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
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
Split game series articles into sub-series articles
My proposal to move the Super Mario series article to the name of the Super Mario Bros. series has been declined last year, so I had to make a follow-up proposal after five months since the last proposal was declined.
Tails777 (talk) While I did support the idea of the New Super Mario Bros. series getting it's own sub-series article, I can understand why it isn't. And if that series can't get a sub-series article, I fail to see how the Super Mario Galaxy games can. They're all apart of the same overall series so I don't see why we need to divide things up further.
Hewer (talk) I previously supported New Super Mario Bros. getting an article because I thought it would be the most eligible sub-series at four(ish) entries. But since then, Super Mario Land had its article merged, and now that we have all these sub-series merged (Super Mario Advance gets to stay the only exception since it covers Yoshi's Island as well), I feel like this is a much better choice for organisation when they're all just part of one series, splitting them all out would feel messy and redundant. It also calls into question the criteria for splitting sub-series - if Mario Galaxy is eligible, why not "Super Mario 3D" which also has two games? Or the aforementioned New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Land? Better to avoid the headache and stay consistent by merging all of them.
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) I may support splitting just Super Mario Bros. since with Wonder it's been given further distinction from the 3D games as a series, however if supporting that here means splitting Galaxy and Maker as well, then I'm gonna have to oppose per all.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser. Splitting the Maker and Galaxy games in specific when they are strictly duologies is especially overkill to us.
Nintendo101 (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser and Doc von Schmeltwick. Maybe individual "subseries" articles could be raised alongside the main series article, but not at the expense of breaking up the understanding of this as a discrete series of platform games. Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Maker, and New Super Mario Bros. 2 are all part of the mainline Super Mario series and it artificially dilutes their cohesion by suggesting they are unrelated to one another.
Archivist Toadette (talk) This is just too vague on all fronts. What does and doesn't classify as a subseries? That's the question that must be answered before any discussion can happen. Per all.
This should really be either a case-by-case or have multiple options rather than all-at-once or none at all. Nightwicked Bowser 19:16, February 29, 2024 (EST)
Indeed. I have draft pages with empty tables for Super Mario Bros. series (including the NSMB games) and Super Mario 3D series (including the SMG games), but I think it needs more thought and discussion rather than trying to rush it through without any prior planning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:22, February 29, 2024 (EST)
This proposal has now been updated to not split the Galaxy and Maker games into a subseries, however there's still the matter of Super Mario Bros and the Mario Kart Arcade games both being split if the proposal is supported with no one-or-the-other. These especially should be entirely seperate cases. Nightwicked Bowser 11:26, March 1, 2024 (EST)
I think this changes the scope of the original proposal too much. I would not have changed it. But I fail to understand the rationale of this new one anyways. Why Super Mario Bros. (sub-series)? Why not Super Mario Bros. (series)? Why change the name in the first place? - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:32, March 1, 2024 (EST)
Hmmm... I'm not opposed to splitting into sub-series, the definition of sub-series is "a series that is part of a larger series." So, we could still have sub-series articles. We wouldn't be saying that Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Bros. Wonder aren't part of the same series, they are. But I do get some of the reasoning used by the opposition. Redundancy would be a problem, as would criteria, though we would need a limit to how many games can constitute a series of sub-series, though SuperMarioLand could be a Super Mario Advance-esque situation, because of the Wario Land series. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:58, March 4, 2024 (CST)
The Super Mario Land series used to have its own article that got merged by this proposal. We do have a page for Mario + Rabbids despite only having two games, so it could get arbitrary if we do decide on the number of games a series would need for it to have a page. Nightwicked Bowser 10:13, March 4, 2024 (EST)
Ok, you have a point. *Makes mental note to make proposal on April 4th* SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 07:23, March 5, 2024 (CST)
Hey, I was looking through here, this "comment thread" or something (I don't know the exact name, but you might know), and when I went to the Super Mario Advance (series) page, I saw that it said, "The Super Mario Advance series is a Super Mariosubseries which consists of video game reissues released only on the Game Boy Advance. It is a successor to Super Mario Bros. Deluxe on the Game Boy Color, itself an indirect successor to Donkey Kong on the Game Boy." That's right, subseries. So we already have a sub-series article. So what's going to happen to that article? Will it stay, or not? Even if this proposal fails (I'll probably make a successor to that proposal that is better than this one, there will be multiple options), I think it should stay, because of Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 07:32, March 6, 2024 (CST)
Decide what to move Super Mario Galaxy 2 worlds to
The worlds in Super Mario Galaxy 2 have names, but each article for the six main worlds is named "World <#> (Super Mario Galaxy 2)" while the article for the special world is called "World S". The good news is I was wondering if there's a possibility to decide what to rename the worlds. There are four options to choose from:
Option 1
Create the {{suffixed title}}, {{SMG2 world}}, {{SMG2 world-link}}, and {{SMG2 world title}} templates (the {{suffixed title}} template works like {{prefixed title}}, with the small text being placed after the first parameter, while the {{SMG2 world}}, {{SMG2 world-link}}, and {{SMG2 world title}} work like {{classic}}, {{classic-link}}, and {{classic title}} respectively, with the skeleton being "World <#>: <small><name></small> and the example being World 1: The Great Space Journey Begins) and move the following pages to the world number and name:
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) These names are only displayed on the save file and are not shown while playing the game itself. Even if you go to a different world and save the game, the name on the save file doesn't change and is still the name of the world you should be on. Then there's the fact that when doing the green stars, the save file name is "the green star challenge is on" and when the game is completed 100% the name is "master of galaxies".
YoYo (talk) the names you've assigned to each world are actually the names for the "chapters" in the game's progression, not the names for the worlds themselves. it would be like naming each kingdom from Super Mario Odyssey's page after their first moon.
Nintendo101 (talk) These are not the names of the worlds. They are subtitles provided to the player for narrative context.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nightwicked Bowser and Yoyo. These don't seem to be the worlds' actual names, just a status on the save menu. There's definitely a better way to convey this information about the save menu descriptions than to clumsily bake them into the world pages' names!
Nightwicked Bowser 
19:16, February 29, 2024 (EST)
