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
Just like what we did with trophies, I propose we do the same and remove all non-Mario series spirits and merge the rest with Spirit (Super Smash Bros. Ultimate). If the spirit just so happens to not be from the Mario series but includes a Mario reference in the background or whatever, it also gets to stay. Same applies to Sticker_(Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl), the article gets trimmed to only include Mario-themed stickers.
If the proposal passes, the following changes will be implemented:
Second option: keep stickers and spirits if they also have any relevance to Mario in their statistics, obtaining, battles, etc. This option was added per Koopa con Carne (talk)'s vote, and even though I believe this approach is inconsistent to what we did with (for example) Subspace Emissary stages, I see no reason not to have it as an extra option. I would also like to ask to comment before voting next time, as people very often forget to re-read and to re-vote on a proposal, even if their vote and reasoning are no longer relevant.
Feel free to comment if you've got any issues with the proposal, I can always edit it.
Proposer: Spectrogram (talk) Deadline: April 20, 2023, 23:59 GMT
SeanWheeler (talk) Let's keep the focus on Mario. The 501-1000 Spirit list has nothing Mario-related in it.
Wikiboy10 (talk) SmashWiki exists for this information. Nothing will be lost and there isn't that much context to it the Mario characters.
Camwood777 (talk) - The Sticker article is definitely a holdover from a pre-SmashWiki era, so like, that's needed to be trimmed awhile ago. The spirits article should also probably be trimmed down for the same reason. And, y'know, the fact that the 501-1000 spirit list literally has zero Mario spirits on it is borderline comical.
Koopa con Carne (talk) I assume this is the "Do nothing" option; the wording isn't too clear. Anyway, many stickers in Brawl, even non-Mario ones, can be used on Mario fighters. Same with practically all spirits in Ultimate, which have the added aspect of spirit battles that may involve Mario opponents, stages, items, and music; see, for instance, the 593rd spirit, Pico, who is represented by Bowser. I wouldn't be opposed to handpicking and trimming the few completely irrelevant stickers, but I think this proposal has much the same shortcomings as the concurrent stage proposal in that it tries to paint the whole situation in broad strokes instead of taking a more nuanced view on the matter.
Glowsquid (talk) - Unlike trophies which are just logs of text copy-pasted straight from the game irrelevant to the whole "Mario punching Link" aspect, these things affect gameplay (see KCC's reasoning above and below). Admitelly I'm not sure I like the spirits page being xbox-hueg but I don't think this is the way to go.
The proposal was updated on 09:11, April 13, 2023 (EDT) -Spectrogram (talk)
I think all the Ultimate spirits have some relevance to Mario, seeing as how Mario characters can equip and benefit from any of them, thus making them coverage-worthy. To put it another way, readers may visit the spirit pages on this wiki with the intent of finding out, for example, which spirit works best with a given Mario, DK, Yoshi, or Wario series fighter. This is consistent with the currently-enforced principle that non-Mario fighters still deserve some coverage here by virtue of the fact that Mario fighters can interact with them. On the other hand, some stickers are restricted against Mario fighters, and it's reasonable to expect readers of Mario Wiki not to find these immediately relevant to their interests. Oddballs need to be accounted for too: despite the previous statement, the Crazee Dayzee and Mario Power Tennis Bowser stickers, which are exclusively usable by Pokemon Trainer and Ganondorf respectively, should still be covered for the simple fact that they depict Mario subjects. -- KOOPACONCARNE 09:48, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
I do not believe this is a good reason to keep them anyway. Spectrogram (talk) 09:59, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
Anyone can equip spirits and stickers. That doesn't mean they are all noteworthy on a Mario Wiki. Mario himself could throw a Poké Ball to summon a random Pokémon, but the Pokémon article is proposed for deletion with nobody defending the page. The spirit list is divided into three pages, and the middle page doesn't have a single Mario-related spirit. A few possessed Mario fighters, and a few take place on Mario stages, but there's still a lot of non-Mario clutter. If readers want full information on the stickers and spirits from Super Smash Bros, they should check Smash Wiki instead. Our Smash coverage has been practically competing with Smash Wiki and it's time to stop that. For one, Smash Wiki is a member of NIWA that specializes in Super Smash Bros. while we cover Mario. Our full coverage of Donkey Kong had led to the closure of the Donkey Kong Wiki. So just like the other NIWA wikis that only cover their universe's part of Smash, we should focus on the Mario aspects of Smash. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:10, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
I agree. Although, to be honest: I'm not sure even the Mario stickers and spirits are major enough to cover here. Fighters, I get. Stages, I get. But trophies and stickers and spirits are such a minor thing. It's like covering what everyone's taunts are. The Smash Wiki has an obligation to do that, yeah, but we don't. Ahemtoday (talk) 01:40, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
But that's directly Mario-related information, there's really no room to argue otherwise. By all means, we should cover the Mario characters' taunts because they're Mario characters. Should we also remove information on collectibles from Mario games because it's too minor? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:21, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
