Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.
If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a detailed description of the proposed changes and may link to a draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
Rules
Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.[Proposal 1]
A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).[Proposal 2]
Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times UTC).[Proposal 3][Proposal 4]
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 (UTC).
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.[Proposal 5]
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
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 "(blocked)" 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.
If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
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.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.[Proposal 6]
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 should ask for that help. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.[Proposal 7]
For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.[Proposal 8]
Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must wait three days before submitting any new proposal.
Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a staff member after the self-cancellation cutoff, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most cases, the proposal should simply run its course.
If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
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. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Basic proposal formatting
Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal".
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other.[Proposal 9] Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).
In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 15 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".
===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), 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.
Stop considering most asset re-uses as "references" (usually)
So, music and voice clips have been determined to not count as references for the sake of the "references to previous games/references in later games" section. This leaves a few blind spots, though, which are all featured in Mario Party 5:
Engine re-use: If a game re-uses the same engine as a previous game, is that a reference? ...This is the one we disagree with the most, because engines are explicitly made to be re-used between games all the time, and those games tend to vary wildly. It was already rather dubious in the era where proprietary engines were more common, but in an era where there are multiple Mario games that use Unreal Engine 4, it feels a bit absurd.
Voice actor re-use: A weird edge-case the voice clip proposal didn't account for. Mario Party 5 asserts that the narrator being voiced by the same person as in Mario Party 4 is a "reference"... Is it?
Sound effect re-use: If a game re-uses a sound effect from a previous game, is that a reference? Seeing as we don't consider music re-use a reference, and our coverage for sound effects actually borrows quite a bit in format with how we handle music, we feel like this is similarly fair game.
Graphical re-use: If a game re-uses sprites, models, or even model animations from a previous game, is that a reference? There is a bit of an asterisk to this (namely about sprites, as those are far more frequently re-used), but, just see the paragraph below. Presently, Mario Party 5 gladly asserts that model animation re-use is a reference.
Voice clip re-use: ...Now, admittedly, we're mostly including this in the conversation as, per a previous proposal, we already prohibit this. But, for the sake of including an option to not only allow the other instances we've listed, but to revert the results of the original voice clip proposal, we might as well bring it up again.
Now, obviously, there is a bit of an asterisk that we're borrowing from the voice clip proposal; in the event where the asset re-use is very much meant to refer back to exactly one game, a-la how Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 features the Tokyo 1964 events that expressly harken back to the original Super Mario Bros. (or really, all the times Nintendo brings back the Super Mario Bros. art style as an intentional throwback, from Mario Clock to Super Mario Maker), then those, obviously, are fair game to acknowledge as references. This is actually an edge-case that's worth keeping in mind, as sprite re-use done for the sake of a throwback is something that happens constantly; it's one of the most common references the series does! This is more-so about things that don't have that sort of pretense; there are many "model re-use references" that boil down to "both of these games released during the same console generation, and beyond that, we can literally only speculate as to why this model got re-used in this game".
(As an asterisk to the asterisk, we don't think this should count for engine re-use, though, since we... Don't imagine Nintendo would ever go out of their way to use an older engine for the sake of a throwback or a "reference." There are a few companies that'll go back to older hardware as part of re-releases of older games and make, effectively, fully-licensed homebrew, but Nintendo is not one of those companies. When they're done with a piece of hardware, let alone a game engine, they're done with it.)
EDIT: Per Arend (in his vote) and Yoshi18 (in the comments), we've added a bit of a median option; rather than removing these outright, we simply create a new section along the lines of "Recycled assets from other games", which is dedicated to tracking these more precisely while keeping the References section clean. For the sake of having an actual policy for this, we'll say that, if a re-used asset cannot be reasonably justified as being a deliberate throwback (such as Super Mario Bros. Special's Sidestepper sprites being based loosely off those in Punch Ball Mario Bros. in terms of how it shades it) it will default to the "recycled assets" section; however, something more clearly intended to be a throwback (such as Mario Calculator) would still be included in the references section. The "Recycled assets" section should be listed after the "References to previous/in future games" sections, to make this priority clearer to readers.
Arend (talk) We're still doing this? Regardless, I've said this once before and I will say it again: we really should consider introducing sections for listing reused assets, rather than lumping them in with the intentional references.
Altendo (talk) Per proposal. I doubt that any of these would count as "references".
Wandering Poplin (talk) Like I said on the last proposal like this, unless the asset is specifically calling back to an earlier appearance, (such as the SM64 Mario model reappearing in Super Mario Odyssey), it is not a reference, it's reused assets and nothing more.
