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 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".
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
This proposal is simple. Twitter has been renamed to "X" several months back, and people have become increasingly adjusted to the change over time. On Wikipedia, it even says that "Twitter" is both the former and the colloquial name.
Somethingone (talk) I don't see why not. Most recent name, becomes current page name.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Prefer the old name, but this is really inevitable when websites now use the new name
Swallow (talk) Per Twitter's Organization XIII treatment (though it was dumb as hell)
Arend (talk) Reluctantly supporting this (since I prefer the old name and still call it Twitter to this day), but it would only be fair because of a similar proposal of renaming the Wikia template to Fandom, which I also supported.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) I'm also reluctant to support this, but it sounds like the right change.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) I'm used to the name Twitter as well, but times change, and so must we. Per all.
ExoRosalina (talk) Ok so prior to re-run of Halloween 2022, it says Twitter but now it's X. So I can support the change because Twitter changed the name for no reason.
BMfan08 (talk) I as well am reluctant, but on top of the aforementioned Fandom proposal, our own main page has "Follow us on X" now, so it would only stand to reason that this template should follow.
MegaBowser64 (talk) FINALLY now we can actually call it by its actual name. idk why everybody is still holding on to Twitter smh
Oppose
SeanWheeler (talk) X is such a generic name. There's a good reason why Wikipedia still calls it Twitter. Many news sites still have to clarify that X was formerly Twitter.
Comments
Would it be outrageous if we gave this the wiki's "name at the time" treatment and established a cutoff date where we can still refer to "X" as "Twitter" for historical purposes? LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:35, February 9, 2024 (EST)
That would be a little out of the scope for this proposal--this is about renaming the templates themselves--but we think you could possibly make a proposal to do that. It'd probably help a lot especially since, as mentioned, a few of these articles do already link to or mention Twitter/X. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:16, February 9, 2024 (EST)
I would only use "Twitter" if it's used WITHIN Super Mario media itself. For example, if it talks about someone adding an "X" post at a time before the rebrand (like Gregg Mayles), I'd say for the first mention "X" (then known as Twitter), because this wouldn't count as appearing in Super Mario media itself. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:19, February 9, 2024 (EST)
I agree to do so in an article's body, but IMO in citations, the name of the site should depend on the date a link to a tweet was retrieved: if the link was retrieved before the fateful day of July 23, 2023, then the site is called "Twitter"; if the link was retrieved after that day, the site is called "X". -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:46, February 9, 2024 (EST)
@SeanWheeler
"X is such a generic name." - That's not up to us to decide. And no other platforms have a name similar to that.
"There's a good reason why Wikipedia still calls it Twitter." - Because Wikipedia uses a policy that prioritizes the most commonly used name by English speakers as the page name. We don't do that, we use the most recent official name.
"Many news sites still have to clarify that X was formerly Twitter." - Isn't that an inside joke? And it's been almost a year, I think most people know that X = Twitter.
- S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 21:43, February 14, 2024 (EST)
Now that this proposal has passed, which broadens the scope of Template:Promo-photo to cover more than just promotional photographs, the name of the template and its corresponding category should be updated accordingly.
EDIT: Just to make sure this proposal covers all its bases, when configuring the file description on the Special:Upload page, the name on the "Licensing:" list should also be changed from "Promotional photo" to "Photo".
Hewer (talk) Kinda thought this would be an obvious enough choice to not need a proposal but per proposal.
PnnyCrygr (talk) "Photos" is much a more general term than "promotional photos" which suggests that only photos that pertain to press releases should be featured in this wiki, e.g. Fils-Aime looking at a 3DS in the reveal trailer of said console. Just "photos" the name alone will suggest that - any - photo can be included in this wiki, like soft toy and obscure merches photos. I repeat now: per all.
Arend (talk) Per all – it was a concern I had from the previous proposal about the promo-photo template, after all.
Following in the footsteps of this proposal, I'm creating another to standardize a "Cameo appearances" subsection of a History section of instances when something ONLY cameos or is referenced within Super Mario media. If there's an existing "Other appearances" subsection, the "Cameo appearances" one would precede it, as this is a Super Mario wiki.
I feel that when reading a History section, one would mainly expect to read about games or media where something has a physical role, including if it's a minor one. And a cameo doesn't really constitute equally as much as contributing to a subject's history so much as it merely being a footnote. Besides, when the cameos are all together in a single section (or subsections if there's enough to say, but usually cameos don't have more than one or two sentences), then it's easier to refer to every time a subject made a cameo throughout the course of its appearances.
For example, in Mario Golf: World Tour, the only form of an appearance that Reznor has is their name is sometimes shown on the scoreboard. This is a recurring instance for several other characters and species throughout the Mario Golf series, such as Phantamanta in Toadstool Tour and Advance Tour.
Koopa con Carne (talk) "History" suggests just that: a history of the subject across Mario media. Any cameos and mentions are obligately part of that history and should be treated on the same level as the physical appearances. The extent of an appearance is not relevant to how a subject's coverage is organized; if Toad makes a cameo in game X, that's still a given role which deserves a section of its own among Toad's other roles instead of being lumped together with other perceived minor roles which may lead to textual bloat. (The following string of sentences isn't extraordinarily readable: "Toad makes a cameo in game X, where he is seen in A level. He also appears briefly in game Y. Toad is also mentioned in game Z on the scoreboard. He also makes a cameo on game board B of game XY.")
Hewer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, and I'd also rather avoid basing organisation on subjective classifications like cameos where possible.
