TYPE-MOON Wiki:Article format poll

To participate, edit and place ~~~~ to place your vote under each lettered section. Both users and unregistered IPs may participate. Can't do the old-style polls due to the UCP shift and Discussion is just garbage.

Poll 1 - Servant Article Names

  • Current Servant articles are named based on Servant Class, i.e Saber (Fate/stay night), instead of their True Name, i.e. King Arthur, due to most older Fate works hiding their identities as part of the plot. With the introduction of Fate/Grand Order, the vast majority of Servants belong to that title and do not have their names hidden. Should all articles be changed to reflect Fate/Grand Order, or should all articles retain current formatting?

A. Articles named based on class first - Saber (Fate/stay night)

I agree with this option. -SuperSonicSP (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

B. Articles named based on True Name - King Arthur/Artoria Pendragon

I'm voting for this option, but is it an option to leave class names for articles where the Servant's true identity being secret is an important part of the plot and use True Names for every other Servant? Romanoff Blitzer (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It'll be an all or nothing switch. Page categorization would be too clunky doing an 80/20 split. EGGS (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this option. I didnt like it before, and it gets really ridiculous now with GO. Sandubadear (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this option as well. Considering how many different Servants we have now got in FGO. The only thing I'm concerned about is with all of the different Arturia's and variations of Servants, should we have their Servant class in brackets at the end? For example, Artoria Pendragon (Saber), Artoria Pendragon (Saber Alter), Artoria Pendragon (Archer) etc.... PhoenixRising88 (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I like "Artoria Pendragon (Saber), Artoria Pendragon (Saber Alter), Artoria Pendragon (Archer)" better BEcause I think it's eassier to work with. However, I don't think the amount of work that needs to be done to change it is worth it. GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What about 4 versions of Li Shuwen? What about unknown True Name Servant?Mgwand (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Class will be the secondary identifier. Due to Shuwen's unique circumstances, likely some variation of "Li Shuwen (Old Lancer)" and "Li Shuwen (Young Assassin)." There will definitely be some clunkiness no matter the setup. Those without names can either remain as-is until their True Name is revealed, or we can do something like "Unknown Berserker (HGW or Series)." EGGS (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


I vote for this as well. While there's the aformentioned issue of true names being plot relevant, the ultimate point of the wiki is to chronicle accurate information about the universe, preferablly in a tidy manner. If a person is spoiled, it's mostly their fault for having decided to browse the wiki before being informed.

Using class names for article names is far redundant at this point given that most people who are familiar with the franchise would likely know the Servants' True Names. Also FGO rendered the old rule of keeping names secret moot long ago. Putting a Servant's class in parenthesis next their name also seems pointless to me since their class is indicated in very first sentence of their page. Incub7 06:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I vote for this option, as I've made clear before. It'll require a lot of work ... but honestly, the whole wiki does. What's another thing to add to the list. Banksia (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if we end up updating the article names, the Noble Phantasm articles will need updating so that the tables don't just have "Owner: Archer" etc. Banksia (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Poll 2 - Unifying other Articles


A. Yes

I vote for this option -SuperSonicSP (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

B. No

Poll 3 - Servant Skills

  • Servant Skills are currently divided into four lists due to ever-increasing size. Is the current format best, should they be divided into lists for individual letters, or should each just get its own article?

A. Maintain current format

B. 27 lists (A-Z, #)

I think we should go with this option, because it is better organised and we don't really know how many new skills will be added by the time FGO is over. PhoenixRising88 (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I also vote for this option.

Voting for this option. We could theoretically set it up like the FGO wiki where each Skill was its own page and then insert them into catch-all pages, but that's ONLY if we take out all the reference links, which no one here seems to want to do. I tested it out and references don't play well with being inserted into other pages. Banksia (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, should we merge the Passive Skills into the other Skills pages? It's already been noted that some Skills are switched back and forth depending on the media (Natural Body appeared as a Passive recently after being an Active Skill in FGO for five years) and FGO is also introducing a lot of idiosyncratic Passives. Banksia (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I vote for this option. Seems more organized. -SuperSonicSP (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

C. Each skill has its own page