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 on proposals with more than two choices.
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 by a margin of 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 10, 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.
Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
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
The recent controversy over the new Throw Block redirect threw me back to a certain proposal made almost two years ago. Yes, I'm talking about this travesty that, despite being a clear violation of the redirect policy then, and even moreso now, still somehow passed 12-7, deleting all the numbered Mario Kart redirects that could have actually helped people who wanted to know what, say, the fourth Mario Kart game was.
All the reasons given on the support side of that linked proposal are flawed. To quote my vote in that proposal: "According to MarioWiki:Redirects, "If there's even a small chance that a redirect will help someone, it's not useless." And while there may only be one person in the world who calls them that, that's more then zero; hence, they're not useless."
That point still stands up today, and in fact, our current redirect policy, in bold text even, says, "There is no need to delete alternate name, conjectural, or spelling-mistake redirects unless they are specifically too silly or too general." It really couldn't be more clear than that.
I don't know how that proposal passed by such a wide margin, or why no one's attempted to overturn it since, but it's time to right this wrong that's haunted me for eighteen months.
YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per my proposal, my vote in the last one, and in fact literally the entire opposition in the last one.
Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Reading this proposal has convinced me that those sorts of redirects are fine, as long as they help at least one person navigate the wiki. Per YoshiFlutterJump.
Mario jc (talk) Yeah, I never really liked the idea of having those numbered redirects deleted. Someone unfamiliar with the franchise might want to know what the fourth Mario Kart game is and search up "mario kart 4" and find Double Dash!!, which is what redirects are for. There are still some "(series) (number)" redirects still lying around that were never taken care of either.
There has to be some sort of notability line we draw when it comes to making redirects. Otherwise you can use that "redirects are never useless" argument to justify all sorts of names like Mayro Kratt and Luggy. Who actually calls Mario Kart Double Dash by its numerical order on the franchise? Common sense is applied here, and I don't see the rationale for making numerical redirects convincing and they do not establish what sort of line we draw on redirects. Rather, it just seems this proposal is just "create redirects because we can". It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:51, May 9, 2019 (EDT)
It's all a matter of "Oh, I wonder what the fourth Mario Kart is...I'll just try typing in 'Mario Kart 4' and see what I get". Not everyone is going to have the immediate urge to type in "Mario Kart (series)" to see what the fourth Mario Kart was. Why take them to the search page when we already know what they want? It's inconveniencing our readers on purpose, which is counterproductive to our goal as a wiki. And also, we don't have "Mayro Kratt" or "Luggy" because they're deemed too silly to be any use. That's entirely irrelevant to this. -YFJ (talk · edits) 19:08, May 9, 2019 (EDT)
Except those are completely nonsensical terms, which is specifically what MarioWiki:Redirects discourages. The numbered ones at least have some validity. MarioJC 20:06, May 9, 2019 (EDT)
I guess that is a counterproposal? --FanOfYoshi 11:39, May 10, 2019 (EDT)
You could call it that. This proposal aims to directly overturn the one from November 2017, and recreate all redirects that were deleted because of said proposal. -YFJ (talk · edits) 12:18, May 10, 2019 (EDT)
Wouldn't these numbered redirects fall under being too general though? SmokedChili (talk) 04:16, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
A redirect that is too general would be one that could refer to multiple things (excluding certain abbreviation redirects). For example, MK2 could only refer to the second Mario Kart game, Mario Kart 64. Even then, as mentioned we already have other numbered redirects such as Super Smash Bros. 3. Doomhiker (talk) 06:03, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
Okay, point taken. But both pages explaining redirects are mostly about inexact phrases and variations, and one issue I see with them is that they don't say anything about fan-made names or terms which is what "Super Smash Bros. 3" is. For being helpful to even just one person, this would also run at the risk of their search for "Mario Kart 2" causing them to misunderstand it as "Mario Kart 64 is Mario Kart 2" and at worst spreading that around because "it was on Mario Wiki". SmokedChili (talk) 10:30, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again. Redirects are not part of our knowledgebase. They are merely a tool to assist someone in their search for a certain article without typing in the exact name, allowing them to skip the dreaded search page. If someone wants to know what the second Mario Kart is, they're not going to type in "Mario Kart (series)". No, the average person will type in "Mario Kart 2". As I've said before, we already know where they want to go. Why suppress the page from them? -YFJ (talk · edits) 13:59, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
So now it's from "maybe only one person" to "the average person"? How do you know they wouldn't type something like "second Mario Kart" into the search bar instead? SmokedChili (talk) 14:57, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I don't know what you're talking about. "The average person" is certainly at least one person. But if they type "second Mario Kart" they're clearly trying to go to the search page, whereas someone who types in "Mario Kart 2" likely thinks that's the actual name of the game, and clearly isn't trying to go to the search page. There is a difference here. -YFJ (talk · edits) 15:06, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
One person isn't an "average person" among who knows how many if he's the only one to search about "Mario Kart 2". If someone wants to search about "second Mario Kart", what's stopping us to make a redirect for that then? At least it has more basis in reality than "Mario Kart 2". SmokedChili (talk) 15:37, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
"this travesty" I'm hurt. I'm not sure if I want to support going back on my proposal yet, but I do think there should be a line drawn here somewhere. Fan-created terms specifically meant to be a redirect (not a conjectural term that was moved from a page and became a redirect) I don't think should be made. Using "Throw Block" as an example, it's actually pretty vague and it can refer to anythrowableblock. 15:44, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
