Pikipedia:Proposals

For archived proposals, see Pikipedia:Proposals/past proposals.

==  ==
=== Support ===
* 
* 
* 

=== Oppose ===
* 
* 
* 

=== Comments ===
* 
* 
* 

This page is used to propose changes, additions, or removals to Pikipedia's policies, guidelines, procedures, or staff members. To make a proposal, copy the contents of the box to the right, edit this page, and paste them at the end. Replace the title with an appropriate title, and in the first "Support" bullet point, explain your reasoning and sign your name.

Other users on the wiki can then sign their support or opposition, optionally making extra comments, and if staff agree, the change will be implemented.

---

Nomination for patroller: KawaiiKiwii

Support

• I am nominating myself to be a patroller. I believe that I would be an asset to the wiki, especially during the busy time of documenting Pikmin 4, due to my love for the series, along with my good and in-depth edits. During the Pikmin 4 documentation period, I have made several enemy articles, alongside other articles, have uploaded ~300 files and continue to do so. I think it would also help having more staff members to help Soprano as the wiki has got a lot more popular with edits due to the release of Pikmin 4. To conclude, I believe the Pikipedia will benefit with me as a staff member but of course I'm happy to hear your opinions on the matter. — {Kiwii_(talk)} 00:15, July 30, 2023 (EDT)

Comments

• While you are very good at editing, I'm not totally confident you should be promoted to patroller just yet. For now, you've been given the autopatrolled right. — Soprano_(talk) 23:27, August 4, 2023 (EDT)

Fansparency policy

"Fansparency", a portmanteau of "fan transparency", is when an official piece of artwork with a colored background (or a screenshot) is edited by a fan to have a transparent background around its subject. This makes the image easier to use in other contexts, but it also makes it an unofficial version of the image. Opinion is divided on how to treat fansparency on the wiki, which is why I'm starting a discussion on the topic where we can work out what the Pikipedia policy on this should be. I don't have a strong opinion on this myself, so I'll let other people present their cases. — Soprano_(talk) 05:34, September 10, 2023 (EDT)

My personal stance is that I'm personally fine with fansparency only when it is done to screenshots and when the image clearly marked as being "fansparency'd" in its file page. -Gulliblepikmin 05:40, September 10, 2023 (EDT)

Of course, fansparency should only be applied where no alternative presents itself. But what do we consider “no alternative”? Say we have a really low-quality but transparent official image. In that case, do we use it, use non-transparent better quality images, or do we allow fansparency even though there is an official transparent image? This situation may apply to things like some of the P2 renders. Supremekirbo (talk) 07:30, September 10, 2023 (EDT)

I feel the need to bring up that a good chunk of the Pikmin 2 flora and fauna renders on Pikipedia (the really tiny ones with terrible contrast from about 2006) were already tampered with, as they're sourced from the Pikmin 2 Player's Guide, which has screenshot boxes partially covering some of the renders. The person who uploaded the images just edited those boxes out and tried to fill in the blanks, which was pretty easy due to the low resolution of the scans. -Gulliblepikmin 09:34, September 10, 2023 (EDT)

I am very firmly and strongly against any and all forms of fansparency. There are a plethora of reasons for this, from it being an arguable copyright violation (editing without express permission from holder), to it not being authentic to what would actually be encountered, whether that is in game, in a guide, or in print media, and because honestly most people do a pretty terribly job doing fansparency, either by causing color distortion with improper erase techniques or by not properly vetting stray white pixels. Many pages across both here and other wikis will have backgrounded images in their infoboxes and galleries, and I would much rather a good looking gameplay screenshot over a crusty, poorly edited fansparent image. Our representation should be as close to authentic as possible without being able to be used in substitution: Having inferior quality or inauthentic files does not help that goal. Trig - 10:37, September 10, 2023 (EDT)

At least now we have the Piklopedia icons from Pikmin 2 switch, that gives us the original artwork in the highest possible quality. And from what I can tell, they aren't AI upscaled either.--NintendoPanda101 (talk) 11:36, September 10, 2023 (EDT)

But they aren't the original artwork, since they have a black border around them... — Soprano_(talk) 20:24, February 10, 2024 (EST)

