===Merge M&L and PM Wiggler articles with Wiggler===
Seeing [[Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Dream Team)|Wiggly]] and [[Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam)|the Wiggler from M&L PJ]] and the other M&L and Paper Mario Wigglers excluding [[Swiggler]] split makes me question why aren't any of these merged in the proper [[Wiggler]] article. I mean sure they have a different role from other Wigglers but they all have the same name and there really is no real reason to keep these split.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawful's Minion}} <br>
'''Deadline:''' June 29 2016 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Fawful's Minion}} Per my reason above 🔼<br/><s>#{{user|Baby Luigi}} per my comments below</s>
#{{user|LudwigVon}} - Per Baby Luigi
#{{User|Tails777}} Until we figure out a solid way of determining which generic enemy characters get articles, I think it's best to merge these Wigglers.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
#{{User|BabyLuigi64}} Per all.
#{{User|AfternoonLight}} Per all. This is a very good idea to try!
====Oppose====
#{{User|YoshiKong}} The [[Wiggler|Wiggler article]] serves as a species page, which covers each officially recognized appearance of the Wiggler. When a Wiggler is given a specific role in a game or appearance such as appearing as a boss, they are treated as an individual character which is separate from the generic species, such as the Wiggler enemies in Super Mario World. For example, [[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)]] is also a separate article. But it is given a brief section on the Wiggler page to cover a variation or character as part of the species, and then a reference is made to the main article. I believe this should always be done when Wigglers are treated as a character rather than having a common appearance such as an enemy. Sharing the same name isn't a deciding reason to merge two separate articles.
#{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} For now I will oppose. I will give my reasoning below. There is more to this proposal than initially thought by the proposer.
#{{User|7feetunder}} If this proposal included Wiggler from ''Sticker Star'', I'd vote in favor. As I stated below, it and the one from ''Paper Jam'' are extremely similar in terms of both personality and role in the story, so a merge proposal that includes one and not the other is one I can't support.
#{{User|3D Player 2010}} per 7feetunder
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} per BazookaMario's comment bellow: "This proposal doesn't seem well-thought out." It seems pretty clear to me that this isn't going to be sorted out to the satisfaction of all parties in the length of a proposal discussion, particularly when issues that are greater and deeper than the main topic keep cropping up.
#{{User|Time Turner}} The proposal seems vague, listing off two Wigglers before stating "and the other M&L and Paper Mario Wigglers," which leaves me worried as to what exactly will happen if this proposal will pass. Per all.
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Per Ghost Jam. The main reason for that remark is that we [[Talk:Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Dream Team)|have had an extensive discussion]] and {{User|Fawful's Minion}} has had very little participation in the thread and has shown very little understanding for the situation, so I concluded that the user had made this proposal in impulse rather than understanding all points and thinking this through.
#{{user|Baby Luigi}} I changed my vote. While I still support the entire premise of it, as others said, I also have to agree it's poorly planned and thought out, so, per Bazooka Mario and Ghost Jam.
#{{user|Megadardery}} Per everyone except YoshiKong. I'd like a proposal to redefine which articles should be split, and which should be merged.
