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 3, 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
Merge Big Kyutyan with Raphael the Raven (discuss) Deadline:February 18, 2019, 23:59 GMTExtended to February 25, 2019, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 4, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Split the levels in Enemy Blockade into their own articles (discuss) Deadline: March 9, 2019, 23:59 GMT
When this wiki deals with a subject from an upcoming game or update, it's very common to see phrases such as "set to appear" or "will appear in said game or update". This kind of wording easily becomes obsolete once the game/update goes live. While some cases are promptly corrected, others remain unchanged for a long time. This instance, for example, had been forgotten for months since before the release of Mario Tennis Aces simply because it was too obscure.
I propose the Manual of Style to be updated to forbid explicit statements that a subject will appear in a future media, on grounds that simply stating the same thing in present tense ("[subject] appears in [upcoming game]") is fine enough to use and doesn't risk becoming out of date (except in extremely rare cases, where the subject it removed from the game or the game gets cancelled). It's actually more correct to state it this way, since any trailer or gameplay of an unreleased game presents elements that have already been incorporated into it and are thus presently in the game. We may then avoid situations like this one where the subject is literally hours from going live at the time of this proposal.
However, not all future wording would be affected by this proposal. Lead paragraphs that refer to a game as "upcoming" are free to stay, as this is the most simple way to state that the game is not released yet, on top of being likely more visible and easy to update than an obscure sentence on a particular page. So, cases like "Super Mario Maker 2 is an upcoming 2D platforming and level-editing game" will stay this way until release, even if the proposal passes.
Proposer: Bye Guy (talk) Deadline: March 13, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Bazooka Mario (talk) I was concerned about the vague provisions in the title of the proposal, but that's already addressed in the proposal. I think this is solid.
FanOfYoshi (talk) I don't like this idea at all. If it is banning, then no. Discouraging is ok, but banning?! Would it make it a level offense? We usually fix it when the game is released, but when it is not released, it is fine to use it. I wouldn't stand that! I would make a counterproposal if this passes. >_>
Comments
Why are we banning it? I would prefer we discourage rather than banning. Should i make a counterproposal four weeks after the proposal's deadline? --FanOfYoshi 03:26, 1 March 2019 (EST)
You can, but judging from the overwhelming support for the present proposal, I think people really don't want to see future tenses on the wiki. What's the point of having them if they are going to be changed to present tense anyway? -- KOOPACONCARNE 07:40, 1 March 2019 (EST)
Thing is, that's what the {{upcoming}} and {{new subject}} templates are for. They highlight upcoming or recently released games/subjects, which get categorized to look through. It's a simple category to look through and update, and if we have to edit the page to remove the template when it's time to do so, might as well change the tenses, and the MarioWiki:Upcoming_content#Revision already encourages things to be written in a present tense in this way. 15:36, 2 March 2019 (EST)
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Bring Back Fake Reminders and Warnings
Hi, this is Mari0fan100. I've seen fake reminders, warnings, and last warnings get banned for 8.5 years now, but some of them make me laugh! I think we should bring them back for amusement, but if we do, they cannot be used inappropriately, only for fun purposes.
Proposer: Mari0fan100 (talk) Deadline: March 9, 2019, 23:59 GMT
#FanOfYoshi (talk) Let's bring back this feature and be done with it!
Oppose
Toadette the Achiever (talk) Fake reminders/warnings were removed for a reason. We will not be bringing them back. (And don't be surprised if this gets vetoed as well.)
Alex95 (talk) - "they cannot be used inappropriately, only for fun purposes." The very point of warnings directly contradicts this. I'm not sure if this proposal is allowed or not, but I'm not going to be for this.
Doomhiker (talk) Several issues. First, users may think that these joke warnings are not a joke and take them seriously, which will cause a lot of confusion and frustration. Second, if a user gets a joke reminder for a level one offence they did not do and they later actually do the level one offence, then a user may look at the joke reminder, think the joke reminder was serious, and give the user a warning when they only deserved a reminder. Finally, I could see users taking advantage of joke warnings using them as an excuse to flame users. I strongly oppose.
FanOfYoshi (talk) While this is funny, this wiki is serious. Per Doomhiker.
Ghost Jam (talk) Per all and several more reasons that should be obvious.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) This is honestly so ridiculous I was considering just ignoring it entirely and waiting for it to be vetoed, but honestly, it's too ridiculous even for that. Per primarily the first three as to why it's ridiculous.
BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, there's no good reason to bring them back.
Waluigi Time (talk) They cause confusion, and the only arguments for bringing them back is "I think it's funny". I see no good reason for this ban to be removed.
Gabumon (talk) - Notice templates are not toys; they have a function. Having fake ones around impairs that function. I fail to see the humor in self-sabotage.
Comments
(you forgot oppose and comments) --FanOfYoshi 14:34, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Hmmm... Actual warnings are given in severe cases. --FanOfYoshi 14:41, 2 March 2019 (EST)
@Baby Luigi, you might want to look at this. That warning sounds funny to me, and it was used for a fun purpose. Under no circumstances do I call that inappropriate. Mari0fan100 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2019 (EST)
That seems like toying with someone by making them think they've caused a metaphorical trashfire. Even if only for a second, that's not OK. That's trolling. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2019 (EST)
@Doc, how are issuing warnings like those trolling? Mari0fan100 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Playing with someone's emotions. Before they see that it's a joke, they're going to see a big "Last Warning" template. Now I've been on the receiving end of a real one of those before, and I can tell you the sight of "Last Warning: New section" on your own talk page on the recent changes is not a pretty sight. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Whew, I think we lost some history after that revision... 02:28, 3 March 2019 (EST)
FanOfYoshi 03:26, 1 March 2019 (EST)
15:36, 2 March 2019 (EST)