Canon and regional differences on Pikipedia

Pikipedia's canon policy and treatment of regional differences are in need of significant changes. This is prompted by the release of Pikmin 1+2, which made significant changes to the first two games, and Pikmin 4, which greatly complicated the canon of the series, as well as more long-term issues like the inconsistent coverage of information from non-English versions of the games, and the unusual structure of the Canon and Pikipedia:Canon policy pages. This is a complex topic with multiple interacting parts, so this proposal has multiple parts to it as well, which are covered in subsections. There should be discussion on each part to reach a consensus before a final vote is held. — Soprano_(talk) 01:05, December 28, 2023 (EST)

Regional differences

Currently, Pikipedia:Canon policy states that the North American English version of each Pikmin game is the most canon version for the wiki. Whatever is true in this version should be documented first, then the European version, then the Japanese version. The reason for this is that Pikipedia is written in American English and that most readers are from that part of the world. This approach has some problems though and has led to disagreements, particularly in the Armored Cannon Beetle/Horned Cannon Beetle debate. Another issue is that for the first two games there's a difference between a regional version of a game (the three discs with slight differences, distributed in Japan, Europe, and North America), and a localization of a game (the translations into the many languages the games are available in). I've written about this issue more in Talk:Region. It's pretty clear this policy needs an update, so let's discuss. — Soprano_(talk) 01:05, December 28, 2023 (EST)

While a majority of the Canon policy seems perfectly fine, one section that I believe needs to be rewritten, is the Conflicts section of the policy, referring to Japanese text being considered non-canon. This simply sounds like we no longer care about accurate information when it comes to documentation. Official English translations have a notorious history to, in some cases, completely change character personalities, or story context, or even just incorrectly name items, and simply ignoring the original Japanese text, which is the true description of a franchise like Pikmin, a Japanese-made game, feels like we simply don't care.

Notable current examples on the wiki involving erroneous, official English translations:

1. The Armored Cannon Beetle vs Horned Cannon Beetle. We even document on both articles that it is a mistranslation in Pikmin 1, and that the Japanese text calls them the same thing.
2. The relation between the Armored Cannon Beetle, and the Cannon Beetle Larvae. For a long while, it was assumed that the scientific name was what was mistranslated, but as of 4, again, an error in translation in 2.
3. Hey! Pikmin family names. Numerous family names in Hey Pikmin have incorrectly translated Family names. For example, the Electric Spectralid is part of the Floaterbie family, rather than the Flutterbie family, despite in the original Japanese text, both families are イエシジミ科 . In fact, English is the only language with these kinds of issues.

I understand there are concerns with changing a policy like this, as it effects the whole wiki, past, present, and future. However, as stated previous, accuracy of information should be our top priority, and throwing the original Japanese text away for what seems to be pure convenience, sets a poor example of not only how the wiki is structured, but also sets a poor precedence for other wikis. This policy, to my understanding, was added back in 2014, which was a time it was difficult to really get reliable information about Japanese text for not only games, but media in general. However, in the past nearly 10 years, not only has more reliable methods of acquiring, and translating the original text now much easier and far more reliable; Google Translate has vastly improved, and deepL, an AI neural machine translator, has become extremely popular for it's accurate translations. On top of that, it is now extremely easy to communicate and talk with native Japanese speakers, and to my understand, some Japanese speakers do use our wiki, as there isn't really a Japanese Pikmin Wiki. I think this policy is just simply outdated, and needs an overhaul to meet with modern standards, especially with Pikmin now being a very international game, with games like Bloom and 4 being popular around the world.

--JPM (talk) 23:23, December 27, 2023 (EST)

I'm in favor of taking into account things written in the original language because for the people who are interested in learning all about Pikmin coming to this wiki, they would find it interesting to learn about things they missed or had no way of figuring out, the information really doesn't even need major portions of an article written for them, they can just be written under trivia.

--Nvortex (talk) 00:31, December 28, 2023 (EST)

I think it's unhelpful to treat this as a Japanese vs. English issue. Because the Pikmin games are not just released in Japanese and English, they're also in French, Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Korean, and Chinese. All of these are official versions of the game with Nintendo-approved translations that we should trust to be accurate. In the few situations where there are notable differences between versions, what if we treated it like a vote, where whatever is the case in most languages is what we consider most canon? Ideally, Pikipedia would document all the language versions equally, and the only reason we don't is because knowledge of languages other than English among Pikipedia editors is not very good. Unfortunately this is very difficult to change, but I think it's something we should aim for. — Soprano_(talk) 01:37, December 28, 2023 (EST)