We should have kept Mario taunts Spectrogram (talk) 03:52, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler: "Anyone can equip trophies and stickers" Straight up false information and disingenuous argument. Trophies are aesthetic collectibles with virtually no gameplay purpose, and stickers can have restrictions on which characters they can be applied to. "Mario himself could throw a Poké Ball to summon a random Pokémon, but the Pokémon article is proposed for deletion with nobody defending the page." That proposal states that Poke Ball Pokemon will remain on the wiki precisely because they can interact with Mario, they'll just be relocated to the Smash items page; it's the general Pokemon page that will be deleted since it has no relevance to Mario whatsoever--it's as if the wiki had an article on the Aegis blade because two Smash fighters are personifications of this object. "So just like the other NIWA wikis that only cover their universe's part of Smash, we should focus on the Mario aspects of Smash." The Mario Wiki is not beholden to some mysterious NIWA-wide standard on how to cover Smash information. It is free to exercise its own discretion in that regard, and the situation definitely has more facets to consider than "these concepts weren't made for a Mario game". -- KOOPACONCARNE 07:17, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
I don't think "can interact with Mario characters" is a reasonable criterion for coverage. Surely, then, we should be listing all the characters' moves - up tilts, down smashes, back airs, and all - on the basis that Mario characters can be hit by them? Ahemtoday (talk) 14:07, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
They already are, they're just condensed into the fighters' Super Smash Bros. appearance sections--see for instance Mr. Game & Watch. No essential information is lost from these fighter merges, it just isn't being described in as much detail as it used to be (e.g. aesthetic aspects). -- KOOPACONCARNE 14:13, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
Just fixed the typo where I accidentally said "trophies." Still, there's hardly anything noteworthy about an interaction with Mario characters in gameplay when you can use any other character with no difference. The amount of damage from attacking Mario with Samus Aran's back-air would be no different from hitting Fox McCloud with the same move. The weights may vary a bit, but we'd be overanalyzing non-Mario moves. SeanWheeler (talk) 19:21, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
They interact with Mario characters in a crossover game and that makes them fully eligible for coverage, period. Note that by "coverage" I don't necessarily mean "dedicated page" as the organisation of non-Mario subjects should be decided on a more case by case basis, but it is certainly not at all intuitive or conducive to start splitting hairs on just how minor these gameplay interactions are. -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:32, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
You've made the proposals that merged the Smash fighters into lists and you supported the proposal to trim the trophy list. Why are you against trimming the stickers and spirits? The list of spirits was so big that it was split into three, and the middle page completely lacked Mario spirits. Shouldn't the stickers be trimmed away for the same reason the trophies were? So what if Mario characters can equip them? Trophies are items in Brawl and Smash 4 that can be picked up by Mario characters. I think the non-Mario stickers that are useless to Mario characters and the non-Mario spirits that doesn't use anything Mario related in their battles should be trimmed away. SeanWheeler (talk) 20:08, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
Stickers and spirits have a gameplay purpose that can affect the stats of Mario characters, however small that effect may be. I don't know where you got that I'm against trimming the stickers, because I clearly said right at the start of the discussion that I'd encourage them being trimmed away as long as they depict a non-Mario subject and are usable only by non-Mario fighters. As for the trophies, if I remember correctly from Brawl, you pick up generic trophy stand-ins whose character is only revealed by the end of the battle or minigame, certainly this being the case with Smash for 3DS--and the wiki already has an article for the general trophy item, which Mario, indeed, can interact with. -- KOOPACONCARNE 20:34, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
Changes
Merge every Super Smash Bros. stage into game-specific lists
It's official, the premise is that the Super Mario Wiki is not a Super Smash Bros. wiki. I was wondering if we can merge every stage into game-specific lists:
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros.
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U
List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
Spectrogram (talk) Per updated proposal. Please make sure to also explain what would be done with all that extra information (if anything).
SeanWheeler (talk) Actually, as I'm looking at those stage pages, they are pretty short, and far more suitable for a list page than the characters. The longer ones can be trimmed a bit.
#Wikiboy10 (talk) We have merged the fighters, items, and other stuff from this series, we might as well do this. Since the supporter didn't do a good job of explaining why this needs to happen, our stance on Super Smash Bros. is that it's not in the same vein of crossovers in comparison to Mario & Sonic. Honestly, I feel the opposition's reasoning is just based on how poorly this proposal is written, rather than because we shouldn't do it.
Oppose
Koopa con Carne (talk) You have made zero effort to elaborate on various aspects of this merge, such as whether this merge involves minutiae like pertinent images, song tables, profiles etc., but most outstandingly, the proposal, intentionally or otherwise, makes a tacit statement that the Mario series stages themselves would also be merged together with the others, which is basically where my opposition is most strong. I assume this is a follow-up to the fighter proposal, which would imply that it aims to round up non-Mario Smash subjects of a particular nature into one page, in which case even a simple statement along those lines would have gone a long way towards clarification. You're basically relying on your voters' guesswork to sort this thing out.
Hewer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, and lumping 3DS and Wii U into the same page is also a strange decision since they introduced almost completely different stages to each other.
