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 15, 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
Remove Creeper Launcher Link from Princess Daisy's Page
The top of Princess Daisy's page currently serves to point users in the correct direction in regard to content that may also contain the name Daisy. Linking to the film variant's page and the baby counterpart's page makes sense to me. Linking to a variant version of a Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon enemy that by definition is, "as the name implies, a Gobber with daisy flower designs all over him," doesn't seem justified. This character is hardly its own entity to begin with hence it being in a subcategory of the one it branches off from, and its relevance to anything beyond that seems extremely minor compared to a character like Princess Daisy. Unlike the other info it isn't even related to Daisy, and it is an extension of the Creeper Launcher, and a shallow one at that. Wario is a featured article, and it doesn't contain any such info clogging up the top of its page, even though it could arguably include anything from Baby Wario to Bwario and plenty more. At what point is there a line drawn in how much clutter and to what degree of relevancy content like this is defined? Hopefully this can serve as such a mark in the sand.
Arend (talk) The {{redirect}} template, which the Creeper Launcher page is being included to on Daisy's page, is there to link any possible page a visitor might be looking for when searching for a specific term, when said term is already a redirect to the page this template is applied to. It's very similar to the {{about}} template, in that both are meant to disambiguate in regards to similar terms, like a lot of disambiguation pages. This means that sometimes, pages that may have nothing to do with the subject that the template is applied to would have to be included because they share the exact same name. That's the point of the template. The Gobber with the daisy pattern is named "Daisy", and there might be someone that may be looking for such a thing, though it would be very unwise to made the page "Daisy" a redirect to a section on Creeper Launcher when the much more well-known Princess Daisy, also referred to as "Daisy" exists. Hence why the Creeper Launcher page is on the Princess Daisy page; it's for disambiguation purposes.
Camwoodstock (talk) Admittedly, there doesn't feel like there's anything inherently wrong with this due to just how generic the word "Daisy" is. Though, it also doesn't help that, like it feels like a lot of things lately, Nintendo seems keen to throw us a curveball with the upcoming Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon 2 remake coming to Switch... Which seems to be once again not using the NoA names as a basis. Not that it'd seemingly matter much in this case, as it as originally named Daisy in Japanese as well, but then with the retranslations happening for the SMRPG characters... Yeah, this feels like a largely pointless removal that'd only serve to confuse things. We, admittedly, couldn't find the full policy on "See also"s on the start of the article, but from what we could gleam it's generally accepted to try to retain more links than it is to remove them unless it is well and truly silly to do so (such as the infamous Flat Zone, see also Flab Zone--literally only existing to seemingly catch typos.)
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. How come Wario's article only has one redirect though?
Koopa con Carne (talk) Reader searches "Daisy" on Mario Wiki in hopes of finding more about the Luigi's Mansion enemy, but gets redirected to Princess Daisy's page instead because she's the more popular character. The link at the top of the page is handy because it leads this particular reader to their intended goal.
Pseudo (talk) Per all, particularly the scenario cited by Koopa con Carne. Even if this is an obscure boss variation, it's still legitimately called "Daisy" and should be navigable to by the usual methods, regardless of how much more prominent Princess Daisy is.
SeanWheeler (talk) Until we have a Daisy (disambiguation) page, might as well link to the other "Daisy" pages on top of her page.
Comments
This should be a talk page proposal in Daisy's talk page. Nightwicked Bowser 16:19, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Yes, this should be moved to Talk:Princess Daisy; Proposals on the MarioWiki:Proposals page should only feature proposals that affect multiple articles, yet this proposal only affects one article. rend(talk)(edits) 16:20, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Ehh, we've seen a few proposals that would otherwise only impact one page end up here just because they would hold a precedent for future articles. It's not that too big a deal, admittedly. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:10, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Changes
Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"
This is rather self-explanatory. Regarding the {{character infobox}} template, instead of simply listing one voice actor/actress in the infobox, I believe that the section should instead list others. Not all of them though, only actors who have portrayed the character enough times to become a recognizable name for the character in whatever OFFICIAL media they portayed them in, alongside their latest ones of course. In fact, the wiki kind of already does this with characters like Mario having Charles Martinet and Chris Pratt listed together (now with Kevin Afghani too). So I propose that we rename the section to "Notable portrayals" to make the section not quite as confusing/misnamed. of course the other option would be to enforce the "latest" part, and drop Chris and Charles from the section (on Mario's page at least) entirely, leaving only Kevin Afghani, since he would be the "latest" portrayal.
