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 Waluigi (Super Mario Land 2: 6-tsu no Kinka 2) (discuss) Deadline: February 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split F-Zero X (discuss) Deadline: February 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Rename Robo Kikki to "Robo Monchee" (discuss) Deadline: February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy (discuss) Deadline: February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
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
Fix the Donkey Kong identity chaos (discuss) Deadline: February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad (discuss) Deadline: February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch) into Donkey Kong Jr. (New Wide Screen) and Donkey Kong Jr. (Table Top) (discuss) Deadline: February 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Remove information of Golf* for the Virtual Boy from Mario Golf (series) (discuss) Deadline: February 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Do not consider ports for an article's most recent name
At the moment, there are a few articles that have had their names changed due to rereleases, including Super Mario Bros. 3's worlds, which was put into place due to a proposal held on a single talk page, and Spiky Gloomba (to Spiked Gloomba), which was put into place after citing SMB3 as precedence (there are likely other examples, but I can't recall them at the moment). To use the Gloomba as an example, it was "Spiked" in Paper Mario, but was renamed to "Spiky" in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and the article followed suite. However, with the Virtual Console release of Paper Mario, the article changed names once again. The logic behind it is that, since the re-release is technically the most recent game, the names of our articles should reflect that. I don't agree with that.
First of all, it'd be incredibly off to only apply this to names, and there are quite a few other aspects that would have to be changed, namely the general order of the games in history sections and every article's latest appearance. It's seems odd to arbitrary exclude everything but the names in our changes. Also, how surreal would it be to see an article with their first appearance listed as "Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)" and then its latest appearance listed as "Super Mario Bros. 2 (2012)"? It presents the idea that there's a whole new game called SMB2, but it's really the exact same game with minimal differences (I'm not exaggerating). This idea of being misleading is another reason I dislike the idea: having a game carry the same name as it did twenty years ago is not a change; it's an example of preservation. If a museum was commissioning a replica of the Mona Lisa, with the intent of presenting it as it was originally depicted, would you want them to paint a giant clown nose on it? While it'd be a bit funny, it'd completely lose the intent and disappoint a large amount of people looking forward to it. With that said, preserving something is not the same thing as presenting it as something new. Attitudes at Nintendo have not changed by re-releasing an old game, and the wiki's attitude should likewise not change. It's not even as if they're a "new" game; for all intents and purposes, these games are the same games that were once available a few years ago, just for a different platform.
In the case of the Super Mario Land enemies whose names were changed in the Virtual Console, those are different to what's being discussed here. Those names were changed with the re-release itself; it's not a matter of the same name popping up again and clashing with a later game, it's a matter of the same game containing different names than it did previously. One is about staying true to the source, while the other is about a clear change in though. Basically, per what was said by me and Walkazo on the forums.
This proposal intends to revert the Lands proposal and the Gloomba move (and any other ones that may be out there), as well as set a precedent for the future.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Deadline: October 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT
Megadardery (talk) Per proposal, Especially because re-releases' modifications are kept to a minimum. The name could have been changed from one game in the series to another, but the developers didn't modify the original game for a re-release. If it was modified to a new name, then this name automatically becomes the newest.
Magikrazy (talk) I never even knew this was an issue. Per all.
Walkazo (talk) - Per proposal and per myself on the forums. If stuff in a a re-release was actively changed to be different from the original (like the SML names), we should update our titles accordingly - like how we'd update the body text to mention the changes between versions. However, if the differences from current names derived from subsequent games are only because the re-release is being authentic to the original, then we shouldn't use the antiquated name, like how we don't mention over and over in the body text how Goombas are the same in every port of SMB, etc. The infobox "appearance" lines are best saved for original games too, since re-releases aren't new appearances by the subjects at all, just the same old original appearances. We also don't make new History sections for re-releases unless there's major differences involved, so again, leaving the names be would be most consistent with how we handle all other aspects of re-releases.
I think it's dumb a name from a re-release of a predecessor has replaced the sequel's name, but I'm not extremely sure about standalone games, so I'm still iffy on applying a blanket standard to disregard all ports. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (EDT)
Could you give an example of what you're talking about? Usually, the newer game would take precedence over the older one, so I'm not sure what it being standalone has to do with. it Hello, I'm Time Turner.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (EDT)
