly kept that way for consistency more than anything. (And even then, there have been exceptions like Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury where the original game's British English localization was discarded anyway.) The only comparable situation I can think of where the English localization ended up going back on a rename from pre-release to post-release is the Fishman ("Merman") spirit from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (which didn't end up affecting us either way since it's not a Mario character, but I'll still concede on this). That's what we should be looking at if anything. PaperSplash (talk) 22:18, September 28, 2023 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.