Track recycled assets in a separate section from the "references" section
Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. While we feel tracking recycled assets in general is a bit silly, it does happen relatively frequently, and Nintendo is known for re-contextualizing recycled assets in all sorts of weird ways. Cough cough, Majora's Mask.
Hewer (talk) Second choice. (What makes tracking recycled assets "sillier" than tracking references is beyond me.)
Arend (talk) This should be a nice compromise to list all these reuses without getting them mixed with the intentional references.
Wandering Poplin (talk) Very secondary. For this to work, we'll need some hard rules about what qualifies for this section, since I don't think listing "Yoshi's Story" for nearly every post 2000's appearance of the character would be that helpful, nor a very wise idea. (And the issue gets even worse for characters who only ever had one voice recording section, like Professor E. Gadd.)
Scrooge200 (talk) I don't like listing them as references because they're just for budget reasons most of the time, so listing where assets are re-used would be better. We'd just have to ensure they're re-used, through direct comparisons, similar dev teams or being sequels, etc. over just "they look similar." (Also, would listing re-uses of assets that didn't originate from Mario count? I ask because Mario & Sonic Long Title 2012 re-uses a song from a Club Penguin Wii game of all things.)
These should count as references, alongside voice clip re-use (allow all)
Hewer (talk) I think a game reusing assets like voice clips from a previous one is interesting and notable information, and the reference sections are a handy place to include it. I don't understand the desire to actively remove information like this from our coverage, or why it's so important to restrict the reference sections to only "intentional throwbacks". If we're really desperate to do that then I could maybe settle for an option that allows asset re-use to be covered in a sub-section or something, but I oppose outright removal of the information.
EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer. while i think we could stand to be more judicious (stuff like miscellaneous voice clips and stock artwork aren't really REFERENCES, just assets that happened to be used in two games), this is still information that should be covered. i personally see the References section as "how does this game exist in relation to other games in the franchise?", and stuff like reused animations and sound effects very much fall under that.
These should count as references, but voice clip re-use shouldn't (status quo)
Comments (This section is a reference to "Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images")
@Camwoodstock: The Charles Martinet and Coin examples in your vote reasoning would not be considered references for the same reason we already don't consider every appearance of Mario to be a reference to Donkey Kong. But I would be fine listing NSMBU's model reuse as a reference and don't feel strongly either way regarding engine reuse. (Also, FYI, the previous proposal you linked at the start of this one didn't actually determine reused music should not count as a reference, just that very commonly recurring themes such as Ground BGM shouldn't be considered references every time they appear.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:01, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
@Arend: The thing is that asset reuse often is an "intentional" reference, such as the reuse of classic sprites as was brought up in the proposal. And anyway, we didn't develop these games, so we don't necessarily know for sure what the "intent" was. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:40, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the reused assets from Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash to Mario Tennis Aces (most models), and then from Mario Tennis Aces to Mario Tennis Fever (several entrance animations) are less "intentional reference", and more "for the sake of convenience" and "to save on time or money" (actually, come to think of it, all three of these games have reused voice clips from Mario Power Tennis in one way, which I'm not sure is also an intentional reference).
"we don't necessarily know for sure what the "intent" was"Exactly. So why not go for the safe option and list them as reused assets, instead of lumping them in with the intentional references when we don't even know if they were intended to be as such?
I don't know where this idea that the reference sections absolutely have to be limited to "intentional references" came from because nothing on the actual pages really seems to suggest that. My preference is for them to list any way in which a game acknowledges or reuses from a previous game. Even if the reasons for asset reuse in many cases probably are to do with saving resources, that doesn't make them less "intentional" or less deserving of coverage. For one reason or another, the developers still intentionally chose to reuse those animations from that game. That said, I already said in my vote that I'd settle for including asset reuse in a separate list, perhaps a subsection in the reference sections. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:41, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make a voting option to give reused assets a specific section as @Arend suggested. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:47, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
Went ahead and added that! you didn't see us forget to vote in it at first you can't prove it~Camwoodstock ( talk☯contribs ) 17:47, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
But my point is that I don't think it'd be very helpful to point out which game reuses Yoshi's voice clips from that game when it pretty much comprises all of his appearances with voice acting for the past 25+ years.
(While I was writing this, I did notice that my concern may have already been partially addressed by Hewer's first comment on this section, but I decided to respond to the question anyway.) Wandering Poplin (talk) 19:29, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
This is a problem we already have to deal with in reference sections, though. We don't list every appearance of Mario as a reference to Donkey Kong, or every appearance of Bowser as a reference to Super Mario Bros. And anyway, I do think this wiki could do a better job at explaining whether a character's voice clips in a given game are new recordings or reused from previous appearances. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:35, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
Removals
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Changes
Upgrade this wiki's text to CC-BY-SA 4.0
Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 26, 2026 at 23:59 (UTC) and close the proposal if applicable.
