|
Current time:
Monday, May 20th, 05:17 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 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 20, 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 May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline:
May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Memory Card (discuss) Deadline: May 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add a Composers Subsection to Template:Themes (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Include Rainbow Coaster & Rainbow Downhill back in the Rainbow Road article (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split the contents of the blimp page (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Create a Rewrite-remove template (discuss) Deadline: May 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Decide whether to redesign the Main Page (discuss) Deadline: June 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
Talk page proposals
List of talk page proposals
Proposals that have not been implemented
| #
|
Proposal
|
User
|
Date
|
| 1
|
Split Spoing, Sprangler and Klamber from Scuttle Bug
|
Vommack (talk)
|
November 3, 2012
|
| 2
|
Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series
|
Aokage (talk)
|
January 3, 2015
|
| 3
|
Create a template for the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door badge drop rates
|
Lord Bowser (talk)
|
August 17, 2016
|
| 4
|
Create a Mini article
|
Wildgoosespeeder (talk)
|
August 20, 2016
|
| 5
|
Split all remaining courts and boards from their parent articles
|
NSY (talk)
|
September 25, 2016
|
| 6
|
Clean up species categories to only include non-hostile species
|
Niiue (talk)
|
August 8, 2017
|
| 7
|
Clean up Category:Artifacts
|
Niiue (talk)
|
August 22, 2017
|
| 8
|
Trim down Category:Fire Creatures and Category:Ice Creatures
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
September 7, 2017
|
| 9
|
Create an article on Arcade Archives
|
Camwood777 (talk)
|
September 23, 2017
|
| 10
|
Split all Starbeans Cafe items from the Starbeans Cafe article
|
Baby Luigi (talk)
|
September 30, 2017
|
| 11
|
Reorganize the board table in Mario Party: Island Tour
|
Baby Luigi (talk)
|
December 15, 2017
|
| 12
|
Give the Nintendo Switch buttons in Template:Button better color resolution
|
Eldritchdraaks (talk)
|
December 18, 2017
|
| 13
|
Expand the Behemoth King article
|
Owencrazyboy9 (talk)
|
December 23, 2017
|
| 14
|
Include every derivative Togepuku in Spiny Cheep Cheep
|
LinkTheLefty (talk)
|
December 25, 2017
|
| 15
|
Split Porcupinefish from Spiny Cheep Cheep
|
LinkTheLefty (talk)
|
December 25, 2017
|
| 16
|
Create articles on the Remix 10 secret courses in Super Mario Run
|
Time Turner (talk)
|
December 26, 2017
|
| 17
|
Add anchor links to Power Moon lists
|
Super Radio (talk)
|
December 31, 2017
|
| 18
|
Use points to show the statistics in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
|
Mister Wu (talk)
|
January 2, 2018
|
| 19
|
Allow the coverage of distinctly Mario aspects from guest appearances
|
Time Turner (talk)
|
January 4, 2018
|
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Create a page for Luigi's Mansion (series)
I am honestly surprised that this page does not exist, as I believe it once did. In short, there are three installments to this series: Luigi's Mansion, Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, and Luigi's Mansion Arcade. Though it might seem to some that only three games won't be enough to warrant a series page, keep in mind the DK series and the Mario Baseball series pages. There is plenty of information for this page, as we have a main protagonist (Luigi) and many other supporting characters and reoccurring enemies such as King Boo and Boos. It only seems logical to create a page for a series within the Mario franchise that features two games for consoles and one arcade game.
Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk)
Deadline: January 9, 2018 23:59 GMT
Support
- DKPetey99 (talk) Per my proposal.
- Astro-Lanceur (talk) Good Idea! :P
- Alex95 (talk) - A series page did exist before, but it was deleted back in 2011. That was before the arcade title, however, so I don't see a reason to not make one now.
- Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per proposal.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal. Since other similar series pages exist, I don't see an issue with creating this one.
- LudwigVon (talk) Per proposal.
- Lcrossmk8 (talk) OH YEAH! I KNEW this was supposed to be a thing. As a person whose favorite video-game character is the man in green, Mr. Number Two, I think this proposal is just great. After all, don't we hear people talk about the Luigi's Mansion games as a series? I think we're on a roll, boys. Per proposal. This thing should have been created when Dark Moon was released.
- Supermariofan67 (talk) Per all.
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) If we have articles on series with only two games, then clearly this subject merits an article. Per all.
- YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. It may seem strange to have an article on a two-game series. However, this one has three.
Oppose
Is there a policy page/section about what qualifies as a series and allow for a series article? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 15:00, 2 January 2018 (EST)
- Not finding one, but I think the unspoken rule is about three games? I remember reading that somewhere.
15:13, 2 January 2018 (EST)
- Thought there would be so that way proposals don't need to be created. Would the admins be in favor of a policy to bypass the need for a proposal? I wouldn't know how to define the prerequisites. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (EST)
- This page was previously deleted, so I understand the need for this proposal. But, imo, a policy for it doesn't seem necessary. As long as there is more than one game in the same series and a decent amount of information can be written, then proposals shouldn't be necessary either. Something can probably be added to MarioWiki:Glossary though. 17:50, 2 January 2018 (EST)
- Just thought of something else. Series vs. Franchise. We got both those types of pages that are similar-ish in concept. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 23:24, 2 January 2018 (EST)
2011 was even before Dark Moon was released so I see why the original page was deleted. 
