|
Current time:
Sunday, May 12th, 18:22 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, 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 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 12, 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
- 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
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Create an article for Tetris 99 and add it to the list of games
Tetris 99 currently does not have an article on this wiki, and I believe one should be created and the game should be added to the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. The game features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, including from Luigi's Mansion 3, Paper Mario: The Origami King, Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Golf: Super Rush, WarioWare: Get It Together!, and Mario Party Superstars.
There is direct precedent for this in the form of Tetris DS. Like Tetris 99, Tetris DS features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, and as a result, it has an article on this wiki and is included in the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. Examples of other games that feature Super Mario elements and thus have articles and are in the list of games articles include Minecraft, Rhythm Heaven Megamix, NES Remix, NES Remix 2 , Ultimate NES Remix, Nintendo Land, Captain Rainbow, SSX on Tour, and NBA Street V3.
Proposer: ToxicOJ (talk)
Deadline: August 26, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Support
- ToxicOJ (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose
- Hewer (talk) I think this is really stretching what can be considered a guest appearance. It doesn't have you playing as Mario characters like many of those examples do, and the Mario elements it features don't even directly affect gameplay or get interacted with, it's just skins based on other games that change visuals and sounds. I'd say it fits better on the list of references.
- TheUndescribableGhost (talk) per Hewer. I get that they are a lot of effort put in them, but it doesn't really modify the gameplay. Let, if the Tertis blocks were maybe replaced with Mario blocks, maybe? I mean, Just Dance was voted a guest appearance but that was because of the effort of the music videos. Even if I would agree with you, you don't try to explain how it is more than a skin. Because that's how it feels to me.
Please note that there was just a proposal that determined that the NES Tetris does not count as a full appearance or a guest appearance but rather a standard reference; it includes direct appearances of Mario, DK, Luigi, Bowser, and Peach outside of gameplay. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:02, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
I think Art Style: PiCTOBiTS should be a good comparison for games that don't have playable Mario characters or interactible Mario elements.
- How many themes/levels are Mario themed?
- Are there sounds/music borrowed from the Mario games?
- And most importantly, how much of a game do these levels/objects/themes occupy compared to non-Mario elements?
If the answers to these questions are comparable to Art Style: PiCTOBiTS, then we could say it is a guest appearance. Also take a look at the proposal Doc von Schmeltwick linked, as what is and isn't a guest appearance is very much up for debate. What do you think? Axis (talk) 12:10, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
- For the last point, the Mario themes are only some in a plethora of themes based on Nintendo Switch games that are exclusively available in limited-time events, so I don't think it gets a great score there. And from what I can tell from its article (I haven't played the game), it seems like Pictobits does feature interactible Mario elements in the form of coins and POW Blocks. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:37, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a source
See this proposal for full context. Nintendo is sadly known to make mistakes in their filenames found on their websites (especially Play Nintendo). I think we can all agree there is zero reason to believe these files should have the same priority as number 4 in the acceptable sources for naming policy, but I also believe we shouldn't throw them away. If Nintendo blunders, we mention it. If this proposal passes, the following changes will be implemented:
- Nintendo's weird website filenames can be added either as trivia or in the same section as internal names, but these names shouldn't be anywhere near the first paragraph.
- In a potential unforeseen case where the website filename is the only name Nintendo provided, it will occupy the last 7th place in acceptable sources for naming (yes, even below the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia)
Redirects, on the other hand, is something I'm unsure about.
Proposer: Axis (talk)
Deadline: August 24, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Support, use these names as redirects as well
- MegaBowser64 (talk) No harm done by using redirects, unless we want to obliterate these names off the wiki.
- Hewer (talk) Honestly, I still don't really get why the last proposal had so much vehement opposition just because "no one thinks these are the actual names". While that may be true, it's not like we're trying to make these the article titles - I'd obviously agree if that was the proposal, but I don't really see the harm of making a note of these on pages like we usually strive to do with all the official information we get. And I tend to support redirects for any names that have been officially used, since having more redirects is completely harmless - it's potentially helpful and never a hindrance, so again, I don't see a problem.
