MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Wednesday, August 7th, 21:26 GMT

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. "Vote" periods last for one week. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options. For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
   • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

---

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "August 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Make {{last warning}} as more specific as {{reminder}} and {{warning}} (discuss) Deadline: August 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Twilight Town shopkeeper's wife from List of unnamed NPCs in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (discuss) Deadline: August 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Family Basic to Family Basic (microgame) (discuss) Deadline: August 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Use Mario Kart 8 Deluxe vehicle part thumbnail icons for Mario Kart 8 parts (discuss) Deadline: August 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Blooper (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) from Big Blooper (discuss) Deadline: August 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Drumstick (character) to Drumstick (discuss) Deadline: August 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Koopa Cruiser crew back to Koopa Troopa (discuss) Deadline: August 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split King (film character) from Mushroom King (discuss) Deadline: August 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Include remasters as a main category of reissues (discuss) Deadline: August 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Kuribo with Sockop (discuss) Deadline: August 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split "References to other media" section from The Super Mario Bros. Movie (discuss) Deadline: August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Split Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels, GuntherBayBeee (ended July 2, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder

Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)

Standardize coverage of elements from guest appearance titles, Axis (ended July 27, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Merge Golf (series) with Mario Golf (series), Hewer (ended July 15, 2024)

Prioritize the names used in Toadstool Tour over the guidebooks for enemies and bosses endemic to Super Mario Sunshine, Nintendo101 (ended July 31, 2024)

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

Merge Krusha (character) with Krusha, TheUndescribableGhost (ended August 5, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Decide how to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link

Since there are articles about subjects from the Final Fantasy series that have appeared in Mario Hoops 3-on-3, Mario Sports Mix, and/or certain Super Smash Bros. games (Nintendo 3DS / Wii U and/or Ultimate), I'm looking forward to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link. The issue is that there is also a wiki from Fandom (powered by Wikia) that is also named Final Fantasy Wiki. The good news, I've come up with three options:

Option 1

Change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages AND add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link.

Option 2

ONLY add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link (even if confusing).

Option 3

Do NOTHING.

Here is an example on the use of the interwiki link for the Final Fantasy Wiki:

{{iw|finalfantasywiki|Cactuar}}

Cactuar

{{iw|finalfantasywiki|Cloud Strife|Cloud}}

Cloud

That way, we'll be able to use the Final Fantasy Wiki interwiki link once it gets added right after either Option 1 or Option 2 passes, as well as change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages right after only Option 1 passes.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: August 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My primary choice

Option 2

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My secondary choice

Option 3

1. SeanWheeler (talk) The independant Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete compared to FANDOM's wiki.

Comments

The Fandom wiki is not actually called "Final Fantasy Wikia", not to mention that Fandom not even refers to itself as "Wikia" anymore, to the point that they also dropped that "Powered by Wikia" tagline. Wouldn't it be better to instead refer to it as "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" to differentiate the two wikis? rend (talk) (edits) 17:40, July 25, 2024 (EDT)

Also, what even is the "text" being referred to in the proposal that needs changing? When do we need to refer to the Fandom Final Fantasy Wiki? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:43, July 25, 2024 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure they may be referring to External link sections, e.g. here. Currently, the Super Mario Wiki links to specifically the Fandom wiki when it comes to anything Final Fantasy (even outside External link sections), since we don't have an interwiki link for an independent Final Fantasy Wiki yet. I imagine they wouldn't simply replace the Fandom wiki link with the independent wiki link and rather include both wikis. rend (talk) (edits) 17:50, July 25, 2024 (EDT)

Last week, I replaced "Wikia" with "Wiki (Fandom)." How do you think the proposal looks? GuntherBayBeee 10:00, August 1, 2024 (EDT)

