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 4, 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
Delete all Super Smash Bros. challenges pages (discuss) Deadline:April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMTApril 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 3, 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
Delete the Peach Items category. (Discuss) Deadline: November 9, 2014 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Merge all warioware microgames with their respective List of microgames in ___
Er... Well... I suck at these. But er... User:Tsunami convinced me to do this. I think that it would be a good idea to get rid of microgame articles because number one: There tiny. Stubs. Honestly, we look for so many stubs, but no one mentions the microgames. And most of them are so minor, all you must do is tap something. It's minor, and minor warrents an article, but there are so many of them they clog the random and take up waaaaay too much space. I'm pretty sure Warioware has more articles than the Mario party and kart series have combined. And I don't think anyone who looked up Paratroopa ment the microgame.
So my idea is that we put them all in one article in an organized manor, like the List of implied Characters. We don't need to cut information, we can just copy paste it. Nothing new has to be written. I understand that this will be a MASSIVE merge, something I don't even want to know how to do. But I think it's worth it. Just please, hear me out. And er... don't criticize me for a horrible proposal.
Proposer: Toadbrigade5 (talk) Deadline: November 2, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Time Turner (talk) Regardless of how minor you may consider them to be, and regardless how how many they are, they're still things. That sounds silly, but they are their own individual things with their own individual aspects to them, like their respective designs, their respective music, their respective difficulties, their respective controls, their respective captions, and so on and so forth. I don't see why they should be merged. Besides that, merging them all to giant lists would make them ridiculously cluttered. The largest article with have for implied things has ninety-nine entries, and most of that is usually just a few sentences for each image. The number of microgames per WarioWare series, on the other hand, has a minimum of 177 (for WarioWare: D.I.Y. Showcase) and 223 (for WarioWare: Twisted!). Keep in mind that, once all of these articles are primed for completion, they will all have infoboxes that list an image, its controls, its in-game caption, and its in-game score to beat, as well as an intro sentence and a few more lines dedicated to the differences between difficulty, and that's not including the potential of describing the actual visuals of the microgame. Transferring all of that into a single list would either make the article enormous, to the point where it'd be more practical to have them separate, or some info would need to be trimmed, which would mean that info would be lost and therefore it would be better to keep them separate. Bottom line is, it's harmless to have individual articles for them, and it's a lot better than mashing it all together into a list.
Walkazo (talk) - Small pages aren't stubs as long as they have all the info, even if it's a small amount. Many small articles is better than a few large ones: they're easier for loading, especially to lower power or older devices, they're better for navigation, they serve most readers better than single massive pages (i.e. if you only want the one microgame, you an go straight to it), and they bring in the search traffic from Google and whatnot. The wiki's stance has been like this for some time: splits, not merges, is the way to go.
Mario (talk) I agree. Also, small articles are not necessarily stubs. Paper Mario ingredient articles don't get merged, but they contain useful information. Now, there can be a page listing every microgame at a glance, but merging all microgames into a super article is not what I'd like to do. Finally, I'm pretty sure WarioWare has less articles than the massive Mario Party and Mario Kart series combined.
Tails777 (talk) All mini games, no matter how big or how micro, get their own articles. Per all.
Tsunami (talk) Per all. Massive pages are just a nay. And there are some other reasons to not do it, that are already listed. Can't add anything.
Superfiremario (talk) These are for if you only want to look up one. If they all merged, it would take forever to search through a big, huge article and that is a pain. There is no reason to merge.
Ghost Jam (talk) Per all, but I do agree that some of these articles are in need of some basic editing.
Comments
@Timeturner Niice Paragraph, but number 1: The massive numbers prove my point. The abundance of nearly identical numbers is clogging the random, and I think having a few giant articles would be easier. It wouldn't be too cluttered, I mean, is the list of implied characters considered cluttered? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toadbrigade5 (talk).
"Clogging the random"? Is that really such a crucial thing that needs to be addressed? Besides the fact that a lot of people simply ignore the random button, is the fact that some fraction of our articles is covered by the microgames really something that bad? Also, one of my biggest points was that the implied things and the microgames are not comparable. We can scoot away with having articles like the implied character because the info on them ranges from a sentence to a short paragraph. With the microgames, on the other hand, there is a metric ton more info to cover when compared to them. Having giant articles for everything gave us things like Conker (series) and Banjo (series), which (though they are gone now) were amalgamations of nearly every single aspect from those two series and was recognized by everyone as being a cluttered mess. There was nothing more but more images and more info to deal with (in comparison to the implied characters article, by the way), but it ending up being an untamed beast. Now, add infoboxes to the mix, and you'll see why having one superlist for all of it will simply not work. Hello, I'm Time Turner.
Yeah I guess your kinda right. I for one often use the random button, and it annoys me when I get a microgame nobody cares about. But I realize it would get cluttered in one page. Toadbrigade5 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2014 (EDT)
@Walkazo: Wow. Can't believe I messed up on the definition of a stub. Thanks for clearing a few things up though. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toadbrigade5 (talk).
@Toadbrigade5 If you understanded and want to close the proposal since there is no way it can pass/you want to oppose too/other reasons, you can ask to do so, as long it is before November 29 00:00 GMT (if I got it right), to an admin, such as Walkazo. Just saying, since by your comments I realize you realized. TSUNAMI
Yeah, he can remove it himself anytime during its first three days of existence (i.e. between now and Oct. 29, 1:16 GMT, but really, we won't complain if it's later in the day on the 29th), or ask one of us to do it for him after the 29th. It just has to be archived properly, rather than simply removed. - Walkazo (talk)
TSUNAMI
