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."
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its own two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then "Oppose" wins for that option by default. A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines 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]".
===[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}}}}
====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
=====Support=====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
=====Oppose=====
====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
=====Support=====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
=====Oppose=====
====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
=====Support=====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
=====Oppose=====
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
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
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
Implement "See also" sections in Mario Party minigame and WarioWare microgame articles for related mini/microgames
Since there are so many minigames/microgames, I believe that people who look through them often end up finding one that is similar to what they are looking for but it's not, or they find of and it reminds them of something similar and want to find it. (This happens to me at least.)
I think it would be interesting that to have a "See also" section that we can use to link to mini/microgames that are remarkably similar in concept or theme. For example:
Just to make it clear, we wouldn't do that for microgames that simply have similar gameplay if it's not remarkable, or that simply have a similar character show up as some sort of easter egg (this is more fitting for trivia anyway).
Anyway, having this section would also make it needless to mention the similarities between mini/microgames elsewhere, like in the introduction paragraph or in a trivia section, which is often inconsistent as it is now.
Baby Luigi (talk) I also don't think this needs a proposal but it would be really helpful to establish this standard anyway. Though the one concern I have is that are we just going to lump all minigames of this archetype into this list together? Despite having the same concept, Cut from the Team and Cheep Cheep Chance are very thematically differet.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) As long as this proposal is about simply adding the "see also" sections and not removing the existing similarities sentence(s) in the article leads (since there are many different ways to express a similarity between two or more minigames/microgames), I'm all for implementing this. Per all. P.S.: To add to Baby Luigi's comment, Cut from the Team is more similar to Pier Pressure.
MarioManiac1981 (talk) Adding a "see also" section will be useful for navigation. Per all.
Wouldn't it be better if you also proposed that we did this for Mario Party series minigames as well? (T|C) 23:59, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
Oh, right. I didn't think about that. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 00:14, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
I don't really think this needs a proposal. That's pretty much why we include "See also" sections in the first place, to direct readers to other similar subjects. MarioJC 00:12, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
Yeah, but I thought it was just better to see if there were other opinions about it rather than just start mass editing, doing things "my way" without getting any sort of approval. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 00:17, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
In certain cases (Slaparazzi, for example), it already says it's similar to a previous game. 00:19, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
That's right, but it's also about how they are handled. Like, as I said on the last paragraph of the proposal, some articles mention similarities in the introduction paragraph, others in trivia, others in gameplay sections, and others don't mention similar games at all. It's kind of messy. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
@Toadette the Achiever It's not; read the last paragraph. It would also be kind of redundant to mention the similarities in the main body and have a "See also" link to that similar microgame. MarioJC 03:22, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
@Baby Luigi: Yeah, personally I wouldn't list those two minigames together either. When I said "concept", I meant the actions done during the game and the context rather than the gameplay. To be fair, I actually had only microgames in mind when I came up with this, and minigames are just more complicated. But I don't know. I guess that, if this passes, we'll just decide on the go? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mechanical Dirge (talk).
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Determine whether reused artwork is a reference
Right now, whenever a piece of character artwork is remade/reused, it's considered a reference in the references section. But I say... why? It's a practice Nintendo's been doing for years, and the poses are always very generic. I don't think anyone at Nintendo says "Hey, remember that Mario Party game from 10 years ago? Let's reference it by reusing Bowser's character artwork!".
Because there's several variables, there are a few different options for this proposal:
Only reused artwork is a reference: Only instances where the exact artwork is reused will be considered a reference.
Only remastered artwork is a reference: Only instances where the artwork is remade will be considered a reference. For example, Wario's artwork from Mario Party: The Top 100 would be a Super Mario 64 DS reference because it's a remake of his older artwork.
Neither are a reference: Self-explanatory, all mentions of reused artwork in any form would be removed from the references sections.
Both are a reference: Nothing happens, both continue to be considered a reference.
Determine on a case-by-case basis: Artwork reuse being a reference would be determined on a case-by-case basis, similar to other elements of games like reused enemies.
Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk) Deadline: August 30, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Remaking an artwork is at the very least giving a specific nod to an element of a game, if not the entire game. Artwork is an element as much as sprites or quotes.
Tails777 (talk) Per Baby Luigi's comment. At this point, artwork from the Mario Party games has been reused so many times, it's hardly a reference anymore.
Neither are a reference
7feetunder (talk) Per proposal + my comment on the previous take.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) This proposal is clearly better off as a discussion, but I'm going for this option since it's at least an opener for further discussion.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Gonna vote here as well since this option now exists, and I see the merits of both.
Bazooka Mario (talk) The context surrounding the artwork is far more important into establishing whenever it's a reference. In many contexts, however, especially related to more general artwork, which are later to be used as stock work, this is not true. For instance, it's silly to say that the artwork that appears in New Super Mario Bros. is a reference to Mario Party 6 since it appeared in Mario Party 6 first (if not earlier). If there is important information about how the artwork is reused, especially if it's reused prominently the point it's associated, it should be instead be noted in the file page as well as be categorized in the file page as artwork for those multiple games (e.g. that Mario artwork should be considered Mario Party 6 AND New Super Mario Bros. art). But there are other instances of art where I'd argue that it would be a reference; Mario & Luigi and Mario Strikers art, for instance, are highly stylized so their appearances in other games are references. Even iconic art like the Super Mario Bros. pictures should probably be recognized as a reference if it appears anywhere else. Another reason context matters much is if hypothetically, Super Mario 64-era Mario artwork gets reused. Back then, it's used in more general promotional advertising so its being reused in similar games would've not really been a reference. But it's no longer getting used, so if one sees it in a newer game, would it be a reference? I'd really say if it's more case-by-case especially if artwork start receiving diminished use in the future as rendering technology continues improving and designs continue evolving. So far, a lot of the GCN/Wii/Wii U era art is getting used, even after being re-rendered, but there might be an interesting argument in the future once the that era art stops becoming stock.
I think this should be applied in the same mannerism as we already handle references for policy: referencing Super Mario Bros. because Goombas appear in the game is ludicrous, so saying that Baby Luigi's artwork in promotional material are all references to Mario Kart Wii (which in turn is a reference to Luigi's pose from DDR: Mario Mix) is a bit ludicrous. So in that way, I accept remaking/remastering artwork only when it reuses artwork from that specific game instance, such as Bowser's very specialized, dancing artwork that isn't reused all that often to begin with being reused for Mario Sports Superstars. Artwork such as Waluigi's crouching pose, Yoshi's running pose from Mario Party 8, ie any artwork that gets reused very often, should not be labeled as references. Ray Trace(T|C) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
I'll also add that some artwork gets edited without it being necessarily a reference: Bowser Jr.'s artwork in Mario Party: Star Rush is an edited version of his artwork in Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash, but that doesn't mean that they wanted to reference said game. Actually, I frankly don't think that in most cases the artwork which is reused or remastered is a reference to the original game for which the original artwork was made. I'd rather talk about sourcing in these cases, but we don't have any way to make this distinction at the moment.--Mister Wu (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
I say that I don't like any of the options in this proposal. My conclusion is this: some reused artworks are references, many of them aren't, but that doesn't mean no reused artworks aren't references to past games. Ray Trace(T|C) 16:57, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
Agreed; it's better if this was case-by-case, rather than catch-all. (T|C) 17:01, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
I've added a fifth option, since this seems to be a popular opinion. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 17:28, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
The problem I have with it is that it's pretty vague. Ray Trace(T|C) 17:42, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
Yeah, it is pretty vague. I like the idea, but since it's too vague, I don't think I can vote for it. For me, most should follow under what I voted for. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2018 (EDT)
(T|C) 23:59, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
Mario JC 00:12, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
00:19, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
Ray Trace(T|C) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 17:28, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
Ray Trace(T|C) 17:42, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
Yoshi the SSM (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2018 (EDT)