- Mister Wu (talk) If we can distinguish them from the games’ internal names, I think that these names can be a nice addition to the pages.
Support, but these names shouldn't be used as a redirect
Only cite them in case of no other source being available
- Koopa con Carne (talk) I don’t know how often this might happen, but if a filename is the only source we can work with for a given name, it shouldn’t be discounted.
- Camwoodstock (talk) In the extremely unlikely case that the Nintendo website's data is the one, the only authority on a name, we may as well use it; otherwise, though, we can probably get away with discounting them. After all, these are names you'd only encounter by prodding at the site data.
Oppose
#Koopa con Carne (talk) I actually think it's a good idea to cite web filenames as a recourse when absolutely nothing else comes in clutch, and I support mentioning the original filename of a wiki upload on its file page as it still defines the image in an official capacity, but the overall course of action proposed here still puts too much stock in this kind of material. Per some of the opposers to the previous proposal.
@Camwoodstock: Why is it that the obscurity of the names means we should ignore them? There's plenty of obscure content on the wiki, if anything it makes it more interesting to note them if it's obscure and not many people know about them. I don't understand why this proposal and the previous one were opposed with arguments along the lines of "too obscure, no one will see these" when that's never been a factor in anything else on the wiki to my knowledge. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:31, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
- Yeah, I was bewildered by this argument in the previous proposal too. It's nonsense, as the wiki already cites no shortage of material you'd normally have to look really deep into finding--and it seems weird to think a filename for an image that is readily available on Nintendo's website is somehow more obscure than a section in some '90s player's guide that is not sold anymore. However, I'll grant you that there are still some reasons to argue against the use of these filenames as sources of information, namely that those who help piece together promo material aren't obliged to demonstrate a staggering amount of professionality in the way they represent Mario concepts, and are not what you'd construe as an authority on such. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:47, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
- Indeed, hence why I don't think we should make these page titles or otherwise give them much credence, but noting them in trivia sections and the like seems like it should be fine to me as this is still official material, and it's certainly not like we usually tend to ignore promotional material like these websites. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:21, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Reflects the elements from DKwiki
In the past, DKwiki existed separately. It was eventually merged because there were no DK games in recently and there were more appearances in the Mario spinoff. How about including the first appearance from the Mario series? If there is no appearance in Mario spinoff, the status quo is maintained.
- List of Super Mario-related appearances
- Mario-related spinoff and crossover
- Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
- List of Donkey Kong-related appearances
- Super Smash Bros. fighters or collectibles
- WarioWare minigame cameo
- Super Mario Maker costume
Example:
Before:
Donkey Kong Country (1994)
After:
Donkey Kong Country (1994)
Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour (2003, Super Mario-related spinoff)
Proposer: Windy (talk)
Deadline: August 21, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Support (Separate)
- MegaBowser64 (talk) Per proposal, this is a good idea.
Oppose (Status quo)
- Swallow (talk) This wiki basically treats Super Mario and Donkey Kong as if they were the same franchise. This would just lead to others trying to find similar exceptions like this which would get way too messy.
- Tails777 (talk) Per Swallow. This just opens the door for the same to apply to Wario and Yoshi as well, as they are also in the same sub-franchise boat as Donkey Kong is.
- Ahemtoday (talk) I... don't see the reason to do this.
- Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per Swallow. This only muddies the waters of what's a Mario game vs. a Donkey Kong game, and is honestly a lot less helpful than it is harmful. There's more elegant ways to convey these sorts of things anyhow.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - What is the point? Prose is better for this and less ambiguous anyway.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
- Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
- Axis (talk) Per Swallow.
- ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
- Hewer (talk) Donkey Kong games are considered by the wiki to be part of the Super Mario franchise, and the lines can be blurry in some cases (most notably the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games that we consider to be in both franchises, but also other similar cases like the original Donkey Kong game, which is obviously in the Donkey Kong franchise but is also considered the first Mario game as it was the first appearance of Mario and he's the main character). But I also don't really see the benefit of changing this regardless, it's not like we consider either Mario or DK to be more important than the other. Also, I'm confused why the proposal lists crossover appearances featuring both Mario and DK under the DK-related appearances.
- Arend (talk) Per all, specifically Swallow, Tails777, Camwoodstock and Hewer. Also, see comments.
- FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
- ExoRosalina (talk) Per all, but it looks a same treat for the Super Mario and Donkey Kong franchise.
- Mario vs. Donkey Kong is considered into Mario-related appearance since it contained more Mario contents than Donkey Kong Country. Windy (talk) 23:37, August 18, 2023 (EDT)
- The wiki has considered the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games as both. Sure, it contains very few Donkey Kong Country elements compared to the Super Mario elements it has, but the games have always been a homage to the classic arcade games of Donkey Kong; the very first entry of Mario vs. Donkey Kong is a spiritual sequel to the Donkey Kong Game Boy game of 1994, with its gameplay similar to that game instead of how a Super Mario Bros. game works. Its sequels also reintroduce Pauline, who only appeared in the Donkey Kong arcade game, the 1994 Game Boy game, and the NES game Pinball; Pauline hadn't really made an actual appearance in a Super Mario title until Super Mario Odyssey ten years later. The Mario vs. Donkey Kong games also make sure to always homage the classic 1981 arcade game in some fashion.
So in essence, I think it's wrong to consider Mario vs. Donkey Kong a Mario spinoff only, when in reality it's a spinoff of both Mario and Donkey Kong. It's a crossover, in essence. As such, if this proposal passes, it'd probably make more sense if Mario vs. Donkey Kong, and by extension the classic Donkey Kong arcade games, either should be counted as Donkey Kong games, or are listed separate from both the Super Mario games and the Donkey Kong games... and that's straight-up confusing and makes me doubt that the separation between the two series really is a good idea, even if only for the infoboxes. 
rend (talk) (edits) 01:44, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
- Also, the original McsDK takes more from Donkey Kong on the Game Boy, which is a Donkey Kong game through and through. In that respect, it makes more sense to consider it primarily a DK game, but as Arend pointed out, that's not necessarily true. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:57, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
@Hewer: Regarding why crossovers featuring both Mario and DK would be regarded as DK-related, I presume is because the specific appearances of those DK characters would be more related to the DK games than the Mario games (e.g. Super Smash Bros. lists DK, Diddy and K. Rool as Donkey Kong series character rather than Super Mario series characters; the DK, DK Jr and Diddy Mystery Costumes in Super Mario Maker are listed separately from the other Mario-related Mystery Costumes instead of being blended in, as if they're representing their own series instead; and the WarioWare microgames that feature Donkey Kong are based on Donkey Kong games rather than Mario games). But like with the Mario vs. DK thing I discussed, though, this crossover segregation could be really confusing and complicated for people and makes me think that it's not a good idea to list these things separately in the infoboxes. rend (talk) (edits) 06:35, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
- My confusion is why those crossovers are all exclusively listed under Donkey Kong despite all featuring both Mario and DK representation. I guess they're covered by "Mario-related spinoff and crossover" as well, but that's confusingly vague. And I very much disagree with the proposer's stance that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games aren't part of both franchises - the Donkey Kong franchise isn't just Donkey Kong Country and its derivatives, it also includes the original arcade trilogy and the derivatives of those games, including Mario vs. Donkey Kong. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:23, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
- Regarding the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games, that's exactly what I was saying. rend (talk) (edits) 10:58, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
- Yeah, I was arguing against the proposer as I specified. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:44, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
- Especially when one considers the original MvsDK is based directly on DK94 more than any Super Mario-branded game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:54, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
