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 8, 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
Split "Big Boo (character)" from Big Boo (discuss) Deadline: May 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
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
Add brainwashing to the list of Frequently misused terms
I think a personal pet peeve of mine has come to me, and that's the frequent usage of brainwashing as an umbrella term for mind control. In many works of fiction, it's not too rareto see mind controlbe a driving plot point. However, it's something completely impossible in real life. Brainwashing, on the other hand, is something possible in real life. I don't want to get into the real-life nature of brainwashing, but to put it bluntly; people can get brainwashed not by silly, fictional mind control chips but by propaganda and/or abuse. Brainwashing is especially true for cults.
However, it's prevalent for the term "brainwashing" to apply to any attempt at science fiction mind control and possession. I can't list many examples; you've probably seen multiple instances where mind control is labeled as brainwashing, even in Super Mario games such as Super Paper Mario. One of the lines in the game state, "See, they've already sworn eternal allegiance to Count Bleck, 'K? And now you need to, so I'll just go ahead and pencil you in for a 10 o'clock brainwashing." I'll go more in-depth about this later, but it's an inaccurate comparison because brainwashing works through manipulation, and the victim has to agree to it to become brainwashed. Mind control involves taking control of someone else's mind, which they have no control over. What decided me do this is seeing the Tricky the Triceratops article mention he was "brainwashed" by Wizpig when the game manual states the bosses are in his control (unless some other material does state brainwashing). I mean, is it accurate to state that Shadow Queen is brainwashing Peach? Not really; she is just possessing her body. And for the record, we try significantly to avoid bad umbrella terms. The biggest are "beta" and "sub-species." With beta, we had an issue of people referring to an old version of a game as this, without any proof it's a beta build and just as a horrible term to describe any pre-release concept, including concept art. Sub-species were incorrectly used to describe variants of different enemies and were entirely speculative in many instances. The arguments that these terms work fine the way they are wholly ignore the fact that we are spreading misinformation here.
So if you couldn't tell for some reason, this proposal aims to put brainwashing in as one of those frequently misused terms in the Good writing section on the wiki. That way, users don't blanketly use the term to describe any term of mind control as brainwashing. Now I should clarify that this only refers to instances that don't state it's brainwashing. As brought up with the Super Paper Mario example, brainwashing is used as an umbrella term in that game as a synonym for mind control. If that is indeed the case, it's also valid to label it as brainwashing since the game is using that term. This is to avoid it when that term isn't used and perhaps any time brainwashing is brought up in these games as a term, it could be stated that it's actually mind control to not confuse readers, but that could be an awkward solution so putting in the misused terms is probably good enough.
Proposer: Wikiboy10 (talk) Deadline: July 6, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Tails777 (talk) As someone who has lazily used the term brainwashing as an umbrella term, I find this to be a useful suggestion. Per proposal.
MegaBowser64 (talk) let's stop being brainwashed into incorrectly using "brainwash".
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - As someone who has hypnotized herself in real life before for the heck of it and studied effects of mental-altering processes, I think we should indeed be more accurate to this subject.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) There are clear differences between these terms that should be addressed. Per proposal.
Camwoodstock (talk) - Yeahhh, unless the game itself expressly calls it brainwashing (see: SPM), we should probably not be throwing that word around willy-nilly, especially if more accurate alternatives exist.
Pirate Goomba (talk) - Well, if the word "brainwashing" is being used incorrectly, then the Wiki should make sure that people don't use it just to mean "mind control".
Oppose
Comments
Should cases of hypnosis also be included? It's often used as a synonym for mind control in media as well, even though it's very different from brainwashing or mind control alike in real life. rend(talk)(edits) 13:00, June 22, 2023 (EDT)
Sadly, it's a bit too late to change that. Wikiboy10 (talk) 12:43, June 29, 2023 (EDT)
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Change remaining instances of "MarioWiki" to "SMWiki"
Going off of the TPP that successfully decided that we rename to the Super Mario franchise, I would like to make a proposal to move the MarioWiki namespace to SMWiki. I had the idea when reading the About page, which says that SMWiki is a frequent name used for the wiki. Using "Super Mario Wiki" as the project namespace would be too long, and SMWiki takes up slightly fewer letters than MarioWiki.
One option is to only change the MarioWiki namespace prefix to "SMWiki," and another option changes other instances of MarioWiki to "SMWiki," such as the search bar on the side. Regardless of outcome the only thing that would remain unchanged by this proposals are talk pages and wiki archives.
Hewer (talk) This is the first time I've ever seen "SMWiki" mentioned and it's not as clear as MarioWiki in my opinion. Besides, I don't really see the point of this change - the wiki's name has always been Super Mario Wiki while the namespace is called MarioWiki, and it's never caused any issues. The renaming of the article in the mainspace isn't very relevant to this in my opinion.
Somethingone (talk) I agree with Hewer here; "MarioWiki" has been a fine enough namespace as is, and the reason why I find it better than the proposed "SMWiki" alternate is that the proposed name is an abbreviation, which is not as clear as the full words (We used to have redirects to the MarioWiki namespace that we're "MW:[TEXT]" but then they all were removed for no reason, so I don't think an abbreviated namespace would last long).
Swallow (talk) Per all, also the Twitter handle only abbreviates it because of character limitations so that's not a very good example.
Ahemtoday (talk) I have never heard anyone call this the "SMWiki".
Arend (talk) Very unnecessary to rename the project namespace from MarioWiki to SMWiki. Plus, MarioWiki as a namespace matches with the wiki's URL: https://www.mariowiki.com/
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, but especially Arend. Unless you want to move the URL of the site itself to SMWiki.com, this feels like a case of almost hilariously overcompensating for just one option when a much more consistently used name exists. (Besides, Twitter has been on a very steady but very certain decline and has evidently started rolling out a change that forces a user to sign up or log in to even read posts on it as of last night--the idea that we should start bending the wiki itself to be more in-line with the Twitter account now is... a very hard sell.)
TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all, I do not think this would be a necessary change.
Comments
@Hewer: I just remembered the the Twitter account uses SMWikiOfficial The preceding unsigned comment was added by CoolNintendo (talk).
As the guy who created it, I am absolutely floored the clunky @ I thought up in 5 seconds because "@Mariowiki" was squatted is now being used as justification to change the name of the entire wiki lmao --Glowsquid (talk) 20:13, June 30, 2023 (EDT)
The people opposing raise some good points. However, perhaps it was just my fixation on the "Super Mario" brand because I like to think of it as "Suepr Mario is the brand while Mario is the character". And SMWiki, although abbreviated, is more consistent with the main name of the wiki (assuming that's why "MW:[TEXT] was changed?). But yeah not seeing "Mario" in "SMWiki" abbreviation is kind of annoying too. No easy solution to this. CoolNintendo (talk) 11:00, June 30, 2023 (EDT)
rend (talk) (edits) 13:00, June 22, 2023 (EDT)
