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. 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}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your 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 {{TPP discuss}}. 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.
Just now, a motion has passed to change the Super Mario Wiki logo. The logo change was overwhelmingly supported with a final tally of 23-1. However, I believe there is still need for discussion, and thus I am calling for a localized reopening of the proposal.
I do NOT seek to repeal the decision to change the old logo (that's why "keep the old logo" is not an option). The motion has passed fairly, and overturning it at this point would be against proposal regulations. The change will stick. This is not a nullification, it is an expansion. I feel that the proposal has failed to examine ALL factors of this debate, and thus should not be considered closed until all relevant factors have been explored.
What I am specifically talking about is that, during discussions on the forum, an alternative logo has been suggested. I've read the proposal, and this new suggestion was not considered while the vote was in progress. I therefore think the discussion is incomplete. For the proposal to cover ALL aspects of this debate, and to ensure that all information is evaluated, users should be made aware of the options they have, and then allowed to vote which logo they want to replace the old one with.
Logo #1
Logo #2
Change is inevitable, but we have not yet adequately explored which direction we want to change in.
Proposer: Gabumon (talk) Deadline: February 8, 2017, 23:59 GMT
Switch to Logo #1
Owencrazyboy9 (talk) I think it's best to stick with the proposed logo from before. To rephrase what Eldritchdraaks said in the previous proposal, the new logo symbolizes the Mushroom Kingdom, in a similar way that the wiki covers all things Mario-related, including Donkey Kong, Yoshi and Wario games, not just Mario's. The alternative logo just makes it look like we cover just material with Mario in it, not all things Mario-related. In all, I'm going to have to oppose the other design and go with this one.
Glowsquid (talk) - people following the twatter account seems to like this one, for what it's worth.
Switch to Logo #2
Gabumon (talk) - The alternative logo is visually more interesting, as it provides a nice color contrast instead of just being uniformly red.
Lord Bowser (talk) honestly the new logo looks visually uninteresting. I agree that the old logo was a bit of a mess, but this new logo is on the opposite end of the spectrum; too simple. logo #2 provides a good compromise in my opinion.
DragonFreak (talk) - Per all plus the red text on red mushroom blends in too much.
Comments
If Porplemontage (talk) is willing to create more skins (themes), why not just have each theme have a different logo? I would go as far as creating a "night" theme (dark color scheme). --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 19:22, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Ooh, I'd like that :) 19:26, 1 February 2017 (EST)
I think that sounds like a good idea. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2017 (EST)
@Owencrazyboy9: Well, I would say that Mario is the champion of the Mushroom Kingdom, and thus something that represents him does, by extension, represent the Mushroom Kingdom. I don't really see the DK/Yoshi/Wario games point, because mushrooms are only tangentially related to those series and don't really adequately represent them. Bananas, garlic, and eggs are what first comes to my mind when I think of those. In fact, if you wanted to use something that's featured in all of these series, it should really be a coin. -- Gabumon (talk)
I'm fairly certain that despite what you are saying, this still goes against rule #7: "No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." Also, if you had an issue with this, you didn't even vote on the previous proposal nor did you leave any sort of comment. The new logo had full support by Porplemontage (talk) and when I made the proposal, he said to create the two options I did.-- 19:35, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Because I only learned of this proposal today. I would have loved to be part of the conversation before, but one week is a pretty narrow time window, and I just didn't see it in time. Also, I believe wholeheartedly that this is still within the scope of the rules, but I may be mistaken, and if I am I submit my proposal and myself to whatever countermeasure the sysops deem fit. I just think that, if people make a decision like this, they should be allowed to know all of their options. Rest assured: Once this proposal resolves or is removed, I will drop the issue. -- Gabumon (talk)
19:26, 1 February 2017 (EST)
TheFlameChomp (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2017 (EST)
19:35, 1 February 2017 (EST)
