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
This is an idea I've wanted to carry out for a while: New users tend to ask a lot of questions, so I thought there should be an experienced user rank. So I PMed Steve, and he said it would be better as a panel in which people nominate themselves (or others) for this panel. There would be some requirements:
The user must have been a user for at least three years.
The user must have at least one thousand edits.
The user must pass a "test" to prove they are worthy of this panel.
This panel would mostly be for two purposes: 1) Give new users a place to go to ask a question. 2) Give the admins some knowledge of the best candidates for patroller (there wouldn't be any admins on the panel).
In case you're wondering, Steve said he is ok with this.
Proposer: Roy Koopa (talk) Deadline: November 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT
3D Player 2010 (talk) Why would admins themselves be ineligible? aren't they technically the most experienced users and therefore the users who would be best for this. I know that there are some non-admins that would be eligible but still, almost all if not all admins are super experienced.
Time Turner (talk) I'd rather have the new users go through the many channels we already have (talk pages, forum, chat, user talk pages) and potentially get them to learn more than they were expecting than for a system that bases their decision on time and edits rather than content. The "test" is way too vague for my liking, as well.
Walkazo (talk) - We already have a list of users who have been vetted as being knowledgeable, experienced and available to new users for providing help and guidance: the staff members. We're even colour-coded so users can simply look on RecentChanges (or anything else with Special:WhosOnline embedded in it) to find someone - or page histories, for that matter, as well as policypages, Special:ListUsers and even Special:ActiveUsers (although this last one requires sifting through, but with everything else available, users really have no excuse for being unable to track down an admin). We don't need some additional list of self-appointees/nominees who passed arbitrary edit and tenure milestones and some random "test": it'd be way more trouble than it'd be worth for helping newbies, and will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on who gets made into Patrollers, since the staff already keeps an eye on the community and picks out potential candidates perfectly well on our own.
Baby Luigi (talk) This is pretty useless. Unlike the actual staff, this doesn't provide with any extra tools aside from a shiny badge to give yourself to that all it mostly does is boost your ego. This is not a substantial title in the slightest. And per all.
Bazooka Mario (talk) Hopping on-board with the increasing opposition, but I think my sister (Baby Luigi) is most succinct with this, so per her.
Ghost Jam (talk) Per all. Plenty of good options already exist.
BabyLuigi64 (talk) There are already options for new users to ask questions about the wiki, so per all.
Magikrazy (talk) What's even the point? If you have a question, just ask a mod. There's plenty of them. It just seems like a way for normal users to feel special. Per all.
Andymii (talk) These rules are too black and white. For example, I consider myself to be an experienced user (I'm a 'Shroom writer, the Poll Committee Vice-Chairsperson, and as of now having nearly 2,000 edits, which isn't too shabby). But just because I've been here less than three years, I don't qualify as "experienced." If such rules are imposed, I'm sure many other perfectly "experienced" users will not be able to qualify because of such technicalities. A "test" is difficult to pull off for these same reasons; for example, I'm not so good at HTML, but I still edit quite a lot on this wiki. Overall, it's actually not a bad idea, but the design can be greatly improved so avoid being so systematic.
LudwigVon (talk) Per all. Everything was said, but in addition, the Welcome template that welcome the new users to the wiki inform the rules and information about the Wiki for them to learn more and experienced themself. I also think that one thousand edit, is not a lot, I have more than one thousand edit and I don't qualify myself as a experienced user.
RandomYoshi (talk) – This is incredibly poorly defined and even if the definition was more rigorous, it still does not leave out the fact that this is an incredibly poor idea. Essentially, per all.
NEXandGBX (talk) Per all of the above. A test seems really unnecessary, and we already have enough options for new users to ask things anyways.
