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
Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, 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 header, 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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Move "Rare Ltd." to "Rareware" or "Rare" (discuss) Deadline: December 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"
This is rather self-explanatory. Regarding the {{character infobox}} template, instead of simply listing one voice actor/actress in the infobox, I believe that the section should instead list others. Not all of them though, only actors who have portrayed the character enough times to become a recognizable name for the character in whatever OFFICIAL media they portayed them in, alongside their latest ones of course. In fact, the wiki kind of already does this with characters like Mario having Charles Martinet and Chris Pratt listed together (now with Kevin Afghani too). So I propose that we rename the section to "Notable portrayals" to make the section not quite as confusing/misnamed. of course the other option would be to enforce the "latest" part, and drop Chris and Charles from the section (on Mario's page at least) entirely, leaving only Kevin Afghani, since he would be the "latest" portrayal.
So to summarise:
Option 1: Rename it to "Notable portrayals" and include multiple VAs. For example; list Charles Martinet, Chris Pratt, and Kevin Afghani for Mario... maybe even Lou Albano and Bob Hoskins since they fit the hypothetical definition I gave earlier.
Option 2: Enforce the "Latest portrayal" part. For example, only list Kevin Afghani as Mario's VA.
Option 3: Do nothing.
Proposer: YoYo (talk) Deadline: October 20, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Rename the section
YoYo (talk) Other wikis handle it this way too, like Wikipedia.
Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense. If we're treating this section like a "notable protrayals" section in the first place (e.g. listing both Charles and Kevin in Mario's infobox), we should probably actually label it as such so people don't get confused in the future.
Pseudo (talk) Seems sensible to me especially since this section is already being used in this way, and it should help with wiki navigation more generally.
Don't rename it and enforce the "latest" part
Waluigi Time (talk) What's considered a notable portrayal is going to be very subjective (there's already uncertainty about what could qualify in this proposal). Leaving only the latest portrayal keeps the infobox simple and streamlined, and the rest of the portrayals can be covered in a dedicated section. Also, having three VAs in Mario's infobox was the decision of one editor and as I'm writing this that list has already been narrowed down to just Kevin, so it's not really accurate to say we already do this. The movie was a special case since those were the latest portrayal, but obviously not intended to be replacements for the entire franchise going forward.
7feetunder (talk) Per Waluigi Time. If even the proposer isn't sure what qualifies as "notable," it's probably not a good idea. It may be blatantly obvious to include Charles Martinet for Mario, but what about Princess Peach? Which of her numerous voice actresses are "notable?" How many times does a VA have to voice a character to be "notable?" Does appearing in The Super Mario Bros. Movie alone qualify you for "notable" status? Do VAs from the old cartoons count?
Whitey (talk) Per all. Limiting it to the latest portrayal ensures that the information on the page is delivered in an objective manner.
Leave it as it is
LinkTheLefty (talk) I don't think this is fixing anything that was too broken. The second option is ideal for streamlining the infobox, but there are probably going to be more times when the latest voice actor is uncredited or when it's a one-off or substitute. And what if we have another situation where there are multiple in-game voice actors concurrently playing the role anyway? Disclosure: I owe Charles a little favor so this may or may not be my extremely petty way of returning it.
Camwoodstock (talk) Thinking on it, we think we'd be alright with this as well--plus, as we've since gone over in comments, we do have an idea that we'd prefer over simply enforcing the "latest" part.
Comments
We feel like defining a "notable" protrayal isn't all that hard, honestly--just kinda spitballing one way we could handle it, it could feature both the first portrayal*, and anyone who's played the character for some amount of time (be it in terms of chronology or in terms of games/media). The finer details and any exceptions (such as, say, putting Kevin in there despite him having only voiced one game thus far on the grounds that this was a formally-announced thing, or putting Chris Pratt in as his most recent film protrayal) could probably be determined at a later date in a future proposal (possibly one after this if "rename to notable" passes?)
...Of course, all of this is moot if we simply choose to enforce the "current voice" moniker in the first place, which we can definitely understand. We just wanna make sure people realize what they're doing when they say to do that and what that entails, in case it turns out down the road that the "simpler" option really, really wasn't for the best. Personally, failing what we mentioned above, we feel like if we had to limit it, the smartest option would be to simply have a "first protrayal/latest protrayal" thing like we do with the games*--just a little something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one.
* doing either of these would have the objectively hilarious side-effect of potentially putting either Harris Shore from a few TV ads or Pat McBride from Donkey Kong Goes Home, both of which have Mario performances so obscure they currently lack their own articles, in the infobox on the Mario page, seeing as the two of them seem to both be contenders for first voice in our admittedly cursory searches. which we would permit on the grounds that that is, in fact, notable, even if it's very funny to jumpscare people with that album in particular ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:13, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
What if we just limited the infobox to collapsible in-game portrayals, and made portrayals in other media its own optional section? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:25, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
I wouldn't be opposed to including the latest actors from each distinct form of media in the "Latest portrayals" section, ie. Kevin Afghani (video games, 2023-), Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie). User:Whitey (talk / edits) 14:48, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
That also works, though you do still definitely run into edge-cases when a media hasn't been represented in awhile. For example, do the DiC cartoons not count as the most recent animated series, so do we include Lou Albano? ...What do we do about Pat McBride, considering how much an outlier Donkey Kong Goes Home already is? This definitely runs the risk of cycling back to the "what does everyone else consider notable enough?", so we'd be fine with just keeping it to most recent overall portrayal, personally... ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