As you said the conjectural part of the redirect policy is vague and should be cleared up, as it could refer either to long-time conjectural wiki names or all conjectural names. If it is cleared up then it would be much easier to determine which redirects should and should not stay. Thinking about it, I do now agree the Throw Block is too general and should be deleted, but I think that the numbered redirects could genuinely help someone, and thus should stay. Anyways, if the numbered Mario Kart redirects cannot stay, then the other unofficial numbered redirects such as Super Smash Bros. 3 cannot either. I also agree that a line should be drawn, but the problem is where. Doomhiker (talk) 16:45, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I wasn't really calling the proposal itself a "travesty", that was more directed toward its passing, as it still somehow passed despite the opposition having far stronger reasons than the support, and the fact that it wasn't exactly supported by policy. The policy does say, or at least imply, that unless a redirect is too silly or general, it's a redirect worth creating. Maybe "Throw Block" does cross the line of too general. But the numbered kart redirects could actually be useful to someone and definitely wouldn't take someone somewhere they wouldn't want to go. There's nothing to be lost in making redirects, anyway. So why not have them? -YFJ (talk · edits) 16:56, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I am not sure where to draw the line, either. There are a few situations that are best handled case by case. And with the current policy, we shouldn't have too much trouble figuring out what stays and what doesn't. Numbered games seem like a good way to redirect people want to know the nth game of a series without them needing them to search the series pages, but it isn't necessary for all series. We don't need it where series entries are not important (like Mario Golf and Mario Tennis). It is best to treat redirects case by case. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 17:25, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
This was brought up in the previous proposal, but due to Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8 being numbered more casual fans may not know the more complex names in the series and assume that all games in the series are numbered, similar to the classic mainline Mega Man and Mega Man X series' games. I think that game series that already have some numbered entries should have numbered redirects regardless, but series with consistently unique names such as the ones you mentioned above would not really need numbered redirects except for maybe the first entry of those series if they have the series' title as their title such as how some people call the original The Legend of Zelda "Zelda 1". The redirect Super Smash Bros. 3 may not be needed, though, as due to the game's popularity pretty much everyone knows its actual name, Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Anyways, it is a good idea to treat redirects case-by-case. Doomhiker (talk) 17:51, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps the numbered redirects could be recreated, idk. They aren't exactly "fan-created" per se, I guess, considering MK7 and MK8 refer to previous titles. I do think a fan created term should not be created purely for redirect's sake, but that's a discussion for another time. 23:07, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
Just to clarify, what is the list of redirects you'd like to make and what would be the source for that list? Even though I have an idea for both the answers, I think having them explicitly given is very important for this proposal.--Mister Wu (talk) 22:20, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
If this passes, all redirects that were deleted in the last proposal will be recreated here. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:13, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
It'd be admins that'd impliment that proposal IMO, as they can undelete pages, so the previous histories of the redirect don't get lost. --FanOfYoshi 03:57, May 12, 2019 (EDT)
There's no need to preserve the practically nonexistent histories of the redirects. It's fine, I can do it myself. -YFJ (talk · edits) 14:30, May 12, 2019 (EDT)
Eh, I don't see a problem with restoring them if need be. 16:12, May 12, 2019 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
Decide on a phrase to describe crossover appearances with the Mario franchise
The way non-Mario character infoboxes describe their crossovers with Mario is currently inconsistent from page to page. For example, Squirtle's appearances with Mario are described as "crossovers with the Mario franchise", while Sonic the Hedgehog's are described simply as "crossover installments". The goal of this proposal is to decide on a particular formula from those available on the wiki. Here's the options:
Crossover installments: to me, this is too vague. It seems like it could refer to any crossover installment, not necessarily linked to Mario.
Mario crossovers: This is not too bad, but it puts too much emphasis on Mario, and the Super Smash Bros. games, for example, aren't all about Mario.
Mario franchise crossovers: Same as above, but it's more explicit as to what kind of "Mario" it refers to (not the character).
Crossovers with the Mario franchise: This seems to be the best way to put it, but the downside is that it occupies a lot of space in the infobox.
(NEW) Mario-related media: Seems to be popular and frankly, it describes crossover appearances perfectly without making use of nerdy jargon ("crossover").
And, the guest star of the show:
Do nothing.
Feel free to add any other options that you can think of below.
A rather minor proposal, I know, but it's small changes like these that make a difference! Or not. Maybe I'm just an organizational maniac.
Proposer: Bye Guy (talk) Deadline: May 18, 2019, 23:59 GMT
BBQ Turtle (talk) I think this one would work best as it would also work for characters who appear in non-crossover Mario games as cameos or as guest characters (Such as Pac-Man, whose first Mario-related appearance is Mario Kart Arcade GP, or the Final Fantasy characters in Mario Hoops 3-on-3).
Alex95 (talk) - I asked for this, so I'm voting for it. Per BBQ Turtle.
#FanOfYoshi (talk) I see no reason to change anything at all.
Comments
Would "Mario-related media" work as an option? @HEROMARIO, your vote is very vague. What does it mean? 15:35, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I added it. -- KOOPACONCARNE 07:47, May 12, 2019 (EDT)
Why do we have to change anything at all? --FanOfYoshi 13:19, May 13, 2019 (EDT)
It's always professional to find a rule for situations like these and be consistent with it. That said, I have a terrible time deciding things by myself unless I have someone else's opinion, so I made a proposal. There was once a proposal to remove the colon in title abbreviations used in the code of certain game-related nav templates. It might seem minor, but the punctilious nature of the proposal itself stresses that this wiki is (to a great extent) serious business. -- -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:27, May 13, 2019 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:51, May 9, 2019 (EDT)
Mario JC 20:06, May 9, 2019 (EDT)
FanOfYoshi 11:39, May 10, 2019 (EDT)
06:03, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
15:44, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
Yoshi the SSM (talk) 17:25, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
FanOfYoshi 13:19, May 13, 2019 (EDT)