Why are you saying this a literal week after making the change, instead of (nearly) immediately after? Wouldn't that make more sense? Or are you asking this only now, because you're either subtly asking me to vote again, or trying to drum up more engagement again, because your proposal did not get any votes?
Either way, while it's good that you applied the change, I'm still abstaining because I'm unsure which option is better. And in case I need to make it clear, I'm NOT obligated to vote, and NOT obligated to say why I'm not voting, and I should NOT be obligated about either option JUST because I engaged in the comment section. As I said before: "no one is forced to vote for an option, even if they're joining in the conversation, so I'd appreciate it if I'm not being pressed into voting for something." And this feels like teetering into just that again.
I'm sorry if this was a genuine question, but after two previous times where you tried to drum up engagement (either by asking commenters to vote, or by bargaining other changes when people weren't disagreeing at all) after no one voted or commented on it, this feels like another feeble attempt to get more votes, and I personally think this vote-bargaining thing is getting really annoying. You probably should've said and asked this "How'd you think the proposal looks now" thing a LOT sooner, and/or at the very least answer Hewer's question (by corroborating what I told him, for example). That way I could suggest what could be added BEFORE the 3-day deadline of being able to change the proposal has reached, AND would've drummed up engagement in a more natural way. NOW, it feels like you're asking people to vote, and someone had gotten blocked for doing just that. rend (talk) (edits) 11:59, August 1, 2024 (EDT)

Amend notability threshold for recurring musical themes from external sources

Currently, the standard for coverage of recurring musical themes is that any theme appearing in at least eight pieces of Super Mario-related media is notable. This is a reasonable standard, but it leads to a somewhat strange edge case which could become more relevant in the long-term: what about musical themes that do not originate in the greater Super Mario franchise but have appeared in at least eight wiki-notable crossovers?

Here's a concrete example: "Gourmet Race" from the Kirby series has appeared in some form in every single Super Smash Bros. game. That alone counts as six pieces of Super Mario-related media (Super Smash Bros., Melee, Brawl, for Nintendo 3DS, for Wii U, and Ultimate), and its appearances in Nintendo All-Star! Dairantō Smash Brothers Original Soundtrack and Super Smash Bros. Melee: Smashing...Live! (which explicitly count separately according to the eligibility guidelines) bring that up to the threshold of eight appearances.

While music from outside the greater Super Mario franchise certainly can be notable enough to deserve coverage (Game Start A comes to mind), I don't think the "eight appearances" threshold is a good enough metric in these cases. As such, I propose that the notability requirements for musical themes be adjusted:

1. If the debut of the musical theme is a piece of Super Mario-related media (here meaning "a piece of media that has a dedicated article on this wiki"), the current system still applies unchanged. Crossovers still count towards the threshold in this case.
2. If the debut of the musical theme is not a piece of Super Mario-related media, it must appear in at least eight pieces of non-crossover Super Mario-related media. The classification of "crossovers" for this purpose should be consistent with how crossovers are classified elsewhere on the wiki: Super Smash Bros. and Nintendo Land are crossovers, but Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and WarioWare are not crossovers.

It might make sense to say that crossover appearances of a musical theme shouldn't count for themes from the greater Super Mario franchise either (and I have included this as a separate option), but I think it's reasonable to give those themes "preferential treatment" in this way.

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: August 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Amend

1. JanMisali (talk) As proposer.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
3. Yook Bab-imba (talk) My second option.
4. Arend (talk) Super Smash Bros. and Nintendo Land are their own thing that compile several series in one title, and their only relevance to Super Mario is because Super Mario gets heavy representation in those titles (which is why it's important that the current standard still applies to Mario music). So when other franchises like The Legend of Zelda, Splatoon and Animal Crossing are also represented in those titles, that means these titles are also relevant to those franchises, but should NOT automatically mean those franchises are in turn relevant to Super Mario. So if, say, Min Min is not allowed an article because she hasn't appeared in a single Super Mario game yet, why should we need to make an article for "Samus Appears" from Metroid when out of the 9 Mario-relevant games it shows up in, only three are actually from the Super Mario franchise?
5. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
6. SeanWheeler (talk) We should focus more on Mario content because we're the Super Mario Wiki.

Amend, but exclude crossovers from the notability threshold for all musical themes rather than having two separate standards

1. Yook Bab-imba (talk) My preferred option.

Comments

Do the Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games or Mario + Rabbids titles count as crossovers on the same level as Super Smash Bros., or not? I suppose they do, considering the non-Mario material would clearly not be in it if it didn't double as a game for the other franchise, but then again, it's still clearly a Mario title whereas Smash Bros and Nintendo Land are not (being instead their own thing that compile several series in one title), so some clarification would still be nice. rend (talk) (edits) 05:25, August 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think they still count as crossovers. I'm pretty sure there's some Sonic music that's been in enough Mario & Sonic and Smash Bros. games collectively to be considered notable otherwise. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:24, August 3, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.