#{{user|Reboot}} Per all
====Comments====
'''YoshiKong''': So if we give a article for each time Wiggler appears as a boss, should we do the same when Wiggler appears as a playable character and give it a page each appearance of Wiggler as a playable character?--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}} 19:06, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
:This issue has been [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_34#Split_characters_like_Koopa.2C_Shy_Guy_and_Wiggler_into_a_character_page_from_the_species discussed] in a past proposal. I agree with the opposing arguments there. {{User|YoshiKong}} 19:41, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
::Your decision to oppose goes against a lot of what has been established in the wiki. For example, various Koopa Troopa plays specific roles in Mario Party, especially in ''[[Mario Party 4]]'' where there's an outfitted Koopa Troopa who's the host (there's a [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_44#Create_articles_for_the_hosts_of_Mario_Party_4 proposal that failed to gain traction] because of some dispute, despite that the game clearly intended them to be their own characters). Another example is a single Dry Bones appearing as a boss in ''[[Mario Party DS]]'', where bio descriptions specifically list the Dry Bones as his own character in the game, where they use singular pronouns to describe him. In the ''Mario Baseball'' games, there's a specific Lakitu who plays the role of the referee, complete with his own dialogue and personality, as well as the only Lakitu appearing in the game. There's a single character called [[Pink Boo]] in ''[[Mario Party 5]]'' where she was given her own personality as well as even given a gender pronoun, making her technically separate from her species. Calling to split all generic subjects who have been having a unique role at one point unnecessary complicates piping, and I believe it's better off to have articles such as the Wigglers from the RPGs be merged with the general Wiggler article, as, aside from the personality, the single Wiggler is just as relevant as those aforementioned characters I mentioned, yet I don't see the other enemy characters getting split any time soon. Hell, the playable Lakitu character from ''Mario Kart 7'' doesn't even have [http://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Lakitu_(character) his own article] because the game bios acknowledge that he's the same guy as the guy who held races in the past despite his different shell color from the Lakitu referee. I know Mario Party is a pretty ubiquitous mention here, but it, alongside the RPGs, are the game series most defined for giving generic enemies specific roles and characters, so, we can't ignore what those two game genres did to the generic characters. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 20:01, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
:::Pink Boo's gender and personality were introduced in ''[[Mario Party 6]]'', not ''5''. Nitpicking aside, shouldn't this proposal include the [[Wiggler (Paper Mario: Sticker Star)|Wiggler]] from ''Sticker Star''? It and the one from ''Paper Jam'' are so similar anyway, there's no reason to merge one and not the other.{{User:7feetunder/sig}} 20:45, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
::::Yeah, probably. Giving all of the Wigglers their own page also unnecessarily complicates piping and navigation. Keeping those appearances all under one article is sufficient enough. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 20:51, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
My question is, what makes a character a character worthy of an individual article? What is this "specific role"? The example ([[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)]]) provided is a weak one: this one has a drastically different appearance (it also turns into sand when defeated) and has a different Japanese name. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 21:05, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
:There's the Mario Party Advance characters... {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:07, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
::According to Time Turning ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 38#Delete the Mario Party Advance character pages|here]]), they get articles cause "they're found in unique circumstances, interact with the player in a unique manner compared to other games, have unique dialogue, give unique items and quests..." In a sense, I understand that, but at the same time I feel like there are plenty of characters who meet these requirements. Many of the characters in Mario Super Sluggers have unique personalities, outright challenge the player to missions, a few give quests to the player. I'm not fully sure, but do we have a real way of determining which generic characters get articles? I mean characters from most RPGs are exceptions for their more unique designs, actual names and such, but what of the characters who differ very little from their parent species? {{User:Tails777/sig}}23:09, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
:::I think for characters that differ very little from their parent species, we just assume they're a member of that species and list information about them in the parent species article. Of course, [[Goombob]], [[Goombetty]], and [[Akiki]] will still keep their own pages, but for the other members, I think they should be remerged. The logic that Time Turner gives can be applied to pretty much anything with a dialogue and a role, including the Wiggler giving out hootenannies in Mario Party 3, the Lakitu in Mario Kart 7, the Bob-omb host for Mario Party 4's duels, the Para-Beetle in [[Super Mario Momotarō]], and a lot of characters in Mario Super Sluggers. Keeping their articles because Goombob, Goombetty, and Akiki have their articles doesn't seem like a great justification for me. There also raises the question for articles like [[Yoshi]], [[Toad]], [[Boom Boom]], and maybe even [[Fry Guy]] but whole confusion about the identities of characters named after their species is a tricky question and frequent contentious issue in this wiki. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 19:49, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
::::Honestly, the fact that [[Akiki]], [[Coach (Mario Party Advance)|Coach]], [[Goombetty]], [[Goombob]], and [[Hulu]] have articles should be reason enough for the rest to have articles. The characters with more generic names play exactly the same role as the ones with names, so to sweep them aside solely for their name is incredibly inconsistent. I wouldn't agree with citing other games, either, since, as far as I can tell, this is the only game to give distinct, non-general names to some of its NPC's while also giving general names to other NPC's. This game is the one setting the track record for others to follow. Beyond that, per the stuff I've said [[Talk:Lakitu_(character)#Merge_this_page_with_Lakitu|every]] [[Talk:Wiggler_(Mario_&_Luigi:_Paper_Jam)|other]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_38#Delete_the_Mario_Party_Advance_character_pages|time]] this has been brought up.