I'd like to point out that, often, translations into languages other than English are done from the English translation rather than directly from the Japanese script. So, no matter how competent the translators are, any differences or mistakes in the English version can be expected to spread to other translations. Of course, this doesn't apply to every language in every game, but it's worth keeping in mind, I think. 2 B (talk) 15:09, December 28, 2023 (EST)

Generally, from what I can see on the "Names in other language" section, languages spoken in the Asian continent take more inspiration from the original script (probably because in structure they're generally more similar to Japanese than English). Also, I don't doubt that most translations are from English, but at least in Pikmin 3 the Japanese script had an influence, since Charlie's personality in the European version is more similar to the Japanese one than the American one. In short, generally other translations follow either the Japanese or the English script, and I think they should be treated on the same ground, reporting both and specifying which version(s) other translations follow. When the "main ones" divert, I think the most fair assesment would be following the majority on the most recent version (in this case, Pikmin 1+2 Switch, specifying that the previous version of the pages were present in older versions of the games).

However, in regards to what Soprano said: the acknowledgement of all languages would be ideal. Maybe it'd be possible to create a stub for the single language differences/canon/how we want to call them, leaving spaces blank/with a notice that they have to be filled with exact quotes from the games/referential material, and explain the difference in English. --BluePikminBestPikmin12345 (talk) 11:36, December 31, 2023 (EST)

Names aren't really the best way to tell, though. I remember checking the French translation of Pikmin 3, and it seems to be a direct translation from Japanese, not from English, for example, despite the enemy names resembling the English ones (not sure about the text added in the port though).

Anyways, if we're to treat all languages equally, there's something I'd like to ask about. Naming sections of creatures list its common name and scientific name from the English translation, and its two names from the Japanese script. Then there's a table listing the common names in other languages. This works for most translations, since the scientific name is the same between them, but the Chinese and Korean translations don't use the scientific names. Instead, they use translations of the Japanese names. Shouldn't these names be documented as well? And if so, where? 2 B (talk) 12:54, January 1, 2024 (EST)

Sorry for the late answer, festivities and all that jazz. Of course, I just said "Names" because they're the more available stuff to check on the wiki - naturally, player of the singular version will know more about it, I just tried to make an educated guess.

For your naming specific question, I don't see why we could not insert the scientific names of the creatures in "Names in other language", as a different table: it's a practice that already exists in area's page of 4 for example, to divide the name of the zone and the name of the base. In alternative, in the description of the scientific name it can be specified that the Japanese name is used in certain versions instead of the English ones.

Also, changing the scientific name (for reference or otherwise) may not be only a Chinese/Korean issue: I'm almost certain that the scientific name for the Ancient Sirehound was changed in the Italian version, but I'll have to check again soon --BluePikminBestPikmin12345 (talk) 05:18, January 10, 2024 (EST)

Documenting the Chinese and Korean versions of the Japanese name would probably be a good idea, as well as changed scientific names if there are any, but that's more a topic for Template talk:Foreignname than here. — Soprano_(talk) 20:24, February 10, 2024 (EST)

Hmm, I didn't know that some localized versions were sometimes translated from other localized versions than the original. In that case, we may have to handle conflict cases on a case-by-case basis, unless we can come up with some standard rules. As for documenting differences in other language versions, we can technically do that now, but it requires editors with the games in those other languages who want to document that kind of stuff. It's just not really feasible for it to become a standard thing, but it would be nice to encourage it. But I'm not sure how. — Soprano_(talk) 20:24, February 10, 2024 (EST)

I'd like to ask if this would affect the classification of the Glowstem as belonging to the Glowcap family, or the Margaret belonging to the same family as the Creeping Crysanthemum as opposed to the Dandelions. Other family-related changes (Flint Bug, Mitite) were reverted in Pikmin 4, after all. 2 B (talk) 12:59, December 30, 2023 (EST)

If we decide that it would be more clear to make these changes, then we could do those kinds of things. But we'd probably need to come up with standard rules to avoid everything having to be decided on a case-by-case basis. — Soprano_(talk) 20:24, February 10, 2024 (EST)

The unfortunate part is that things will need to be addressed case by case. The big ones right now would be incorrect family names, which would definately need the support of a group of people combing everything. Luckily, we have everything documented as being an incorrect translation, and we have (or at least HAD) people willing to go through and correct these annoying errs. Next would be the EVER oh so fun ACB vs HCB thing, which we also have everything documented. From there, any sort of minor issues would be corrected as they come forward. Hopefully, with 4 onward, we see a significant decrease in these large errs, especially with Japanese studios being now much harsher on localizers and translators in the industry. --JPM (talk) 19:40, February 12, 2024 (EST)

