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 21, 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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
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 May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline:May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge every Super Smash Bros. stage into game-specific lists
It's official, the premise is that the Super Mario Wiki is not a Super Smash Bros. wiki. I was wondering if we can merge every stage into game-specific lists:
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros.
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
Spectrogram (talk) Per updated proposal. Please make sure to also explain what would be done with all that extra information (if anything).
SeanWheeler (talk) Actually, as I'm looking at those stage pages, they are pretty short, and far more suitable for a list page than the characters. The longer ones can be trimmed a bit.
Shadic 34 (talk) I mean... we have made everything else in Smash into a list, how about stages too?
Mario (talk) I'm gonna support but I have a good feeling that these resulting list articles are stage 3 terminal versions of our Smash Bros. coverage.
Ray Trace (talk) tbh im not a huge fan of the lists either. i would just kill them entirely and have the subjects externally link to smashwiki
#Wikiboy10 (talk) We have merged the fighters, items, and other stuff from this series, we might as well do this. Since the supporter didn't do a good job of explaining why this needs to happen, our stance on Super Smash Bros. is that it's not in the same vein of crossovers in comparison to Mario & Sonic. Honestly, I feel the opposition's reasoning is just based on how poorly this proposal is written, rather than because we shouldn't do it.
Oppose
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I get how we are trimming down our Smash Bros. coverage, however you are going to need to be more specific on how this is going to work.
#Koopa con Carne (talk) You have made zero effort to elaborate on various aspects of this merge, such as whether this merge involves minutiae like pertinent images, song tables, profiles etc., but most outstandingly, the proposal, intentionally or otherwise, makes a tacit statement that the Mario series stages themselves would also be merged together with the others, which is basically where my opposition is most strong. I assume this is a follow-up to the fighter proposal, which would imply that it aims to round up non-Mario Smash subjects of a particular nature into one page, in which case even a simple statement along those lines would have gone a long way towards clarification. You're basically relying on your voters' guesswork to sort this thing out. #Hewer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, and lumping 3DS and Wii U into the same page is also a strange decision since they introduced almost completely different stages to each other. #Swallow (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, this needs some serious elaboration rather than just "merge everything". #Spectrogram (talk) Proposal fails to even mention Mario-related stages and what would be done with extra information. #TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, this proposal is unclear on too many aspects currently to consider supporting. #SeanWheeler (talk) While I like that we're cutting down on Smash Bros. content, those lists of fighters give me flashbacks of the Banjo and Conker series pages, so I don't want the stages to be given that treatment. I'm honestly quite confused about which non-Mario characters gets their own pages and which ones are sections of the fighter lists. And it's unclear with this proposal about what happens with the Mario stages.
Comments
@Teh Other, note that you still have three days to edit the proposal. Spectrogram (talk) 09:15, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
@Wikiboy10 It's not only poorly written, even this needs specifics on what exactly will happen. The proposal reasoning implies it will impact absolutely everything which is not a very good way of going about this sort of thing. Nightwicked Bowser 15:07, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
Funnily enough, I just removed my vote because now I realized the biggest flaw with this proposal: Would this include the Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, and Wrecking Crew stages too? Please clarify that. Wikiboy10 (talk) 15:10, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
Why should the stages be merged and not playable characters? I think the stages are like the second most visible aspect of Super Smash Bros. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:16, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
@Teh Other Could you clarify what exactly you intend to happen with the 3DS and Wii U stages? The proposal is still unclear about that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:20, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, I think that's important too. I'm about to revote for this once it's more clear. We definitely need to merge the stages now, but we need better information. Wikiboy10 (talk) 11:26, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
Classify Just Dance series as a guest appearance
In Just Dance 3, there is a song named "Just Mario" with a whole theming around it. Spinies on the background, horsetail plants, and Mario Mario himself, dancing at the center of the screen. Exclusively for Just Dance 2018 Switch version, there is... Rabbid Peach, dancing next to Peach's Castle. With a whole theme going around these two songs, I believe it's fair to call the series a guest appearance.
Proposer: Spectrogram (talk) Deadline: April 27, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Wikiboy10 (talk) If we aren't going to consider Punch-Out!! (NES) a guest appearance, then we should also treat this as a cameo. The Mario elements play no role in the gameplay. If you're going to use the argument that the character blatantly appears in it, so did Mario in Punch-Out!! (NES). Even if I would classify these games, I think we should create two different articles on it.
SeanWheeler (talk) Why create a series page for two games Mario guest appeared in? We should only do series pages for Mario spinoffs. We'd might as well do a Sonic series page or a Legend of Zelda series page if Just Dance gets a series page here. The Just Dance guest appearances should have a page for each game instead.
Comments
i mean, if its got mario stuff in it then yeah its a guest appearance. my question is does this really need a proposal? - YoYo (Talk) 22:02, April 20, 2023 (EDT)
SMW:CV "Please note that a proposal should be made before a game is classified as a "guest appearance", as this is a somewhat tricky distinction and there could easily be disagreement in the community about the extent to which coverage should be granted to any given non-Mario game."Spectrogram (talk) 01:21, April 21, 2023 (EDT)
So would this classify the whole series as a guest appearance or just those two games with Mario content? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:19, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
The whole series because: a) stand-alone articles on two of these games just wouldn't be a good idea, and b) it's just better to keep all Mario content on one page for the whole Just Dance series. If Nintendo ever partners with them again and another Mario song gets released, would we need to make a third page? These games are way too similar. Spectrogram (talk) 09:16, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
So I'm assuming the page name would be "Just Dance (series)"? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:19, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
Why not just Just Dance? Spectrogram (talk) 12:01, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
Not sure I agree with this rule, but in this case, yes Spectrogram (talk) 13:06, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
@WikiBoy10, Punch Out literally only has Mario as a referee (and that's it). These two songs clearly have tons of effort put into, combining elements from two separate Mario games. Comparing this to Punch Out is just fractally wrong. Spectrogram (talk) 14:57, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
Nightwicked Bowser 
15:07, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:16, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
(Talk) 22:02, April 20, 2023 (EDT)