So to summarise:
Option 1: Rename it to "Notable portrayals" and include multiple VAs. For example; list Charles Martinet, Chris Pratt, and Kevin Afghani for Mario... maybe even Lou Albano and Bob Hoskins since they fit the hypothetical definition I gave earlier.
Option 2: Enforce the "Latest portrayal" part. For example, only list Kevin Afghani as Mario's VA.
Option 3: Do nothing.
Proposer: YoYo (talk) Deadline: October 20, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Rename the section
YoYo (talk) Other wikis handle it this way too, like Wikipedia.
Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense. If we're treating this section like a "notable protrayals" section in the first place (e.g. listing both Charles and Kevin in Mario's infobox), we should probably actually label it as such so people don't get confused in the future.
Pseudo (talk) Seems sensible to me especially since this section is already being used in this way, and it should help with wiki navigation more generally.
SeanWheeler (talk) Do we have to list only one voice actor? What if someone was curious about all the voice actors who voiced Mario? Charles Martinet had voiced Mario for thirty years, and now he's getting taken off the page because Nintendo just hired Kevin Afgani? That's only going to confuse readers into thinking Kevin voiced Mario for all these appearances when he only just started in Super Mario Wonder. We should list all the voice actors for readers who are curious.
Super Game Gear (talk) Martinet deserves to be recognized for his long-time role of voicing Mario, Luigi, and others, even post-retirement.
OmegaRuby (talk) Especially with the sudden, new change in voice actor for the two main characters in the entire franchise, I feel that changing 'latest portrayals' to 'notable portrayals' would be extremely beneficial and informative for newer fans of the series. There are readers, such as myself as a small child, who generally just look at the infobox or the first section of the article for information they need, and it would probably be overall beneficial for new Mario fans browsing the wiki to know about Charles, who portrayed Mario the most, as well as being the man who has the most roles as the same character in video game history without scrolling all the way down to his Portrayals section.
Don't rename it and enforce the "latest" part
Mushroom Head (talk) Per all. Notable is subjective, however latest is not.
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Just doing the latest performance will make help to make sure the page is objective.
Leave it as it is
LinkTheLefty (talk) I don't think this is fixing anything that was too broken. The second option is ideal for streamlining the infobox, but there are probably going to be more times when the latest voice actor is uncredited or when it's a one-off or substitute. And what if we have another situation where there are multiple in-game voice actors concurrently playing the role anyway? Disclosure: I owe Charles a little favor so this may or may not be my extremely petty way of returning it.
7feetunder (talk) If even the proposer isn't sure what qualifies as "notable," it's probably not a good idea. It may be blatantly obvious to include Charles Martinet for Mario, but what about Princess Peach? Which of her numerous voice actresses are "notable?" How many times does a VA have to voice a character to be "notable?" Does appearing in The Super Mario Bros. Movie alone qualify you for "notable" status? Do VAs from the old cartoons count? I had previously voted for the second option as well, but LTL's vote and comments by Waluigi Time and especially ToxicOJ have led me to retract it. There are simply too many potential gray areas regarding the latest portrayal for me to support a strict enforcement of latest only. I vastly prefer LTL's below suggestion of simply listing all game portrayals in a collapsible section, which avoids the arbitrary qualifier of "notable" entirely.
Camwoodstock (talk) Thinking on it, we think we'd be alright with this as well--plus, as we've since gone over in comments, we do have an idea that we'd prefer over simply enforcing the "latest" part.
Waluigi Time (talk) What's considered a notable portrayal is going to be very subjective (there's already uncertainty about what could qualify in this proposal). Leaving only the latest portrayal keeps the infobox simple and streamlined, and the rest of the portrayals can be covered in a dedicated section. Also, having three VAs in Mario's infobox was the decision of one editor and as I'm writing this that list has already been narrowed down to just Kevin, so it's not really accurate to say we already do this. The movie was a special case since those were the latest portrayal, but obviously not intended to be replacements for the entire franchise going forward. (I originally voted for option 2, but the only difference between these is probably a misunderstanding by the proposer. Let's not needlessly split the vote.)
