|
Current time:
August 5, 2026, 02:30 (UTC)
|
|
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.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
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.
How to
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]
- 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 provide a reason and wait three days before submitting any new proposal.[Proposal 9]
- A proposer cannot cancel their proposal and then implement it anyway. Only wiki staff can cancel a proposal and immediately put it into effect.
- Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a wiki 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 10] 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.
Relevant discussions
- ^ Proposal "Allow co-authorship of proposals" (passed on January 24, 2025)
- ^ Proposal "Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals" (passed on November 14, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Proposals Should End At The end of the day one week after voting starts (In UTC)" (passed on March 3, 2010)
- ^ Proposal "Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"" (passed on October 16, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Vote For More Than One Option On Proposals With More Than Two Choices" (passed on May 10, 2016)
- ^ Proposal "Delete Links to Passed Talk Page Proposals ONLY Until Action Has Been Taken" (passed on May 2, 2013)
- ^ Proposal "Cite relevant proposals and discussions on policy pages and guidelines" (passed on October 17, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)" (passed on September 9, 2017)
- ^ Proposal "Allow users to put a reason for canceling proposals" (passed on May 8, 2026)
- ^ Proposal "Introduce a new type of proposal" (passed on February 14, 2025)
Talk page proposals
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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Deletions
None at the moment.
Moves
None at the moment.
Merges
Splits
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Note: Implemented for all except Bowser's Inside Story's Bowser's Castle and Kingdom Battle's Peach's Castle
Note: Article for "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" has not been created yet
Talk page proposals
Note: Missing Rainbow Bridge, Blue Bonus Game House, and Yellow Bonus Game House articles.
Note: Currently split clothing should be merged back
Writing guidelines
Decide whether article titles with Japanese names that contain a non-English loanword but looks like English (since English also has a word that means the same thing) should use the English word or the non-English word
I'm thinking whether or not Japanese loanwords that look like English but originally borrowed from another source should use the English word or the original language's word. As per MarioWiki:Japanese#Subjects with Japanese names, an article title that is from a Japanese source should be written in the original words for loanwords (such as "パーティー" being written as "Party"). However, the wiki currently doesn't have a policy on how words that look like English but is not originally from English should be written. For example, the word "アレルギー" is etymologically borrowed from German "Allergie", but it looks like the English word "Allergy" and means the same thing.
The reason I'm writing this proposal is because I'm not exactly sure on how to romanize "ディスクシステムのテーマ" (whether it should be "Disk System no Theme" or "Disk System no Thema"), so solving this would also solve this problem.
Here are several points supporting using the English romanization:
- If you type "allergy" into Google Translate into the Japanese text box and read it using the text to speech feature, it will read out "アレルギー". The same thing if you type "theme" into Google Translate, in which it will read it as "テーマ".
- If you use Google Translate's input method and type "あれるぎー" (by typing "arerugi-" into the keyboard) in there and press space to see the options, one of the options is the English word "Allergy", whereas the German word "Allergie" is not in there. It's the same thing if you do something like "えねるぎー" (shows "Energy" as an option, but not the original German word "Energie") or "てーま" (etymologically from German "Thema", but it only shows English "Theme".)
- RemyWiki, another wiki, which also uses romanizations for Japanese titles, also consistently romanizes "テーマ" as "theme". Obviously we are not required to follow their exact rules, but it does provide a point.
Proposer: GamermanX2354 (talk)
Deadline: August 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Option 1: Use the English word
- GamermanX2354 (talk) Per proposal.
- GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per GamermanX2354.
Option 2: Use the original non-English word
- PopitTart (talk) This proposal's argument is really hard to follow. Is the suggestion here to translate titles because... they happen to sound similar to English words? These titles do not need to be translated, simple as. the Japanese word 「テーマ」 is borrowed from the German word "thema". This is a known fact about the word. We thus write "thema" as it is, in the original latin script language that 「テーマ」 pulls from.
- Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Both of your points raised are about translation. This is a romanization guideline, so they are irrelevant. If you type "fish" in Google Translate you get 魚, but that does not mean we will start translate names with that word to contain fish. Our guidelines are a matter of "Japanese wrote this word from another language using their writing system, we will transcribe it as the original word they used".