DKPetey99TCE
- Whoop, forgot when Dark Moon was released. That makes the original page even more pointless :P 15:19, 2 January 2018 (EST)
Lcrossmk8: I do not think you can just support this proposal just because you like Luigi. Please, look rule #4.--
(TALK) 16:40, 2 January 2018 (EST)
- I'm not supporting the proposal just because I like Luigi. I agree with all the other reasons the proposal is on here, and that's why I voted for it. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2018 (EST)
- You just say in your reason for voting: "As a person whose favorite video-game character is the man in green, Mr. Number Two, I think this proposal is just great." This is not a valid reason to support a proposal. Rule #4 says: "irrelevant quips or comments are just as invalid as providing no reason at all. But now, I saw you put "Per proposal." so your vote is now valid."--(TALK) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (EST)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
What is Alleyway?
Once upon a time, a proposal deemed that Alleyway was irrelevant to the Super Mario Wiki, and should therefore be deleted... except that was four years ago, and the article still remains. Now it just sits in limbo or something, and that's not satisfying to me. Frankly, I consider this to be a clear-cut case: the game itself shows Mario to be the player character (as well as the life counter). As also seen in the box cover, he's the one piloting the paddle. The rest of the game isn't bereft of Mario images either, as every single bonus stage features something from the franchise to destroy. And "it doesn't play like a Mario game" isn't particularly valid in a franchise that spans so many different genres, and especially not when the wiki already covers Pinball and Golf (really, if you're against Alleyway on the wiki, you should also explain what you think about this game). Heck, Mario's Picross shows that the franchise is no stranger to seemingly esoteric playstyles. How can Mario be cameoing in this game when he is the one and only playable character?
With all of this in mind, there are two options: either Alleyway is properly a member of the Mario franchise, in which case the article would be kept, or it only features cameos from the franchise, in which case the article would be merged to List of Mario references in Nintendo video games.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: January 11, 2018, 23:59 GMT
It is a part of the franchise (and therefore, keep the article)
- Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
- Alex95 (talk) - Having played Alleyway, I noticed there are too many Mario things for it to not be a Mario game. Mario paddles the paddles, there are brick structures in the shape of various Mario characters. So, yeah, per proposal.
- Yoshi the SSM (talk) This is even more clear than Tetris DS. Per all.
- Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.
- Glowsquid (talk) was wrong.
- Chester Alan Arthur (talk) Mario is literally the playable character it's more then a simple cameo.
It only counts as a cameo (and therefore, delete the page)
- Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Merge with references, just like every other time I voted in similar proposals. It feels weird to give it the same attention as say Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins because of the core gameplay. It's a Breakout clone, not its own game series. Some videos why Mario is in these games: [1] [2] Alleyway is noteworthy, but not as a separate article.
Since I've been looking back at that proposal, might as well start a tangentially related discussion: what's the difference between Pushmo and Rhythm Heaven Megamix? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 21:55, 4 January 2018 (EST)
@Wildgoosespeeder: I literally make it a point in the proposal to talk about how the gameplay means nothing. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:02, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- Also, in a series like Mario, "canon" means nothing either. This isn't a franchise like Zelda or Metroid where some things are "canon" and others aren't. The rule of making Mario games is "We have a bunch of concepts and characters, let's do something fun with them." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- Case in point: that's literally policy. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:12, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- Gameplay should mean everything to article creation because simply slapping Mario on any game doesn't make it a Mario game right away. Let's debate the game's merits, not arbitrary rules you define. That's my argument with every similar proposal I voted on. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 22:24, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- So Mario's Picross isn't a Mario game? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:26, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- Let's focus on Alleyway instead of changing the subject. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 22:27, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- It's entirely relevant. You're talking about how gameplay defines a Mario game, and I'm providing an example of a game that clearly does not fit the standard Mario mold. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:29, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- I insist we keep talking about Alleyway, since this is a proposal about it. If you created a proposal to talk about all the games that are questionable relating to policy and List of Mario references in Nintendo video games, then we can discuss that game further. If you have no other arguments for my oppose vote, then we are done here. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 22:35, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- For one thing, you certainly seemed fine discussing other games, but that's neither here nor there. What's most important is that you're adamant about the core gameplay of the Mario franchise, but you're completely unwilling to discuss it. This is relevant when you're using it as a reason in your vote. Don't just brush it aside. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:38, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- I realized that being so easily derailed didn't help my argument for my oppose vote last time. My mistake. This time, I'll try to be more focused on the proposal's topic of What is Alleyway, and for future proposals in general. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 22:48, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- Please don't brush aside my query and tell me how the "core gameplay" denies Alleyway from being allowed an article while other games are perfectly fine. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:50, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- The first game was Breakout, which was a hit that inspired clones, which are very common. We got DX-Ball, Arkanoid, and MegaBall for just noteworthy ones and also come to mind. There's many more. I've come across a lot of Breakout clone shovelware on Steam and the Google Play store. Also, I said earlier that simply slapping Mario on any game doesn't make it a Mario game right away. Also, the videos in my vote show how Mario ended up in games like that. As far as I am concerned, it's a reference, probably to have driven the sale of Alleyway (brand recognition) more than to be considered a Mario game. It's not an uncommon business tactic either. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 23:03, 4 January 2018 (EST)
- Why does it matter how Mario ended up in the game? How does the historical context change anything about the game itself? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 23:20, 4 January 2018 (EST)
DKPetey99TCE
