|
Current time:
Thursday, May 9th, 23:40 GMT
|
|
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.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
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 9, 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".
Talk page proposals
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.
- For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.
Rules
- 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
- Potentially consider the Donkey Konga series, Barrel Blast, or Jungle Beat as related to DKC (discuss) Deadline: May 9th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Replace Princess Peach: Showtime!#Plays with Sparkle Theater (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Bar Spin to Wire Spin (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 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
- Split Speed Mario Bros. from Ultimate NES Remix (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-merge Pixels with List of references in film (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs (discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Hat trampoline (Cascade Kingdom) to Trampoline (discuss) Deadline: May 15th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Memory Card (discuss) Deadline: May 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
Talk page proposals
List of talk page proposals
Unimplemented proposals
| #
|
Proposal
|
User
|
Date
|
| 1
|
Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series
|
Aokage (talk)
|
January 3, 2015
|
| 2
|
Create a template for the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door badge drop rates
|
Lord Bowser (talk)
|
August 17, 2016
|
| 3
|
Clean up species categories to only include non-hostile species
|
Niiue (talk)
|
August 8, 2017
|
| 4
|
Clean up Category:Artifacts
|
Niiue (talk)
|
August 22, 2017
|
| 5
|
Trim down Category:Fire Creatures and Category:Ice Creatures
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
September 7, 2017
|
| 6
|
Expand the Behemoth King article
|
Owencrazyboy9 (talk)
|
December 23, 2017
|
| 7
|
Create articles on the Remix 10 secret courses in Super Mario Run
|
Time Turner (talk)
|
December 26, 2017
|
| 8
|
Add anchor links—and redirects—to Power Moon lists (view progress)
|
Super Radio (talk)
|
December 31, 2017
|
| 9
|
Create articles for the Wario: Master of Disguise episodes
|
DKPetey99 (talk)
|
January 23, 2018
|
| 10
|
Merge the specified Super Smash Bros. subjects
|
Time Turner (talk)
|
April 9, 2018
|
| 11
|
Decide how to cover recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series
|
BBQ Turtle (talk)
|
July 17, 2018
|
| 12
|
Allow ports of games with substantial new content to be split from the parent articles
|
Waluigi Time (talk)
|
July 23, 2018
|
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Implement "See also" sections in Mario Party minigame and WarioWare microgame articles for related mini/microgames
Since there are so many minigames/microgames, I believe that people who look through them often end up finding one that is similar to what they are looking for but it's not, or they find of and it reminds them of something similar and want to find it. (This happens to me at least.)
I think it would be interesting that to have a "See also" section that we can use to link to mini/microgames that are remarkably similar in concept or theme. For example:
Just to make it clear, we wouldn't do that for microgames that simply have similar gameplay if it's not remarkable, or that simply have a similar character show up as some sort of easter egg (this is more fitting for trivia anyway).
Anyway, having this section would also make it needless to mention the similarities between mini/microgames elsewhere, like in the introduction paragraph or in a trivia section, which is often inconsistent as it is now.
Proposer: Mechanical Dirge (talk)
Deadline: August 28, 2018, at 23:59 GMT
Support
- Mechanical Dirge (talk) My proposal, so yeah.
- Mario jc (talk) Per proposal.
- Baby Luigi (talk) I also don't think this needs a proposal but it would be really helpful to establish this standard anyway. Though the one concern I have is that are we just going to lump all minigames of this archetype into this list together? Despite having the same concept, Cut from the Team and Cheep Cheep Chance are very thematically differet.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) As long as this proposal is about simply adding the "see also" sections and not removing the existing similarities sentence(s) in the article leads (since there are many different ways to express a similarity between two or more minigames/microgames), I'm all for implementing this. Per all. P.S.: To add to Baby Luigi's comment, Cut from the Team is more similar to Pier Pressure.
- MarioManiac1981 (talk) Adding a "see also" section will be useful for navigation. Per all.
- Bazooka Mario (talk) This proposal is not needed.
Oppose
Wouldn't it be better if you also proposed that we did this for Mario Party series minigames as well? 
(T|C) 23:59, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
- Oh, right. I didn't think about that. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 00:14, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
I don't really think this needs a proposal. That's pretty much why we include "See also" sections in the first place, to direct readers to other similar subjects. 
Mario JC 00:12, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
- Yeah, but I thought it was just better to see if there were other opinions about it rather than just start mass editing, doing things "my way" without getting any sort of approval. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 00:17, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
- In certain cases (Slaparazzi, for example), it already says it's similar to a previous game.
00:19, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
- That's right, but it's also about how they are handled. Like, as I said on the last paragraph of the proposal, some articles mention similarities in the introduction paragraph, others in trivia, others in gameplay sections, and others don't mention similar games at all. It's kind of messy. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
@Toadette the Achiever It's not; read the last paragraph. It would also be kind of redundant to mention the similarities in the main body and have a "See also" link to that similar microgame. Mario JC 03:22, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
@Baby Luigi: Yeah, personally I wouldn't list those two minigames together either. When I said "concept", I meant the actions done during the game and the context rather than the gameplay. To be fair, I actually had only microgames in mind when I came up with this, and minigames are just more complicated. But I don't know. I guess that, if this passes, we'll just decide on the go?