Swallow (talk) If it's a game that's fully within our coverage, then it should still be in the main history section. What does and doesn't count as a cameo to go into another section could get subjective too.
Comments
So this proposal is meant to get the cameo appearances of something to their own section rather than having them spread out over the article? If that's the case, it can help provide the main information while listing the minor information at the very bottom or something. Sparks (talk) 18:14, February 9, 2024 (EST)
No, this proposal is only for media where something only cameos and has no further role. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:16, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Okay. Thanks for the clarification! Sparks (talk) 18:19, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Standardize the "Other appearances" scope to include anything that's not a Super Mario game
This proposal adds on to my "Cameo appearances" proposal. This proposal aims to standardize an increased scope of the "Other appearances" subsection to include anything that isn't a Super Mario game. It helps affirm the idea that this is a Super Mario wiki and helps the non-Super Mario appearances stand out to readers more easily.
For example, if this proposal passes, any Super Smash Bros. series section, along with possible subsections, will be a sub-section of "Other appearances." Also, I've seen already five equal sign headings for Classic Mode route for Ultimate fighters and sometimes Subspace Emissary. I don't think MediaWiki supports six equal signs, but those could be summarized and included in the section for the game itself, if a decision has to be made.
Sidenote, but if the subject in question makes only trophy, sticker, spirit cameos, the standard would still be to keep them under "Other appearances," because, as stated in my preceding proposal, the "Cameo appearances" subsection would be for Super Mario media only.
Hewer (talk) The other appearances section is currently used for games that aren't given their own articles on the wiki, and I think it should stay that way - the whole reason we have pages for some non-Mario games is because they feature significant Mario content. "This is a Super Mario Wiki" as an argument is getting old - we're only covering this stuff in the first place because it's relevant to Super Mario, so the implication it falls out of the wiki's scope in some way feels incorrect. No matter where you stand on the Smash Bros. coverage debate, I don't think there's much room to argue that the appearances of Mario characters in the games aren't major (and your description of how big the Smash sections already are isn't really helping your argument that we should shove them under another subsection).
Sorry for more questions, but games like the Super Smash Bros. series, Fortune Street, and Nintendo Land would count as "other appearances"? Would spin-offs like the Mario & Sonic and Mario + Rabbids series count in this proposal? I feel the latter two I mentioned focus on Mario characters, but I agree that the former three I mentioned are "other appearances" for them. I'm leaning on the "support" option, but I want to think about this first. Sparks (talk) 18:34, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Well, Mario's in the title of the latter two you mentioned, so it's clearly a part of the Super Mario franchise (whether partial or entirely is up for debate). As for SSB, Fortune Street, and Nintendo Land, those would definitely count as "other appearances." Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:36, February 9, 2024 (EST)
That's what I was thinking, but Hewer makes a good point. I now feel conflicted to vote and I think it would be better off if I didn't vote at all. In the past I have supported proposals because I thought my reasoning was good but then others had information of their own, which convinced me to change sides or remove my vote entirely. I don't want this to be another instance of that. Sparks (talk) 18:40, February 9, 2024 (EST)
@Hewer: They definitely are major, no doubt, but they're not Super Mario. There's already an issue where people think SSB is a Super Mario spinoff, and seeing it under "Other appearances" would better show that it's not part of it. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:43, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Would it, though? "Other appearances" sections had Super Mario games in them for years before that 2021 proposal finally established a consistent usage for them, so it's clearly not immediately obvious to a reader what they're for. And the wiki doesn't call SSB a Mario spinoff anywhere to my knowledge, so it seems to already be doing its part in helping this "issue". I don't see much of a reason to get so hung up about whether they're Super Mario or not when they're still major appearances in the history of the character. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:51, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Decide how to incorporate Wonder Effects in Super Mario Bros. Wonder course articles
With more and more course articles being created for Super Mario Bros. Wonder (hooray!), there’s a consistency issue going on - how the Wonder Effects are incorporated into the articles. Some articles have them in the "layout" section of the article, while others have their own section dedicated to the Wonder Effect of the course.
Compare these two courses with each other to see what I mean:
Gnawsher Lair (has the Wonder Effect described in the layout section)
What this proposal is meant to accomplish is to keep consistency throughout the course articles for Super Mario Bros. Wonder. That’s why I have three options to vote on:
1. Have the Wonder Effect be described in the "layout" section of the course articles
2. Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the course articles
3. Do nothing (leave everything as is)
Having a section dedicated to the Wonder Effect will make it easier to find, so that's something.
Proposer: Sparks (talk) Deadline: February 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Have the Wonder Effect described in the "layout" section of the course articles
Sparks (talk) Personally I think including the Wonder Effect in the "layout" section is better because it’s part of the course and usually changes the layout of the course. The articles I have created for Super Mario Bros. Wonder have this feature.
Swallow (talk) Primary choice because there are a few levels (particularly the Special World levels) where the Wonder Effect lasts pretty much the whole level; the Wonder Flower is collected near the start and Wonder Seed is collected near the end. I'm not sure the second option would work too well for these kind of levels.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Articles will be easier to read this way.
Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the articles
Tails777 (talk) Personally speaking, given how just about every level has a Wonder Effect and how the Wonder Effects are basically the main gimmick of the game, I see no problem with giving them their own section. Whether it be a sub-section of the layout or a section overall, anything providing proper info on what the Wonder Effect is will do. Honestly, I could go either way on this, but the importance and notability of the Wonder Effects make me lean more to giving them their own sections.
21:43, February 14, 2024 (EST)
Sparks (talk) 
18:14, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Sparks (talk) 
18:40, February 9, 2024 (EST)
