MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Thursday, November 21st, 13:41 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. 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 autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
3. Proposals end 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.
4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
9. 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.
10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
11. 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 the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
12. 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 can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
13. 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.
14. If the wiki staff 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.
15. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first six 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.
16. 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.
17. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
18. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
19. 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, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 21, 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

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 for proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by the additional rules below:
3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
4. 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

• Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

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

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)

Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)

Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)

Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)

Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)

Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)

^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.

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)

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

Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)

Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)

Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)

Unimplemented proposals

#	Proposal	User	Date
1	Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series	Aokage (talk)	January 3, 2015
2	Create a template for the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door badge drop rates	Lord Bowser (talk)	August 17, 2016
3	Clean up Category:Artifacts	Niiue (talk)	August 22, 2017
4	Expand the Behemoth King article	Owencrazyboy9 (talk)	December 23, 2017
5	Create articles on the Remix 10 secret courses in Super Mario Run	Time Turner (talk)	December 26, 2017
6	Create articles for the Wario: Master of Disguise episodes	DKPetey99 (talk)	January 23, 2018
7	Decide how to cover recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series	BBQ Turtle (talk)	July 17, 2018
8	Allow ports of games with substantial new content to be split from the parent articles	Waluigi Time (talk)	July 23, 2018

Writing guidelines

Ban certain cases of future tense from the wiki

No, not discourage. Ban.

When this wiki deals with a subject from an upcoming game or update, it's very common to see phrases such as "set to appear" or "will appear in said game or update". This kind of wording easily becomes obsolete once the game/update goes live. While some cases are promptly corrected, others remain unchanged for a long time. This instance, for example, had been forgotten for months since before the release of Mario Tennis Aces simply because it was too obscure.

I propose the Manual of Style to be updated to forbid explicit statements that a subject will appear in a future media, on grounds that simply stating the same thing in present tense ("[subject] appears in [upcoming game]") is fine enough to use and doesn't risk becoming out of date (except in extremely rare cases, where the subject it removed from the game or the game gets cancelled). It's actually more correct to state it this way, since any trailer or gameplay of an unreleased game presents elements that have already been incorporated into it and are thus presently in the game. We may then avoid situations like this one where the subject is literally hours from going live at the time of this proposal.

However, not all future wording would be affected by this proposal. Lead paragraphs that refer to a game as "upcoming" are free to stay, as this is the most simple way to state that the game is not released yet, on top of being likely more visible and easy to update than an obscure sentence on a particular page. So, cases like "Super Mario Maker 2 is an upcoming 2D platforming and level-editing game" will stay this way until release, even if the proposal passes.

Proposer: Bye Guy (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Bye Guy (talk) per proposal
2. TheDarkStar (talk) Per proposal.
3. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Per all.
4. LinkTheLefty (talk) I don't see any better way to prevent outdated future tense from persisting awkwardly. Support.
5. Doomhiker (talk) This is partially my fault, so I do apologize. Anyways, I agree that using future tense can often date a page and be forgotten about, so per all.
6. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Please.
7. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
8. TheFlameChomp (talk) I’ve seen instances where the future tense is left in the article long past the subject is released, so I feel this makes sense.
9. Toadette the Achiever (talk) This is an outright ban I'm sure we all can live with. Per proposal.
10. Bazooka Mario (talk) I was concerned about the vague provisions in the title of the proposal, but that's already addressed in the proposal. I think this is solid.
11. Niiue (talk) Per all.
12. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. FanOfYoshi (talk) I don't like this idea at all. If it is banning, then no. Discouraging is ok, but banning?! Would it make it a level offense? We usually fix it when the game is released, but when it is not released, it is fine to use it. I wouldn't stand that! I would make a counterproposal if this passes. >_>

Comments

Why are we banning it? I would prefer we discourage rather than banning. Should i make a counterproposal four weeks after the proposal's deadline? -- FanOfYoshi 03:26, 1 March 2019 (EST)

You can, but judging from the overwhelming support for the present proposal, I think people really don't want to see future tenses on the wiki. What's the point of having them if they are going to be changed to present tense anyway? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 07:40, 1 March 2019 (EST)

Thing is, that's what the {{upcoming}} and {{new subject}} templates are for. They highlight upcoming or recently released games/subjects, which get categorized to look through. It's a simple category to look through and update, and if we have to edit the page to remove the template when it's time to do so, might as well change the tenses, and the MarioWiki:Upcoming_content#Revision already encourages things to be written in a present tense in this way. 15:36, 2 March 2019 (EST)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Bring Back Fake Reminders and Warnings

Hi, this is Mari0fan100. I've seen fake reminders, warnings, and last warnings get banned for 8.5 years now, but some of them make me laugh! I think we should bring them back for amusement, but if we do, they cannot be used inappropriately, only for fun purposes.

Proposer: Mari0fan100 (talk)
Deadline: March 9, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Mari0fan100 (talk) Per Proposal.

#FanOfYoshi (talk) Let's bring back this feature and be done with it!

Oppose

1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Fake reminders/warnings were removed for a reason. We will not be bringing them back. (And don't be surprised if this gets vetoed as well.)
2. Alex95 (talk) - "they cannot be used inappropriately, only for fun purposes." The very point of warnings directly contradicts this. I'm not sure if this proposal is allowed or not, but I'm not going to be for this.
3. Doomhiker (talk) Several issues. First, users may think that these joke warnings are not a joke and take them seriously, which will cause a lot of confusion and frustration. Second, if a user gets a joke reminder for a level one offence they did not do and they later actually do the level one offence, then a user may look at the joke reminder, think the joke reminder was serious, and give the user a warning when they only deserved a reminder. Finally, I could see users taking advantage of joke warnings using them as an excuse to flame users. I strongly oppose.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Definitely not, per all.
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) While this is funny, this wiki is serious. Per Doomhiker.
6. Ghost Jam (talk) Per all and several more reasons that should be obvious.

Comments

(you forgot oppose and comments) -- FanOfYoshi 14:34, 2 March 2019 (EST)

Hmmm... Actual warnings are given in severe cases. -- FanOfYoshi 14:41, 2 March 2019 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.