So, you probably know that this wiki has most of its text licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, right? Well, back in 2013 a more up-to-date version, called 4.0 was released, improving several things compared to the previous version, which you can see here. To recap the improvements, 4.0 no longer needs to be ported, addresses things beyond copyright, gives out a window of 30-days to fix copyright violations, etc. I am aware of the huge channge this is and that upgrading the license of this wiki requires user consent as outlined here, but I believe it's worth it. There's also quite a bunch of NIWA wikis that have their text licensed under version 4.0, including the ARMS Institute, the Dragalia Lost Wiki, the F-Zero Wiki, the Golden Sun Universe, the Hard Drop Tetris Wiki, Inkipedia, the Mii Wiki, Nookipedia, Pikipedia (and its fanon counterpart), the Strategy Wiki, WikiBound and the Xeno Series Wiki as well as some other wikis we have as part of the interwiki template, such as the JiggyWikki and Sonic Retro (albeit this last one does not have the ShareAlike requirement). I also don't personally mind if my prior contributions (including this one and future ones too of course) were upgraded to this version of the license.
Proposer: SuperGamer18 (talk) Deadline: March 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
AL-TEN-DO (4.0) Easier licensing, better compatibility with our other language wikis, wider licensing scope, just a lot of benefits overall. The migration might take a long time (as shown in the comments) but I think that, like most migrations, this would be a positive change for the long-term.
Camwoodstock (talk) We genuinely don't know why this needs to be proposed if Porplemontage gave it the okay? So long as we gave a heads-up for any downtime during a migration period, we'd be fine.
Comments (This section is licensed under Creative Commons)
I'm pretty sure this isn't something a regular user could start. This would have to be initiated by Porplemontage, who I believe is the only one who could do this. You also mentioned that this has been a thing for 13 years, so there has to be a reason why he chose not to upgrade the license when it has been this long since it existed. This proposal also kind of extends beyond the scope of a normal one, because it affects how every page on this wiki can be used. I'm abstaining for now, because I can definitely see merit in this move but I'm not sure if it's the right one for now. [[c:a:t:s|Altendo]]
I was planning to contact him if this proposal ever passed anyways. If an admin can indeed confirm that I'm not supposed to do a proposal like this, please veto it unless a better alternative is found/available. SuperGamer18 (talk) 02:22, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that some other NIWA wikis do indeed still use 3.0 or sometimes even lower versions. SuperGamer18 (talk) 02:26, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
I'd recommend you contact Porple; he is the one who decides this, with (or possibly even without) community consensus. Also keep in mind that just because this proposal passes does not mean that this move will be done instantly; Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia foundation) took 7 years from the migration vote (which was started by a person who was both an English Wikipedia and a Lead Trust and Safety Specialist at the Wikimedia Foundation) to its actual implementation (granted, Wikipedia and especially Wikimedia as a whole is much larger than the Super Mario Wiki, but this should still give a scope on how long a migration would actually take). So yeah, even if this proposal passes, the migration will not be guaranteed. [[c:a:t:s|Altendo]] 14:52, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
I never said I wanted this implemented immediately. I'm on my way to ask him for permission about this proposal. SuperGamer18 (talk) 15:15, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
Update: I have received permission from him to host the proposal, you may vote on it now. SuperGamer18 (talk) 15:23, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
@Altendo Keep in mind that this wouldn't apply to the German Mario Wiki, as that one's licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, unlike the French and Italian versions, which are indeed CC BY-SA 4.0. SuperGamer18 (talk) 15:44, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
That's fine, we still have compatibility with two other wikis. The German Mario Wiki moving to 4.0 is their decision, not ours. [[c:a:t:s|Altendo]] 16:30, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
Regardless, it's not like I speak or read German anyways, I didn't consider checking the other language versions of this wiki until recently for this proposal. SuperGamer18 (talk) 16:36, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
@Camwoodstock I have done this proposal before I asked Porple for permission, that's the thing. SuperGamer18 (talk) 19:11, February 20, 2026 (UTC)
I mean, you can still cancel it while it's fresh. TheDabMaster 16:08, February 21, 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, but honestly I don't think I need to do that here. SuperGamer18 (talk) 16:39, February 21, 2026 (UTC)
rend (talk) (edits) 16:42, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:47, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 
17:47, February 19, 2026 (UTC)
