#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all. Doesn't seem like it could hurt, it's not like keeping the older name for a few months is the end of the world... ''<small>Or is it?</small>''
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all. Doesn't seem like it could hurt, it's not like keeping the older name for a few months is the end of the world... ''<small>Or is it?</small>''
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} This seems sensible enough and consistent with how we generally handle upcoming media in other areas. Also saves us the headache of fixing things a second time if a pre-release name differs from the final product, which is always a possibility.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} This seems sensible enough and consistent with how we generally handle upcoming media in other areas. Also saves us the headache of fixing things a second time if a pre-release name differs from the final product, which is always a possibility.
#{{User|Herobrine}} Per all. Also there's always the chance of differences between American/British English localizations to take into account as well.
====Oppose====
====Oppose====
Revision as of 16:48, September 28, 2023
Current time:
Thursday, February 13rd, 15:40 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 Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad (discuss) Deadline: February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Remove information of Golf* for the Virtual Boy from Mario Golf (series) (discuss) Deadline: February 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Move Kutlass to Kutlass (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: February 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Resplit Birdo (species) (discuss) Deadline: February 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
It's been four months since My last proposal to create interwiki templates to various wikis (like NIWA) has been declined, and the {{wp}} and {{fandom}} templates are still there. In fact, the Super Mario Wiki does not need these. Like Steve said, when the prefixes work just fine. If you don't want to type things twice, just do either [[wikipedia:Mario|]] or [[wikia:c:mario:Mario|]]; the following will work: Mario for Wikipedia and Mario for Fandom. Just like that!
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: October 2, 23:59 GMT
Axis (talk) Just because there is a relatively short alternative way, it doesn't take away from the fact that the template names are even shorter. Especially the Fandom one.
MegaBowser64 (talk) *cough* *sigh* "There is no point in change for the sake of change."
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Axis. The template names are already as short as they can get short of full-on one-letter templates of borderline incoherence, and we probably don't need to lengthen these names arbitrarily if anyone editing these already understands WP is Wikipedia and Fandom is... well, Wikia/Fandom. Besides, it saves time in inserting these links and in some extreme cases (read: basically any scenario involving Fandom articles) can even shrink the overall page size--both of those are very good things to have on particularly large articles!
Hewer (talk) Per all, these templates are some added convenience that have no reason to be removed, and having just two such templates that are commonly used and easy to remember is quite different to the labyrinth of abbreviations suggested in the previous proposal (not that I really feel very strongly either way about the inclusion of those other templates, I just don't see the need to remove the ones we already have).
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I don't really see the point of doing this.
YoYo (talk) the amount of times ive used the wp template specifically is just too many times to even make a change like this be merely plausible.
Comments
@Axis Doesn't that logic mean the previous proposal should have passed, though? The templates proposed there had shorter parameters to type out, but people decided it was unnecesary. Shouldn't the same apply here? S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 13:31, September 25, 2023 (EDT)
Well, {{wp}} and {{fandom}} are very commonly used and quite nifty interwiki link templates (the former because, well, it's Wikipedia, and the latter because it's the largest and most well-known wikifarm that hosts thousands of wikis: linking to a specific wiki on Fandom is in itself a bit complicated as it is, too). That whole laundry list of the previous proposal, though... they're mostly there just because they're NIWA wikis. Some of them, such as for Zelda Wiki and Nookipedia, make sense to have a template for, since Super Mario has some connections with Legend of Zelda or Animal Crossing, and thus interwiki links would be commonly used, but then there's those for Wapopedia, Dragalia Lost Wiki, and Kovopedia, which represent series that barely have any connection to Mario, and so is barely linked by this wiki, so in turn the template would barely be used as well. Not to mention it's a lot of suggested shorthands to keep track of. In such a case, it would be easier to just type [[kovopedia:Magical Vacation|]] whenever the one occasion we have to link to one of these games makes itself apparent rend(talk)(edits) 21:37, September 27, 2023 (EDT)
Changes
Do not rename articles until the relevant media has released
What this proposal aims to enforce is that if a subject is confirmed to have a new name in an upcoming game, the article must not be moved to the new name until the game has released. A prime example is the recent situation with Psychopath, which the Nintendo of America Twitter account referred to as "Thought Peek" for the remake and the article was immediately moved, but was since moved back to Psychopath as it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name, so this proposal should also prevent jumping the gun like this. The new name can still be mentioned in the article, but as stated must not be the article title until the game's release regardless of source.
EDIT, PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING: I get the feeling a lot of people are going to see this and completely misunderstand my motive here, I'm not saying that we should completely ignore or distrust all pre-release marketing, this proposal is solely aimed at returning subjects in games and if they are eligable for a rename, all I hope to accomplish is establishing a rule like with latest appearances and infobox images, in that the move doesn't happen until release. Obviously it would be impossible to apply this to new subjects and I would not try and halt the creation of those articles, any form of official pre-release marketing for those would be perfectly acceptable.
Proposer: Swallow (talk) Deadline: October 5, 23:59 GMT
Tails777 (talk) Not even just for games, content overall. Not to dig up old cases (and not to sound insensitive or anything), but we've jumped the gun before on upcoming content so I support the idea of waiting until everything is fully known before making any moves.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Doesn't seem like it could hurt, it's not like keeping the older name for a few months is the end of the world... Or is it?
Waluigi Time (talk) This seems sensible enough and consistent with how we generally handle upcoming media in other areas. Also saves us the headache of fixing things a second time if a pre-release name differs from the final product, which is always a possibility.
Herobrine (talk) Per all. Also there's always the chance of differences between American/British English localizations to take into account as well.
Oppose
Hewer (talk) I can understand not immediately moving based on one social media post, but this easily has the potential to just seem silly if a rename is ever made very clear in pre-release material. This would also create a bit of an inconsistency with pre-release material being acceptable for the names of new subjects but not returning ones. This should probably be case-by-case in my opinion.
PaperSplash (talk) I see no reason to distrust official social media and other pre-release marketing material in cases like these.
Comments
@PaperSplash I'm not saying to distrust official social media and pre-release marketing, I'm just saying to hold off from moving article titles until release like with latest appearances and infobox images. Nightwicked Bowser 15:56, September 28, 2023 (EDT)
13:31, September 25, 2023 (EDT)
rend (talk) (edits) 21:37, September 27, 2023 (EDT)
Nightwicked Bowser 
15:56, September 28, 2023 (EDT)