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Determine whether reused artwork is a reference
Right now, whenever a piece of character artwork is remade/reused, it's considered a reference in the references section. But I say... why? It's a practice Nintendo's been doing for years, and the poses are always very generic. I don't think anyone at Nintendo says "Hey, remember that Mario Party game from 10 years ago? Let's reference it by reusing Bowser's character artwork!".
Because there's several variables, there are a few different options for this proposal:
- Only reused artwork is a reference: Only instances where the exact artwork is reused will be considered a reference.
- Only remastered artwork is a reference: Only instances where the artwork is remade will be considered a reference. For example, Wario's artwork from Mario Party: The Top 100 would be a Super Mario 64 DS reference because it's a remake of his older artwork.
- Neither are a reference: Self-explanatory, all mentions of reused artwork in any form would be removed from the references sections.
- Both are a reference: Nothing happens, both continue to be considered a reference.
- Determine on a case-by-case basis: Artwork reuse being a reference would be determined on a case-by-case basis, similar to other elements of games like reused enemies.
Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: August 30, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Only reused artwork is a reference
- Alex95 (talk) - Per my original thoughts.
- MarioManiac1981 (talk) - Per proposal.
Only remastered artwork is a reference
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Remaking an artwork is at the very least giving a specific nod to an element of a game, if not the entire game. Artwork is an element as much as sprites or quotes.
- Tails777 (talk) Per Baby Luigi's comment. At this point, artwork from the Mario Party games has been reused so many times, it's hardly a reference anymore.
Neither are a reference
- 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal + my comment on the previous take.
- Mario jc (talk) Per proposal.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
- Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
- YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per all
Both are a reference
Determine on a case-by-case basis
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) This proposal is clearly better off as a discussion, but I'm going for this option since it's at least an opener for further discussion.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Gonna vote here as well since this option now exists, and I see the merits of both.
- Bazooka Mario (talk) The context surrounding the artwork is far more important into establishing whenever it's a reference. In many contexts, however, especially related to more general artwork, which are later to be used as stock work, this is not true. For instance, it's silly to say that the artwork that appears in New Super Mario Bros. is a reference to Mario Party 6 since it appeared in Mario Party 6 first (if not earlier). If there is important information about how the artwork is reused, especially if it's reused prominently the point it's associated, it should be instead be noted in the file page as well as be categorized in the file page as artwork for those multiple games (e.g. that Mario artwork should be considered Mario Party 6 AND New Super Mario Bros. art). But there are other instances of art where I'd argue that it would be a reference; Mario & Luigi and Mario Strikers art, for instance, are highly stylized so their appearances in other games are references. Even iconic art like the Super Mario Bros. pictures should probably be recognized as a reference if it appears anywhere else. Another reason context matters much is if hypothetically, Super Mario 64-era Mario artwork gets reused. Back then, it's used in more general promotional advertising so its being reused in similar games would've not really been a reference. But it's no longer getting used, so if one sees it in a newer game, would it be a reference? I'd really say if it's more case-by-case especially if artwork start receiving diminished use in the future as rendering technology continues improving and designs continue evolving. So far, a lot of the GCN/Wii/Wii U era art is getting used, even after being re-rendered, but there might be an interesting argument in the future once the that era art stops becoming stock.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per Bazooka Mario.
I think this should be applied in the same mannerism as we already handle references for policy: referencing Super Mario Bros. because Goombas appear in the game is ludicrous, so saying that Baby Luigi's artwork in promotional material are all references to Mario Kart Wii (which in turn is a reference to Luigi's pose from DDR: Mario Mix) is a bit ludicrous. So in that way, I accept remaking/remastering artwork only when it reuses artwork from that specific game instance, such as Bowser's very specialized, dancing artwork that isn't reused all that often to begin with being reused for Mario Sports Superstars. Artwork such as Waluigi's crouching pose, Yoshi's running pose from Mario Party 8, ie any artwork that gets reused very often, should not be labeled as references. 
Ray Trace(T|C) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
- Yes, by then it's stock artwork. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
- I'll also add that some artwork gets edited without it being necessarily a reference: Bowser Jr.'s artwork in Mario Party: Star Rush is an edited version of his artwork in Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash, but that doesn't mean that they wanted to reference said game. Actually, I frankly don't think that in most cases the artwork which is reused or remastered is a reference to the original game for which the original artwork was made. I'd rather talk about sourcing in these cases, but we don't have any way to make this distinction at the moment.--Mister Wu (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
I say that I don't like any of the options in this proposal. My conclusion is this: some reused artworks are references, many of them aren't, but that doesn't mean no reused artworks aren't references to past games. Ray Trace(T|C) 16:57, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
- Agreed; it's better if this was case-by-case, rather than catch-all. (T|C) 17:01, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
- I've added a fifth option, since this seems to be a popular opinion. --
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 17:28, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
- The problem I have with it is that it's pretty vague. Ray Trace(T|C) 17:42, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
- Yeah, it is pretty vague. I like the idea, but since it's too vague, I don't think I can vote for it. For me, most should follow under what I voted for.
Yoshi the SSM (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2018 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
Mario JC 00:12, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
Ray Trace(T|C) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