::::<small>also it's time turn'''''er''''' </small>{{User:Time Turner/sig}}
:::::The names and appearance make all the difference, though, in the Mario Party Advance case. How do you know that these names are as distinct? [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Bazooka_Mario/sandbox&oldid=1978954#Contents What about Rex, Thwomp, and Dino-Torch in ''Super Mario-Kun''] (though I do think the baby Boo, the Thwomp's grandfather, its mother, and the Buzzy Beetle boss should get their own articles)? The Koopa Troopa in [http://www.mariowiki.com/Koopa_Troopa#DIC_Cartoons the Super Show that's in the same group as Mouser and Tryclyde] (Mouser has his own article though)? They are named like that, you think they should get their own articles? The characters are referred to their species name. They also differ very little from their parent species. What's wrong with the alternative to make them a redirect to a section in their parent species's articles? Generic referrals are shaky at best and alleged consistency don't really convince me that much. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:25, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
::::::@Time Turner: My bad, sorry about the name misspelling there. {{User:Tails777/sig}}21:11, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
:I'll admit, you most likely know much more about Super Mario-Kun than I do, but you're contradicting yourself in your own post when you say that you want other generically named characters to receive articles and [[Mouser (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)|Mouser]] even has his own article. I still haven't been convinced that the MPA characters shouldn't receive articles just because their names happen to be generic. A name shouldn't be the one element that decides whether or not a subject should have an article, especially when other subject have articles when their only difference is a more unique name. I mean, if I go to [[Mushroom Pool]] and I see the article mention [[Coach (Mario Party Advance)|Coach]] and [[Cheep Cheep (character)|Cheep Cheep]], I may want to find out more about the characters; if I click on the link to "Coach", I get a short-but-sweet article, but going by what you're suggesting, if I click on Cheep Cheep, I'd get sent to the main article, where I'd have to sort out the unique Cheep Cheep from the generic Cheep Cheep that appear in minigames and the like. I just don't think that it makes sense. {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
::I must be typing it half-asleep, but we have a consistency issue on this wiki, and I'm not sure how to handle it, that's what my questions are, especially why [[Mouser (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)]] is its own article separate from [[Mouser]] when Mouser is a character too... and noting the inconsistency of that page and Tryclyde and Koopa Troopa. On searching Coach, the redirect anchors are there for a reason; you'll be directed straight to the respective Mario Party Advance section. Anyway, with the logic, should those characters I mentioned have their own pages? What should the line be drawn between a generically-named member of a species compared to a character that happens to share the name of its species? {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:02, 25 June 2016 (EDT)
:::My point about linking to the Cheep Cheep species page is that MPA features generic Cheep Cheep throughout, albeit in areas that let the notable Cheep Cheep distinguish itself. For example, [[Reel Cheep]] features Cheep Cheeps, [[Chomp Walker]] and [[Barrel Peril]] feature Chain Chomps, [[See Monkey?]] features Ukikis, [[Amplifried]] features Amps, and so on. Also, the Cheep Cheep article doesn't have a specific section for Mario Party Advance, but rather a single section for the entire Mario Party franchise, which would only make directing users to the character more complicated; besides, if we're going to directly send users to the section instead of the general article, why not just send them directly to an article about the character they clicked on? Honestly, the biggest reason I'm fighting for the MPA characters is because of the existence of [[Hulu]] and [[Goombetty]] and [[Goombob]] (this one literally looks like a generic [[Galoomba]]) and the rest: I simply don't see the logic in giving articles to some, but not others. If we wanted to look at which characters deserved articles, their roles in the story, their interactions with the player, and their overall importance should require more attention than anything else, including their name. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:14, 26 June 2016 (EDT)
There are many other Wigglers to move. These should be considered for merge as well.