ToxicOJ (talk) There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution here. I understand arguments for both other options, but I am voting to leave it as it is because I think there are significant issues with both alternatives. Regarding option 1, I sympathize with the view that Charles should be recognized for his contributions, but changing the criteria to "notable portrayals" makes things much more subjective and leaves tons of room for gray area. Additionally, per 7feetunder, this may be an easy solution for Mario, but this proposal will impact ALL character pages, and the standard for "notable" VAs will be very difficult to determine for some characters. Regarding option 2, I agree with most of the arguments for this option, but per my comment I think a very strict interpretation of "latest portrayal" could lead to issues surrounding reused voice clips and game re-releases. Further, I think it is too early in Kevin's career as Mario to know how often Charles' voice will be reused, and we should be wary of making decisions surrounding this issue until this until the dust settles and this dynamic becomes clearer down the road. All of these reasons are why I think we should just leave things the way they are now. I also think that LTL's suggestion to list all portrayals is a great idea.
We feel like defining a "notable" protrayal isn't all that hard, honestly--just kinda spitballing one way we could handle it, it could feature both the first portrayal*, and anyone who's played the character for some amount of time (be it in terms of chronology or in terms of games/media). The finer details and any exceptions (such as, say, putting Kevin in there despite him having only voiced one game thus far on the grounds that this was a formally-announced thing, or putting Chris Pratt in as his most recent film protrayal) could probably be determined at a later date in a future proposal (possibly one after this if "rename to notable" passes?)
...Of course, all of this is moot if we simply choose to enforce the "current voice" moniker in the first place, which we can definitely understand. We just wanna make sure people realize what they're doing when they say to do that and what that entails, in case it turns out down the road that the "simpler" option really, really wasn't for the best. Personally, failing what we mentioned above, we feel like if we had to limit it, the smartest option would be to simply have a "first protrayal/latest protrayal" thing like we do with the games*--just a little something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one.
* doing either of these would have the objectively hilarious side-effect of potentially putting either Harris Shore from a few TV ads or Pat McBride from Donkey Kong Goes Home, both of which have Mario performances so obscure they currently lack their own articles, in the infobox on the Mario page, seeing as the two of them seem to both be contenders for first voice in our admittedly cursory searches. which we would permit on the grounds that that is, in fact, notable, even if it's very funny to jumpscare people with that album in particular ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:13, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
What if we just limited the infobox to collapsible in-game portrayals, and made portrayals in other media its own optional section? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:25, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
I wouldn't be opposed to including the latest actors from each distinct form of media in the "Latest portrayals" section, ie. Kevin Afghani (video games, 2023-), Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie). User:Whitey (talk / edits) 14:48, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
That also works, though you do still definitely run into edge-cases when a media hasn't been represented in awhile. For example, do the DiC cartoons not count as the most recent animated series, so do we include Lou Albano? ...What do we do about Pat McBride, considering how much an outlier Donkey Kong Goes Home already is? This definitely runs the risk of cycling back to the "what does everyone else consider notable enough?", so we'd be fine with just keeping it to most recent overall portrayal, personally... ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
"something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one" - There doesn't need to be anything else to do this because that's what the latest portrayal field is for already. In cases where a character has only ever been portrayed by one person, the portrayed by field is supposed to be used instead (though latest portrayal is frequently misused for this). --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Come to think of it, this proposal might need to be restructured a bit. As I've already pointed out, the situation where Mario had three actors listed at the time this proposal was written was not based on any existing wiki standards and is no longer the case. I assume the leave as-is option was based on the assumption that this actually was standard. Otherwise, there's not much difference between the latter two options. Even though I voted for "enforcing" this, I'd be okay with having multiple actors listed at the same time if we get another TSMBM situation where what's technically the most recent portrayal clearly isn't meant to be across the entire franchise. Unless anyone is strongly opposed to that, it's unnecessarily splitting the vote when this could probably work fine as a standard support/oppose proposal.
As an aside, I have to wonder if we should be listing Kevin at all since Wonder hasn't released just yet. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
How would it be handled if a future game only uses old voice clips from Charles Martinet, such as a re-release like Super Mario 3D All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, or the remastered Mario & Luigi games? I feel like it would be strange to keep swapping back and forth between Charles and Kevin if we exclusively list the voice actor from the most recently released game. On a related note, how would the years active be listed if Charles' voice is reused in a future game? ToxicOJ (talk) 07:57, October 17, 2023 (EDT)
In a situation like that, it's probably better to keep the person who's actively doing the role listed than to keep switching it out over recycled clips. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler: The information will still be there, there's a portrayals section further down the page that does list every person who has ever portrayed Mario for anyone who wants to see that. This proposal affects the listings in the character infobox and nothing else. That field also specifically says "latest portrayal" and lists the years, in this case 2023-present, so no one should be confused about it. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)
Nightwicked Bowser 
16:19, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
rend (talk) (edits) 16:20, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