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I get how we are trimming down our Smash Bros. coverage, however you are going to need to be more specific on how this is going to work.
#Swallow (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, this needs some serious elaboration rather than just "merge everything". #Spectrogram (talk) Proposal fails to even mention Mario-related stages and what would be done with extra information. #TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, this proposal is unclear on too many aspects currently to consider supporting. #SeanWheeler (talk) While I like that we're cutting down on Smash Bros. content, those lists of fighters give me flashbacks of the Banjo and Conker series pages, so I don't want the stages to be given that treatment. I'm honestly quite confused about which non-Mario characters gets their own pages and which ones are sections of the fighter lists. And it's unclear with this proposal about what happens with the Mario stages.
Comments
@Teh Other, note that you still have three days to edit the proposal. Spectrogram (talk) 09:15, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
@Wikiboy10 It's not only poorly written, even this needs specifics on what exactly will happen. The proposal reasoning implies it will impact absolutely everything which is not a very good way of going about this sort of thing. Nightwicked Bowser 15:07, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
Funnily enough, I just removed my vote because now I realized the biggest flaw with this proposal: Would this include the Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, and Wrecking Crew stages too? Please clarify that. Wikiboy10 (talk) 15:10, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
Why should the stages be merged and not playable characters? I think the stages are like the second most visible aspect of Super Smash Bros. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:16, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
@Teh Other Could you clarify what exactly you intend to happen with the 3DS and Wii U stages? The proposal is still unclear about that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:20, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, I think that's important too. I'm about to revote for this once it's more clear. We definitely need to merge the stages now, but we need better information. Wikiboy10 (talk) 11:26, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
Create an article for Punch-Out!! (NES)
Punch-Out!! and its original version Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!are currently considered cameos on this wiki. What separates cameos from guest appearances is that cameos have no overall effect on the game. It's when the thing lacks any role in the gameplay or story. The Zelda games may have a Mario enemy appear. Still, they are non-Mario enough to be somewhat distanced from the Mario games, so the games do not get a page, except for Awakening, which only got it because of Mamu's involvement in giving one of the items to Link. As for the NES version of Punch-Out!!, Mario appears in this game as the referee, which means whenever one of the boxers is down, Mario will come up and start counting down from ten. He tells the fighters to fight once the match begins.
So why is this considered a cameo? Mario blatantly appears and plays a role in the gameplay: being Little Mac's referee. His appearance would easily be a cameo if he had just been in the background watching the fight. But because Mario does have a significant role in being the referee, a rather important thing in boxing, the wiki underplayed Mario's role in this game. Sure, he isn't playable or is a boss, but he isn't just in the background. I always wondered why the wiki considered this role unimportant when it's more than just a background appearance. I guess it's because he isn't playable. Still, not all guest appearances have to make a Mario character playable, as recently proven with Sonic Lost World. (And on a minor note, Punch-Out!! Wii is weirdly in the references section despite being a guest appearance).
This proposal aims to reclassify the NES version of Punch-Out!! as a guest appearance. This option would mean that we get a general page detailing the game and detailing Mario's role as the referee. The page will also cover both game versions since they are the same in terms of Mario content. We won't create pages for Little Mac or all the fighters that appear in the game. Sorry, Mike Tyson.
Hewer (talk) Per Spectrogram, I'm not sure why you're emphasising so much that Mario being the referee is a major role in the gameplay when all he really does is stand at the side sometimes and wave his hands.
Camwood777 (talk) NES Tennis is very similarly considered just a "cameo" game, despite Mario's active role as the referee in that game. Heck, in that game, he's not only always on screen (albeit not always proactive), he's also on the Game Boy version's cover art! Since NES Tennis is still just a "cameo" game (at least, as of writing it is), it feels only fair to keep this game on even footing with it considering Mario's similar role across both games. (Besides, Mario characters have made cameos in other Punch-Out!! games, both before and after the NES game, and the sole exception for "ones that got articles" was Wii, since Donkey Kong is a full-on opponent.)
SeanWheeler (talk) Mario's wearing a completely different outfit. And in Wreck-It Ralph, Tapper looks exactly like Mario. What if the referee was just a knock-off character?
Tails777 (talk) The role of the referee in boxing doesn't really impact the fact that Mario doesn't play any role other than just appearing as the ref. He doesn't truly impact the gameplay like Donkey Kong does in Punch-Out!! on the Wii.
I feel the example for Sonic Lost World is flawed since there's an entire theming going around this to make this more of a guest appearance. I still think Mario is a cameo in this game despite having a tangible gameplay-related role here. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:18, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! is not the original version. The original version is the gold Famicom cartridge that was given to some contestants of Family Computer Golf: U.S. Course. This one lacked Mike Tyson and had Super Macho Man as the final opponent. There are three versions of the game with three different bosses. That being said, would this proposal also affect Tennis? Mario is a referee in that game as well.--Platform (talk) 05:54, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:39, April 18, 2023 (EDT)
Nightwicked Bowser 
15:07, April 13, 2023 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:16, April 14, 2023 (EDT)
