Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
"Vote" periods last for one week.
Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.
How to
Rules
If users have 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. 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}}.
Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (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 one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (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 at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
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 "(banned)" 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.
No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
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.
All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
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.
If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator 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. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
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 and support/oppose format
This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]
====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]
====Oppose====
====Comments====
Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my proposal".
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts 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 {{TPPDiscuss}}. 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.
In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline:May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Add a Composers Subsection to Template:Themes (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Reduce the minimum number of entries for game-specific categories
There are just too many scenarios where there are three or four game specific things: the number of levels in Donkey Kong, the number of levels in Donkey Kong Jr., the number of levels in Donkey Kong 3, the number of minigames in Mario & Luigi: Dream Team, the number of ATVs in Mario Kart 8, the number of minigames in Paper Mario: Color Splash...the list goes on. It's so big of a problem that at least the moves and minigames categories are clogged up, and the problem would have been even more prevalent if not for the franchise-specific categories. Plus, there are gaping inconsistencies all over; why do we not get to create a category on Mario Kart 8's ATVs when we can make a category on Mario Kart 8 Deluxe's ATVs? That's not to mention that other wikis, like ZeldaWiki and Bulbapedia, don't even have these kinds of limits. Therefore, I propose that we reduce the minimum number of required entries in game-specific categories from five to three, as that amount makes the most sense to me, though there's also an option for having the minimum at four instead.
And if you're wondering, Porplemontage gave the green light for this proposal.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) As long as it's game-specific and done to avoid major category clog, I'm fine with this. I just don't want a category for a creature species that has only 3 pages, like some wikis have, clogging everything....(Moving from 3 as this option didn't exist at the time)
Mario jc (talk) Three to me is too little. I think four is at least a better minimum.
Bazooka Mario (talk) Four isn't too bad, but if there are useful categories calling for three, then go for it too. No need to enforce such a hard line, so use your common sense if you need to.
Alex95 (talk) - I'm going to agree with the five limit minimum, as if it doesn't have that many entries, the category likely doesn't need to be made in the first place. Having less than five entries just seems too little to me and makes the use of a category unnecessary, especially if there's also a navigation template involved.
"That's not to mention that other wikis, like ZeldaWiki and Bulbapedia, don't even have these kinds of limits." - I know I've said this several times before, but what other wikis do shouldn't be taken into account for what we do. 20:49, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
That doesn't mean that what other wikis do shouldn't be examined to see if and how it fits into what we do. On another note, if you ask me, the glaring omission of Category:Mario Kart 8 ATVs feels really inconsistent. Keep in mind, this applies long-term, too, so what you see as a "solution looking for a problem" now might be the exact opposite later on. (T|C) 21:11, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
About the point regarding Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ATVs, why not just create a category called "Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ATVs"? Or actually, why do we even need the "Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ATVs" when we already have ATVs as a category? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:18, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
And why is the Inkstriker not in the ATV category? Is it because it's exclusive to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and would be redundant? If you were to pass the proposal and make the Mario Kart 8 ATV category, would you also remove those Mario Kart 8 entries too (thus the ATV category would still be too small to be its own category, having only two entries, if we're following consistency with how the Inkstriker is categorized) or add the Inkstriker in the ATV category? If not, why create a third nearly-identical category? It makes more sense to me to just have one category called "ATVs" and maybe italicize Inkstriker (if that's possible) and say that italics are exclusive to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. If a new game comes out with new ATVs, then we can make a new category called "Mario Kart 8 / DX ATVs", something like that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:25, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
As far as I know, italicizing within categories only happens when redirects are categorized (e.g. Casino Delfino in Category:Casinos). Anyway, I don't see a point to the ATVs category being split either. So far, they only appear in one game and its remake, so it seems really redundant to me. Just because a category can be split doesn't mean it should. 20:26, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
I believe the split is to anticipate new games, but for now, I don't see the point in those extra ATV categories. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:00, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
How about four? MarioJC 00:11, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
Good point. I guess this should be a multi-option proposal then. (T|C) 00:42, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
Create articles for the various status effects inflicted by Roy in Paper Mario: Color Splash
However, instead of keeping this category in a grey area, why not add information on the various status effects inflicted in the first segment of the battle with Roy? After all, Poison is one of them, which makes the omission of the other status effects really inconsistent. To break it down for you, here's a full list of the status effects inflicted by Roy:
Rage: Mario's action command speeds up.
Rhythm: Mario can't use cards with blue backgrounds. (conjectural name)
I'm curious, why have you given one of the conjectural ones the name of "Rhythm?" Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
Because there isn't really a better conjectural name to give it. If you want the game's description, it's "Mario can't resist the rhythm! Get those blue cards outta here!" Do you, by any chance, happen to have a better conjectural name for it? (T|C) 00:46, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
Nope, I haven't been able to acquire the game yet. I was just curious, as the description in the proposal didn't itself seem to relate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
Why not create an article of list of status conditions? Might make more sense if the names are conjectural. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:28, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
20:49, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
(T|C) 21:11, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:18, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
20:26, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
Mario JC 00:11, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:28, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