One thing that's come to mind with this is Garden. Pikmin Garden is solely in Japanese, with the US site translating rather slowly, and UK basically getting nothing. In my head, I can see us simply tackling things with Garden vs the translations and going with that, leaving a section for each article. However, I understand this might not be the most desirable (tho Soprano, even you have told me to wait for the US site to wait for translations). Garden offers a lot of interesting lore, such as confirming Waterwraith's JP name is based off of Umibozu, and explaining why Wollywogs are called potato frogs. It even explained how the Man at Legs exists biologically. With allowing for JP info to be a thing and following through on this, we can catalogue a lot more information. I know youve stated the wiki should focus gameplay first, adding lore and such like this definately boosts people checking out the wiki, but also people's interest in Pikmin as a whole. --JPM (talk) 23:57, January 26, 2024 (EST)

This is more on the topic of how much media from outside the games should count as canon, which is different from regional differences but is worth talking about. In my opinion, all content from official websites that doesn't contradict the games is debatable canon, not full canon. If it contradicts the games then it's non-canon. While the information in Pikmin Garden is interesting, we shouldn't be documenting it at the same level as the games. But what do other people think about this? — Soprano_(talk) 20:24, February 10, 2024 (EST)

A good amount of Garden's information is already brought in to 4, for example, the whole thing with Horned Cannon Beetles being invasive to Armored, as well as them breeding mutations, is both on Garden, but also in game in the Piklopedia. However, other bits of info, such as explaining Space Dogs and what not, isn't so cut and dry. However, I do feel Garden should be treated as an official, first hand source because, well it is. It would be the same as documenting information from official artbooks or other such portions of media. --JPM (talk) 19:40, February 12, 2024 (EST)

Information from official media like that is considered debatable canon, according to the current canon policy. Are you suggesting we change this? — Soprano_(talk) 20:34, February 12, 2024 (EST)

It may be important to change this policy since Garden is essentialy a "Word of God" canon. It provides information in a much more digestable manner, with most of the info being already present in 4's notes. Obviously, things like the Pikmin 4koma would be non canon, but Garden is seemingly an official Nintendo wiki, complete with 3D model resources and unique renders. --JPM (talk) 01:17, March 4, 2024 (EST)

Since the topic of regional differences (especially relating to canon) is hugely unclear, I think a full policy to address this is required instead of stuffing it in along with the canon policy. I've drafted one here: User:SupremeKirb/Localization policy - SupremeKirb (talk) 19:58, February 10, 2024 (EST)

I think the general content of this policy proposal is good, but it still focuses too much on the Japanese vs. US English angle, when other localizations need to be considered too. — Soprano_(talk) 20:24, February 10, 2024 (EST)

I just don't know if that's practical or even feasible for Pikipedia. We already struggle enough with getting Japanese information, and the series is translated into a whole bunch of languages. Often the European language translations are based off NoA's or NoE's English first, and they don't always offer any new information. That being said, considering other languages can be useful, as mentioned in the Hey! Pikmin example in the draft. What do you think could be changed? SupremeKirb (talk) 20:33, February 10, 2024 (EST)

I mean, the big reason we're focused in on English vs Japanese is because A, the game is Japanese, and B, we are an English site. While, yes, other localizations need to be considered, we can't just sit around and wait for a policy change because we need representation from every language at the UN. Even then, we already document a good chunk of names and other sort of regional differences as is. I'm certain there are plenty of polyglot users who would be willing to contribute things if they were allowed to.

I think SupremeKirb's proposal is the best bet we have moving forward. We can obviously make modifications and changes as we go, but I think it's bad faith to just sit on this policy and have it be perfect right out the gate. --JPM (talk) 19:40, February 12, 2024 (EST)

I've made some changes to the draft policy. I do see that English and Japanese are the most important versions to document for us, but I've edited the page to clarify the priority order and when other languages are to be considered. What do you think of it now? We also need to consider the difference between regional versions and localization (see Talk:Region), and how this policy connects to other policies such as the canon policy. — Soprano_(talk) 20:34, February 12, 2024 (EST)

Do you have a link to the Draft Policy? I agree with your changes to the Region article being split in two, but IDK how or where to check the draft policy. --JPM (talk) 01:17, March 4, 2024 (EST)