*[[Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Dream Team)]]
*[[Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam)]]
*[[Wiggler (Paper Mario: Sticker Star)]]
*[[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)]]
*[[Big Wiggler]] (maybe)
Although I agree with the merge, I am going to oppose until we consider the other [[Wiggler]]s I mentioned. If there should be more to consider, refer to [[:Category:Wigglers]]. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 20:49, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
:[[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)]] is distinct (note the dramatically different appearance and Japanese name), so it should not be merged. Big Wiggler shouldn't be merged either, otherwise we wouldn't have articles for other giant versions of enemies such as [[Big Boo]] and [[Mega Goomba]]. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 21:03, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
::^Yep, literally ''just'' what I was about to say. {{User:Tails777/sig}}21:05, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
::Grey areas with that Sunshine Wiggler. Definitely difficult to work with to make a Wiki cohesive. I guess you have a valid point about giant enemies though. What about [[Klamber]]s and [[Scuttlebug]]s? I consider the official Nintendo guides a better source than [[Prima]], if they are both available, which they are for [[:File:SMS ScuttleBug.JPG|this thing]]. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:07, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
:::For the record, I'm not going to support proposals that start mass-merging articles, such as the larger variants. The wiki has taken on a "more-the-merrier" approach to articles, and I'd generally like to support that. {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
::::I'm for creating more articles but I feel that some article creation here is not really called for or feels forced, just to say we have ''x'' amount of articles. I think more effort should be with the creation of [[Special:WantedPages|wanted articles]] than worrying about splits to create more articles. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:01, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
::::Maybe Fawful's Minion should consider reinstating this proposal so that it includes all the RPG variants of Wiggler instead of those he mentioned? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:14, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
@Time Turner I'm not trying to sound rude here but did you vote? {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 21:13, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
:For now, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. Besides, someone mentioning Mario Party Advance is basically a cue for me to come in. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:14, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
@Baby Luigi Will Do. 🙂 {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 21:17, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
:You forgot about [[Wiggler (Paper Mario: Sticker Star)|the one]] from ''Sticker Star''. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 21:30, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
:Here are my two cents about this: The 'more the merrier' approach the wiki have been slowly taking is not something I support. It feels more organized when all incarnations of a character are in one big article. The only thing that should be split are clearly identified characters, that includes both drastically different designs ([[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)|This]], but not [[Wiggler (Paper Mario: Sticker Star)|this]]) and characters that are identified as characters, maybe by a different name. However, I feel this proposal needs more thought though, so I wish if the admins withdraw the proposal until it's more thought and studied.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 08:49, 26 June 2016 (EDT)
::'''@Ghost Jam''': Not meaning to tell you what you should do or anything, but wouldn't vetoing the proposal be a good idea in that situation?--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 10:20, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
:::Nah, I believe proposals with vague and uncertain provisions will eventually be opposed. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:54, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
::::@LeftyGreenMario I made this proposal because I felt like there was no point in keeping them merged anymore, also if it wins I will merge all the Wiggler articles except [[Swiggler]]. {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 19:57, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
:::::@LeftyGreenMario And what do you mean by it isn't though out. {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 20:00, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
::::::"all the Wiggler articles" is not a good idea. Does that include the [[Wiggler Family]], or the [[Wiggler Segment]]s or the [[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)|Super Mario Sunshine Wiggler]], or even the [[Fuzzy Wiggler|various]] [[Squiggler|subspecies]]? You need to clearly outline what this proposal will cover. {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
:::::::I thought I explained it you, {{User|Fawful's Minion}}, that you can notice: the proposal isn't thorough and you have little involvement in the discussion of the Wiggler; you just came in and said "I'll make a proposal". Sure, we kinda agreed to it, but I don't think you handled it well. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 17:58, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
:::'''@LGM''' Sure it may be eventually opposed, but it is still a good idea to cancel it outright. Opposing usually means that the idea is rejected. Vetoing means that the proposal is flawed.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 21:12, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
::::I agree with {{user|Megadardery}} that a veto is called for here. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:19, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
:::::Generally speaking, we only out right veto proposals that are against policy, outright impossible or some rule prevents the proposal from proceeding normally. For general topics like this, we normally let them run their course unless there is a large outcry for early closure (per a lose interpretation of rule 5) or if the proposer requests it (per rule 14). -- {{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} 19:16, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
:Yeah I kinda feel like deleting this proposal thanks. {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 19:43, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
Revision as of 19:05, June 29, 2016
Current time:
Friday, February 7th, 23:55 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.
If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. 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}}.
Rules
Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
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.
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 "(blocked)" 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.
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
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.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
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.
After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
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.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal formatting
Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal."
Talk page proposals
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. 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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Split F-Zero X (discuss) Deadline: February 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Rename Robo Kikki to "Robo Monchee" (discuss) Deadline: February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy (discuss) Deadline: February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Move Kutlass to Kutlass (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: February 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT
What to do about the unresolved identity of Worlds A-C human (discuss) Deadline: February 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Fix the Donkey Kong identity chaos (discuss) Deadline: February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad (discuss) Deadline: February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch) into Donkey Kong Jr. (New Wide Screen) and Donkey Kong Jr. (Table Top) (discuss) Deadline: February 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Remove information of Golf* for the Virtual Boy from Mario Golf (series) (discuss) Deadline: February 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