- Dominoes (talk) How exactly the Japanese loanword is determined to "look like" English is rather poorly defined. If the decision is based on whether "it looks and sounds close enough", then the judgment is arbitrary and subjective, and this could lead to many edit war cases. One can argue that エネルギー is not "close enough" because of the /g/ consonant instead of /d͡ʒ/, as demonstrated in the comments below; same goes for テーマ and ボタン which stray even further. Even if "close enough" it is defined by that "the words must be cognates", then terms like ベネチア would be "transliterated" as Venice, which goes against the spirit of transliteration instead of translation.
- Jdtendo (talk) Per Dominoes.
- Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per all.
- Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
It should be noted that the words listed as examples do not resemble the pronunciation of the corresponding English words:「アレルギー」(arerugī) and「エネルギー」(enerugī) are roughly pronounced "ah-lair-ghee" and "eh-nair-ghee" respectively, both with a hard "G", and「テーマ」(tēma) is roughly pronounced "teh-mah" which sounds nothing alike the English word "theme". Jdtendo(T|C) 12:08, July 22, 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, if the Japanese words for allergy and energy were supposed to be pronounced like their English counterparts, it would've ended with ジー (jī) instead of ギー (gī).
rend (talk) (edits) 06:59, July 24, 2026 (UTC)
@Dominoes @Jdtendo @Arend FYI, here are some other words I can give as examples: "ビール" (technically from Dutch "bier", but sounds like English "beer" and means the same thing), "ワクチン" (technically from German "Vakzin", but sounds like English "vaccine").
One other counterargument I can give is that many people to romanize it like this (substituting those words with the English equivalent). One example is the song "人生リセットボタン", which is romanized as "Jinsei Reset Button" and not "Jinsei Reset Botão". GamermanX2354 (talk) 11:09, July 24, 2026 (UTC)
- First, if English vaccine is to be loaned into Japanese, then it would be バクシーン. The /t͡ɕ/ affricate in Japanese ワクチン corresponds to the /t͡s/ affricate in German, whereas English uses the fricative /s/. This is already another discrepancy that could be debated as not "sounding close enough".
- Second, it is true that popular transliteration schemes use the closest English equivalent, though in these cases this is to make the meaning come across more easily towards an international audience (especially when a full translation is not offered). The context on the wiki is a bit different, where we choose to keep the transliteration closer to the original name, and keeping the actual translation somewhere else in the "Names in other languages" section. It can often be nice for us to follow common conventions (e.g. how we use Hepburn instead of Kunrei-shiki for Japanese romanizations), but we still have to make thorough considerations before applying them.
- Third, my stance is more so that there is not enough thought put into what constitutes as "looks similar", as I have stated above. If we allow vague wording to be written as a rule to be followed, then many different interpretations can arise, leading to edit warring. It is also quite difficult for this item to be codified into words, but this does not mean that we should skip the explanation and let readers interpret it the way they want to. I know that the current system is not the most intuitive to begin with (and also rather quirky at times), but at least it is concise enough to do its job and prevent ambiguities. If this item should be changed, then it would be better that we amend it into something that is logical, can be easily followed, and without that much room for confusion. Dominoes (talk) 11:58, July 24, 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how much of a good example "人生リセットボタン" is. The literal romanization of ボタン is "Botan", not "Botao", meaning that the word is not a direct transliteration of the Portuguese word since the word "Botão" obviously doesn't contain the letter N. rend (talk) (edits) 07:39, July 25, 2026 (UTC)
- Phonetically, it is as close as you can get. The "-ão" sound is quite similar to the "-an" sound. It's like saying 「ドラゴン」 is not a direct transliteration of the English "dragon" because we pronounce it "dra-" instead of "dora-". — Lady Sophie_17
(T|C) 13:41, July 25, 2026 (UTC)
- Except that the Portuguese "Botão" is (supposedly) based on the French "Bouton", rather than the English "Button". The -n in "Bouton" is silent, and there is therefore also no -n sound in the -ão of "Botão" (though after further listening, I do get the confusion here). There's a reason why the Wiktionary entry for ボタン also states "compare English 'Button'" in the etymology section, but doesn't do that with its entry for botão. rend (talk) (edits) 08:35, July 26, 2026 (UTC)
I'm not gonna support the proposal because I don't think it's well though out as a whole, but for the primary issue it's trying to address: "Theme" seems to be a generally accepted romanisation for "テーマ", and it's rather absurd for the wiki to insist this is wrong it should actually be "Thema". WACCA Lily R (Talk) 
12:50, July 24, 2026 (UTC)
Removals
None at the moment.
Additions
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
12:50, July 24, 2026 (UTC)
