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.
Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run
Hi, we're doing this again! As you may or may not know, back in 2018, I ran a successful proposal to get the wiki to consider Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run as entries of the mainline Super Mario series. Based on the sources and information I had at the time, the decision felt sound, and the wiki's userbase agreed. However, in the five years that have passed since then, new information has come to light that has led to me reconsidering my opinion on the subject in regards to Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run.
For starters, my main source on this argument came from Nintendo's official timeline page, which alongside the games most commonly agreed to be mainline, included Maker and Run. In the time since, this page has been updated, and with the inclusion of games that are unambiguously re-releases of existing games, such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe and Super Mario 3D All-Stars, it raises the question of if this is a reliable list of "distinct entries in the mainline Super Mario series" at all. Additionally, in official dev interviews released in the buildup to the release of Super Mario Bros. Wonder, Wonder is treated as the first mainline 2D Mario game in 11 years, with both Maker games being brought up as if they're something else entirely. I could also bring up the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, which treats Maker as a spin-off as well.
So, if being on Nintendo's official timeline doesn't necessitate a game being a distinct mainline entry, and official material from Nintendo treats the Maker and Run games as spin-offs, then should we still include them as mainline entries in the Super Mario series? Under this proposal, the Makers and Run would be treated as "Related games" in a similar vein to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and New Super Luigi U, and would be excluded when numbering the mainline Mario series (Wonder would be treated as the 19th mainline game rather than the 22nd). It would also, somewhat annoyingly, lead to us having to reorganize the "History" section for pages on a bunch of characters, objects, and enemies, so apologies in advance.
JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I've done extensive research on the subject of which games people consider to be part of the mainline series, and while there isn't anything close to a total consensus, most people do agree that the Maker games and Run are not mainline.
Camwoodstock (talk) That makes sense to us. If Nintendo's stopped really considering the Makers and Run as mainline games as of Wonder's release, it probably seems only fair to stop counting them ourselves. Especially seeing as people already don't really treat them as mainline games if The Video Essay You've Probably Seen By Now If You're A Longtime User Of This Wiki That Was Linked Above™ is to be trusted.
Change nothing, keep all three games as mainline
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - The confusion here stems from conflating the overall Super Mario series with the specialized Super Mario Bros. subseries, which is made up of the various 2D games starring Mario and Luigi (ie, omitting the Land, Maker, and Run games, as well as, of course, the 3D games). I have the bones of a page for a SMB series article here.
Sparks (talk) I thought it over now and I say that Super Mario Run plays like a traditional Mario 2D game, although on mobile instead of consoles. Like what I said in my comment below, I think the Mario Maker games are just sandbox games, and thus I don't consider them mainline Mario games. Super Mario Run is the normal Mario gameplay, and thus I think it is a mainline Mario game.
Seandwalsh (talk) Per Sparks. Super Mario Run has pretty consistently been considered mainline despite what many fans arbitrarily want to believe. Since the Super Mario Maker games have become their own beast I think their status is a little more up in the air.
Other
Comments
Personally, I think the Mario Maker games are just games where players around the world could share and post levels online (I know Mario Maker 2 had a story mode but still), but Super Mario Run is different. It's not a sandbox game and has worlds, levels and many playable characters. I'm kinda leaning towards keeping Run as a mainline Mario game, but I'll think it over first. Sparks (talk) October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)
Make coverage of playable Toads and playable Yoshis consistent with each other
Currently, this wiki has separate articles for Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series) and Blue Toad (character), but does not have separate articles for the different color Yoshis that are playable in Super Mario Run and Super Mario Bros. Wonder, instead covering them all under the Yoshi (species) article. This inconsistency is a little bit silly, as there isn't really anything that differentiates the Toads that couldn't also be said about the Yoshis. While I don't have a particularly strong preference for how this should be changed, I do think it would be a good idea for this to be changed to become more consistent.
Here are what I consider to be the main options for how to resolve this inconsistency:
Create new articles for all the different color Yoshis. These would not, for example, discuss every light-blue Yoshi, but only the specific character named Light-Blue Yoshi who is playable in Super Mario Bros. Wonder. This would be analogous to how the articles about the playable Toads are written.
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the Toad (species) article. This would be analogous to how the playable Yoshis are currently covered.
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into one singular "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" article, and leave the coverage of Yoshis as-is. (Creating a separate article for all the different color playable Yoshis collectively would be more consistent, but is also a bad idea.)
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the main Toad article, and move the coverage of the different color playable Yoshis into the main Yoshi article. That is, treat these characters purely as variations of Toad (character) and Yoshi (character), like Pink Donkey Kong Jr. or players 3 and 4 from Mario Bros. (Game Boy Advance).
Personally, I think of these the third option is the most sensible, and would be the least disruptive.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Deadline: November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Create new articles for individual playable Yoshis
Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad (species)
Somethingone (talk) Primary choice; I agree this situation is the same as the colored Yoshis, but I don't necessarily think that splitting a member solely because they are playable is a good rule to follow. There's little indication that the two toads are unique beyond them being playable.
Blinker (talk) Per proposal, I agree that something should be merged here. Considering they've been collectively referred to as "Toad" in U Deluxe and the Wonder direct, I think this makes more sense than the "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" option. Not sure about the character/species distinction though. The line between the two pages feels quite arbitrarily drawn, for the most part, but there are instances of both playable and non-playable Toads in the character article, so if playability isn't the criterion, might as well play along with the Toad article's being written as though it's about an individual, I guess.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per proposal, this is probably the closest to what I want in the long run.
Okapii (talk) I don’t mean to diminish the amount of effort and care that went into the pages for Blue and Yellow, but tbh I just don’t think there is enough merit to warrant these two having their own pages, or even a shared one. Taking a look at the talk pages for both shows that there has been confusion for years as to what even constitutes an appearance for these two, because they are so generic in design, personality (or lack thereof), and ability.
Camwoodstock (talk) Seeing as we nixed unique articles for each individually colored Yoshi long ago, this definitely makes more sense to us. We don't really have a dedicated Green Toad article, so these two having articles feels like a remnant of a long-bygone era of the wiki.
Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad into "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad"
Sparks (talk) 
October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)
