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
Move Kutlass to Kutlass (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: February 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Resplit Birdo (species) (discuss) Deadline: February 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Delete the Peach Items category. (Discuss) Deadline: November 9, 2014 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Merge all warioware microgames with their respective List of microgames in ___
Er... Well... I suck at these. But er... User:Tsunami convinced me to do this. I think that it would be a good idea to get rid of microgame articles because number one: There tiny. Stubs. Honestly, we look for so many stubs, but no one mentions the microgames. And most of them are so minor, all you must do is tap something. It's minor, and minor warrents an article, but there are so many of them they clog the random and take up waaaaay too much space. I'm pretty sure Warioware has more articles than the Mario party and kart series have combined. And I don't think anyone who looked up Paratroopa ment the microgame.
So my idea is that we put them all in one article in an organized manor, like the List of implied Characters. We don't need to cut information, we can just copy paste it. Nothing new has to be written. I understand that this will be a MASSIVE merge, something I don't even want to know how to do. But I think it's worth it. Just please, hear me out. And er... don't criticize me for a horrible proposal.
Proposer: Toadbrigade5 (talk) Deadline: November 2, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Time Turner (talk) Regardless of how minor you may consider them to be, and regardless how how many they are, they're still things. That sounds silly, but they are their own individual things with their own individual aspects to them, like their respective designs, their respective music, their respective difficulties, their respective controls, their respective captions, and so on and so forth. I don't see why they should be merged. Besides that, merging them all to giant lists would make them ridiculously cluttered. The largest article with have for implied things has ninety-nine entries, and most of that is usually just a few sentences for each image. The number of microgames per WarioWare series, on the other hand, has a minimum of 177 (for WarioWare: D.I.Y. Showcase) and 223 (for WarioWare: Twisted!). Keep in mind that, once all of these articles are primed for completion, they will all have infoboxes that list an image, its controls, its in-game caption, and its in-game score to beat, as well as an intro sentence and a few more lines dedicated to the differences between difficulty, and that's not including the potential of describing the actual visuals of the microgame. Transferring all of that into a single list would either make the article enormous, to the point where it'd be more practical to have them separate, or some info would need to be trimmed, which would mean that info would be lost and therefore it would be better to keep them separate. Bottom line is, it's harmless to have individual articles for them, and it's a lot better than mashing it all together into a list.
Walkazo (talk) - Small pages aren't stubs as long as they have all the info, even if it's a small amount. Many small articles is better than a few large ones: they're easier for loading, especially to lower power or older devices, they're better for navigation, they serve most readers better than single massive pages (i.e. if you only want the one microgame, you an go straight to it), and they bring in the search traffic from Google and whatnot. The wiki's stance has been like this for some time: splits, not merges, is the way to go.
Mario (talk) I agree. Also, small articles are not necessarily stubs. Paper Mario ingredient articles don't get merged, but they contain useful information. Now, there can be a page listing every microgame at a glance, but merging all microgames into a super article is not what I'd like to do. Finally, I'm pretty sure WarioWare has less articles than the massive Mario Party and Mario Kart series combined.
Tails777 (talk) All mini games, no matter how big or how micro, get their own articles. Per all.
Tsunami (talk) Per all. Massive pages are just a nay. And there are some other reasons to not do it, that are already listed. Can't add anything.
@Timeturner Niice Paragraph, but number 1: The massive numbers prove my point. The abundance of nearly identical numbers is clogging the random, and I think having a few giant articles would be easier. It wouldn't be too cluttered, I mean, is the list of implied characters considered cluttered? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toadbrigade5 (talk).
"Clogging the random"? Is that really such a crucial thing that needs to be addressed? Besides the fact that a lot of people simply ignore the random button, is the fact that some fraction of our articles is covered by the microgames really something that bad? Also, one of my biggest points was that the implied things and the microgames are not comparable. We can scoot away with having articles like the implied character because the info on them ranges from a sentence to a short paragraph. With the microgames, on the other hand, there is a metric ton more info to cover when compared to them. Having giant articles for everything gave us things like Conker (series) and Banjo (series), which (though they are gone now) were amalgamations of nearly every single aspect from those two series and was recognized by everyone as being a cluttered mess. There was nothing more but more images and more info to deal with (in comparison to the implied characters article, by the way), but it ending up being an untamed beast. Now, add infoboxes to the mix, and you'll see why having one superlist for all of it will simply not work. Hello, I'm Time Turner.
Yeah I guess your kinda right. I for one often use the random button, and it annoys me when I get a microgame nobody cares about. But I realize it would get cluttered in one page. Toadbrigade5 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2014 (EDT)
@Walkazo: Wow. Can't believe I messed up on the definition of a stub. Thanks for clearing a few things up though. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toadbrigade5 (talk).
@Toadbrigade5 If you understanded and want to close the proposal since there is no way it can pass/you want to oppose too/other reasons, you can ask to do so, as long it is before November 29 00:00 GMT (if I got it right), to an admin, such as Walkazo. Just saying, since by your comments I realize you realized. TSUNAMI
Yeah, he can remove it himself anytime during its first three days of existence (i.e. between now and Oct. 29, 1:16 GMT, but really, we won't complain if it's later in the day on the 29th), or ask one of us to do it for him after the 29th. It just has to be archived properly, rather than simply removed. - Walkazo (talk)
TSUNAMI