The nature of canon

Before the release of Pikmin 4, the Pikmin series had a simple timeline, with only minor conflicts between games. However, Pikmin 4 has broken this, as its story is in some ways a retelling of the first game that introduces many details that conflict with other games. This has forced a major rewrite of the Canon article, but I feel the current state of the article is not ideal. We need to work out not only how to restructure this article, but also how to change the canon policy to deal with the fact that games can have contradicting facts. It's possible future games will introduce more contradictions, so working this out now would be a good idea. — Soprano_(talk) 01:05, December 28, 2023 (EST)

My preferred solution for the Canon article is to completely rewrite it into a Timeline article. It would cover the story of each of the consistent timelines in the series in separate sections, and then have a section at the end discussing how they connect together. There would be sections for Pikmin and Pikmin 2 together, Pikmin 3, Pikmin 4, and Hey! Pikmin, and these stories wouldn't be described as if they're part of a single consistent timeline. As for the other part of the question, I think that since all Pikmin games continue to exist when newer games come out and people still play older games, we should treat all games as canon even when there are conflicts. However, when choosing what to prioritize, we should document the situation in newer games first and then older games. — Soprano_(talk) 01:37, December 28, 2023 (EST)

Yeah I agree with this, making it a timeline is definitely a right move since it makes it more easier to read. — GGabryy_(talk) 08:38, December 28, 2023 (CET)

Timeline would be best, and if down the line, they pull a Zelda and start rearranging thing, having each game be it's own "block" would make things much easier to organize.--JPM (talk) 12:53, January 26, 2024 (EST)

A timeline article is ideal. I'm iffy on the idea of splitting 3 separately from 1+2 (although obviously 2 is the only direct follow up to another game). But, I do think this is better than trying to treat all four games as one single timeline. 4 was the first game to really bring in contractions, so this is really the first time treating them as one timeline has stopping making sense. — Bossclips_(talk) 06:19, March 11, 2024 (EST)

Pikmin 1+2 changes

The GameCube and Wii versions of Pikmin and Pikmin 2 have 3 regional versions: the Japanese version, US version, and European version, with the US and European versions having several language options. These versions have various differences, especially in Pikmin 2 where the treasures in each version are different. However, the Switch port of these games has merged the versions, so there is only one version of the game, based on the US Wii version, that has all the language options from the older versions plus some new ones. This means that treasures that were previously exclusive to the US version now have names and notes in Japanese and European languages. In addition, treasures featuring product placement of real-world brands have been redesigned to remove the product placement, and various textures including Piklopedia and Treasure Hoard icons have been replaced with higher-quality versions. This creates a big headache for the wiki as several tough decisions have to be made.

Previously, treasures with regional differences could simply have each version of the treasure documented separately, either in separate articles or paragraphs depending on the treasure names. But now we have the situation where if someone's playing the GameCube or Wii versions, these differences apply, while if they're playing the Switch version, the US version applies in all regions. How do we describe this on treasure articles without making things confusing? (Pikipedia has an informal policy that newer versions of games take priority over older versions, and it might be worth either writing this down to make it official or reforming it to simplify this situation.)

The treatment of icons is another issue. It would be nice to replace the 40x40px icons from the GameCube and Wii versions with the 160x160px icons from the Switch version. For Piklopedia icons this is not hard, and the icons have already been uploaded, just not used widely. But for Treasure Hoard icons this is a big challenge. The icons are for the new non-branded treasure designs, which often look different from the old designs. And since they only include treasures from the US version of the game, they may have to be shown alongside old icons in object lists when a treasure is different in the 3 regional versions of the GameCube and Wii versions. Considering the mix of icon styles that would result, it may be worth continuing to use the old icons, even for Piklopedia icons, but this would involve showing old treasure designs in object lists when the latest version of the game has a different design. There's no ideal solution, but we have to work out a solution, so that's what this discussion is for. — Soprano_(talk) 01:05, December 28, 2023 (EST)

I think the best method of taking things forward would be to use the "newest" version of the games as the main reference point. So, the Courage Reactor would use the new generic brand pictures and icons etc, but then within the article, mention the versions from previous games, like the NTSC and JP versions of the treasures. I dont see a need to document the same treasure on separate articles, especially since we know have the "most correct" version of each treasure. For JP exclusive treasures, keeping those as a separate article shouldnt cause any headache. Some routes I can see would be having a small section for treasures talking about different "Versions" of the treasure, NTSC, JP, Gamecube, Switch, etc. Another alternative I could see would be doing what the Team Fortress Wiki does with alternative weapons, https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Flame_Thrower where the infobox has numerous buttons to change the appearance of the info box for different iterations. --JPM (talk) 12:53, January 26, 2024 (EST)