Comments
We could also design the autopatrol rank to differentiate which user is trusted/experienced or not (as it was before, I still wonder why it was changed in the first place). I myself find it kind of pointless; I don't know if it's immediately apparent that I'm considered "experienced", but I don't know if a panel is going to let users know or not, and newer users are probably still going to ask the super janitors staff members anyway. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:58, 21 November 2015 (EST)
Oh, and one more thing, there will always be users that are held back from being given a bigger toolbox despite their experience because they probably cannot maintain composure in a sticky situation, so it might be a good panel for them, but again, it might not be. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:03, 21 November 2015 (EST)
It was changed because here. Ray Trace(T|C) 15:32, 21 November 2015 (EST)
3D Player: Because admins are already admins. An admin doesn't really need to be considered a candidate for admin. What I meant for this was a group of normal users (meaning non-admins) that are very knowledgeable about syntax, rules and policies, etc. J-Luigi(talk) 15:01, 21 November 2015 (EST)
Seems to me that if a new user needs more help than our on-wiki help guide provides, they should be directed to either the forums (for discussion and helpful topics) or chat (for live responses). -- Ghost Jam 15:07, 21 November 2015 (EST)
I think user talk pages are the best since they're a good place for new users and experienced users to directly provide them with wiki syntax (not to mention, experienced users can fix the syntax on the spot and explain it), and it's also easier to link to helpful pages like Sandbox and the specifics of the help pages if a new user doesn't understand. Nobody really uses our forums for help on how to, say, create a signature. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:13, 21 November 2015 (EST)
I'd like to add that experienced users (and I know the definition of an experienced user considering I'm erhm, one myself) already tend to answer questions left by users like those in MarioWiki talk:FAQ, so this is pretty much redundant? Ray Trace(T|C) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (EST)
Even though I'm opposed to this, I'm interested in what this so-called test would consist of.Magikrazy (talk)
It would mostly be about syntax and rules/policies, not trivial things like "How many admins are there." J-Luigi(talk) 21:00, 21 November 2015 (EST)
Badge and Clothing are currently long articles with several different lists; in Badge's case, you have bothPaper Mario and Mario & Luigi games lumped in there. I think these lists, when split by game, are more manageable and serviceable when they are separate articles. In navigation templates, readers can look up the appropriate section rather than have their browser load a huge page with several irrelevant games. It would also be consistent to split them by game, since we already have other charts split by game. Finally, in Badge, while Dream Team and Bowser's Inside Story sections are rather small, I think it's still doable to leave them separate for consistency sake they can work if they get merged to their parent page, which is also consistent in other cases, which Walkazo has pointed out in her support.
Both will still stay as a lone article, but it's there to link all the badge/clothing lists by game into one article, and, at least in Badge's case, it will retain its history section.
Finally, the List of badge names in other languages (and clothing, if it has one; as far as I know, it doesn't) can be merged into these split articles, so it also eliminates an odd page that was created due to the badly-organized nature of those pages.
Proposer: Bazooka Mario (talk) Deadline: November 30, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
Support
Bazooka Mario (talk) I think these two pages are better off split by game. Yeah, Badge is probably not going to remain featured, but that shouldn't be a reason against the merge, IMO. Featured articles were unfeatured as a result of organization and deletion proposals before, so that reason in of itself isn't good.
Walkazo (talk) - I supported the idea on the forum, and I support it here too. Except the part about splitting the BIS and DT badges: I disagree that it needs to be done for consistency, since we have plenty of cases where something split for one game remains merged in another (usually merged to the parent game article, rather than a separate page, but whatever, close enough).
RandomYoshi (talk) – Per Walkazo, especially about leaving the Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Mario & Luigi: Dream Team Bros. information already present on the article as is.
3D Player 2010 (talk) Per proposal but not Walkzao, I think everything should be separated for both consistency and because it's still two separate games.
RandomYoshi: I think what Walkazo is trying to say is that the small information in Bowser's Inside Story and That Other Game can be just moved to a subsection in their parent articles. E.g. we remove Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story in Badge and add this same section under "Items" in Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:47, 24 November 2015 (EST)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:58, 21 November 2015 (EST)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:03, 21 November 2015 (EST)
J-Luigi (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2015 (EST)
15:07, 21 November 2015 (EST)
Ray Trace(T|C) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (EST)
J-Luigi (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2015 (EST)