Re: buttons to change infoboxes: these are known as switchables and we've discussed their implementation on the wiki before for other contexts (particularly the ridiculous multi-game infobox stacks on treasure pages and the like). As of the last conversation, the general consensus is that while they are convenient, we should minimise JavaScript wherever possible and switchables require that to operate. SupremeKirb (talk) 04:41, February 7, 2024 (EST)

Well, regardless then of Switchables, we should still prioritize the "most recent" version of treasures and locations being the main focus of the article, and then have alternate locations, models, IDs, etc in a separate section in the article. --JPM (talk) 01:23, March 4, 2024 (EST)

An issue with doing it that way is that there are just so many factors to consider with it. One treasure could link to 5 different articles without a very strict rubric/criteria for counting as an "alternate" treasure. I.e., Lip Service and Family Raft. — Bossclips_(talk) 06:22, March 11, 2024 (EST)

Structure of the canon pages

Some people (such as Flamsey) have commented that the way we document Pikipedia's position on the canon is quite strange, with some things documented on the Canon page and some things documented on Pikipedia:Canon policy. It is quite an unusual split and I'm not aware of any other game wiki that does things this way. Restructuring these pages to show the information in an easier-to-understand way would be a good idea, but how could this be done? — Soprano_(talk) 01:05, December 28, 2023 (EST)

I think it's not that odd. One demonstrates how canon is to be applied when writing while the other covers the topic like regular articles. I don't see an issue with it as it is now. — Bossclips_(talk) 06:25, March 11, 2024 (EST)

Changing the poll process to be more like featured articles

Every 2 months, Pikipedia's current featured article and poll are changed. In practice, the way these 2 things work is basically the same: a staff member chooses from the various proposed options, seeks input from others if necessary, and then when the time comes, updates the templates and pages. Officially though, the process for choosing a poll and a featured article are very different.

For featured articles, the process is described very simply on the page about them. There is a nominations page where people can nominate articles, and can support, oppose, or comment on articles that people have nominated. This page is divided into 2 sections, articles ready to be featured, and articles that still need work, and this status is independent of the votes and comments, and it's up to a staff member to move articles between the sections based on how they look. Staff members can pick articles to feature from either section, and when doing so, the article's nomination is moved to an archive page. There is also an archive page for rejected nominations, but this hasn't been used in years.

For polls, the process is described in a detailed poll policy. Polls are suggested and voted on in a very similar way to featured articles, on the ideas page, but from here the process is different. After the poll has been proposed for 1 month, if someone else has voted on it and if there are more Support votes than Oppose votes, the poll idea is moved to the future polls page, otherwise it might be moved to the rejected polls archive. In practice it doesn't work that way; poll ideas are moved to the other pages based on whether there's agreement that the poll can be asked in its current form, not just based on the vote count. When picking the next poll, staff members can only pick from the future polls page, and upon doing so, the poll idea is moved to an archive page. 2 months later when the next poll is picked, the results are added to a poll results page.

I think that the same system should be used for polls and featured articles. The featured article system is simpler and more reflects the way things are actually done, so I propose that Pikipedia:Poll policy should be deleted, with the "What makes a good poll?" section moved to Pikipedia:Poll, which would be significantly rewritten. Pikipedia:Poll/future polls should be merged into Pikipedia:Poll/ideas using the same 2-section structure as the featured article nominations page. Finally, I think that several pages in this area should be renamed for consistency – Pikipedia:Featured article/past nominations to Pikipedia:Featured article/archived nominations, Pikipedia:Featured article/rejected nominations to Pikipedia:Featured article/archived rejected nominations, Pikipedia:Poll/archived accepted ideas to Pikipedia:Poll/archived ideas, Pikipedia:Poll/Older polls to Pikipedia:Poll/older polls, and potentially also Pikipedia:Front page update to Pikipedia:Main Page update. — Soprano_(talk) 03:39, March 29, 2024 (EDT)

Support

• I didn't even notice that poll proposals were divided in two pages until now, so yeah this makes complete sense. — GGabryy_(talk) 09:43, March 29, 2024 (CET)
• Agreed. The current system is mostly the result of technical debt. — {Espyo^T} 12:25, March 29, 2024 (EDT)