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 GMT).[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 GMT.
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.
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
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.
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. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.[Proposal 6]
Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.[Proposal 7]
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 8]
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.
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 that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most circumstances, 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 handled by the bureaucrats.
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 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 GMT
====[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 20 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 GMT
;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 GMT
;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 GMT
;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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Deletions
None at the moment.
Moves
None at the moment.
Merges
None at the moment.
Splits
Split Mask Gate (boss) from Mask Gate (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: January 18, 2026, 23:59 GMT
Determine which clothing and other gear deserves individual articles (discuss) by Doc von Schmeltwick; Deadline: January 21, 2026, 23:59 GMT
Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 11, 2026 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.
We already have reception sections for games, and characters have also received critical analysis. This would not be a requirement of course, but a possible addition. Characters like Bobby from Origami King have gotten a lot of discussion and including at least a bit of it at the bottom would improve the articles; personally I believe the sections should be shorter than the average ones on Wikipedia articles, which seem to heavily focus on them which isn't good for a fan wiki. Characters with minimal notable reception should not get super minor stuff crammed-in as that is not helpful for an article. A random Paper Mario enemy, for example getting ranked on a content-mill "top ten best enemies" list should not get included. Inclusion criteria would be roughly what the game reception sections seem to have; from what I've read, none have low quality reception like that in the quotes. We could be a little less strict than Wikipedia on sources, which I see is already done for games. Sylux (talk) 12:25, January 4, 2026 (EST)
Proposer: Sylux (talk) Deadline: January 18, 2026, 23:59 GMT
Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) I do believe certain characters can get a legacy and cultural impact section, especially the main cast (Mario already has such a section and it should be far more expanded upon than it currently is right now, being the most recognizable video game character, plus others like Luigi or Peach or Bowser could use one) but I don't believe we have enough tangible information and sources for a general reception for most characters overall outside from anecdotal sources (such as random social media posts that gaming journalism just reports on purely for engagement) and convenience sampling polls, as opposed to video game reviews which are much more quantifiable as a source for information. In Wikipedia, much of the reception of several characters are tied as a mechanic to the video game they're in than a general reflection of the character himself (Nabbit's reception in his Wikipedia article mostly goes over his role as the easy mode character in New Super Mario Bros. U article rather than the character himself, with only some sparse editorial quips in the end with his roles in Dr. Mario World). Plus, it's just very difficult to write analysis about these characters in a series that historically portrays their characters as vessels for gameplay than actual defined characters, hence why there aren't many online pieces written about why Mario is a great character in the Mario movie or something.
Arend (talk) Thing is, most official game publication websites really only review the games, not individual characters, songs or levels (nor soundtracks for that matter), so there's not a whole lot of critical reception on Mario characters, considering it's sprinkled in the reviews every now and then. This means that such a section on a character page would have to be mostly covering fan reception, which is quite large and could differ a lot, but most of all is extremely subjective with varied reasons; hence why we don't cover such things at all in the reception sections on games (after all, the wiki already doesn't cover fanmade content (normally, at least)). If we do allow this side to be covered due to a lack of official reception, this would additionally open the floodgates to cover a wiki user's own bias towards a certain character, which similarly may also differ from the overall reception.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. That is to say, per our own vote on the similar proposal for song/level pages. It's not like there's a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic for fictional characters, so the only real sources you'd have for these are from assorted listicles and. Tubers. Making arbitrary top/bottom lists for fictional characters. We feel like just mentioning the fundamental concept of a "reception" section on Birdo's page where sources indiscriminately include what Tubers circa 2008-to-2012 thought of her is enough to tell you that "reception" sections for these sorts of things just... Aren't really that smart of an idea, at least in a form that actively relies on rankings such as this.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per Xiahou Ba and Arend. There very few characters in Mario that span enough games and have had enough of an impact to warrant a reception/legacy section in their own page. Certainly not Bobby. Anything noteworthy about a particular character's reception can most likely be covered in the relevant game's reception section.
Salmancer (talk) I sadly do not have a vote on the level/song reception proposal to refer back to. But as with everyone else, the same sentiment applies. Aside from the core cast, there probably isn't enough per character analysis on the internet that we are willing to cite to make this work. What exists is probably better off being sentences within paragraphs of game reception sections. "The character whatever is noted to be a highlight of the experience as..." and other similar structures. (I fear loosening the standards on what we are willing to cite just to have reception sections will lead to anachronistic reception sections, which plague people's understanding of gaming history as it is. I don't want to contribute to that.)
Mari0fan100 (talk) Unlike the games themselves, characters have way more subjective views from others. For example, I like Yoshi and Koopa Troopa, but others may not like those characters. I also don't like Bowser, but others may think he is awesome. Asides from that, new characters could be added, and people's opinions on them can drastically change if they take on different roles. For example, characters like Boo and Dry Bones are considered enemies in some games, but playable characters in other games, and people could have a different opinion on those characters depending on which Mario games they play. So, I believe allowing character reception sections (for characters other than Mario) would allow for too much bias and fan/opinionated content.
Altendo (talk) I don't have anything else to say here that hasn't already been said.
Comments
To elaborate a bit further on how the wiki doesn't cover fan reception: You see the reception section of Paper Mario: Sticker Star you've linked? Notice how the section only covers reviews from actual critics and journalists from those publication websites, such as IGN and GameSpot. Notice how the wiki only covers Metacritic's generally favorable Metascore of 75, which was aggregated from those reviews by critics and journalists, and not at all mentions the rather middling user score of 5.3 (or how those user reviews have come in as late as November 2025 when the critic reviews are from at the time of Sticker Star's release, with February 2013 at the latest). Notice how the only YouTuber mentioned in the reception section is André Segers of GameXplain, which in of itself is also presented as a publication website on top of being a YouTube channel. This goes on to show that we on the wiki do not cover fan reception, only those of critics and journalists. And given that none of these publications have reviews on certain characters, that means that, if we continue not covering fan reception and not risk the potential outcome of user bias being included, these character reception sections are going to be completely empty for 99% of the time, making them unnecessary to be included. rend(talk)(edits) 09:47, January 5, 2026 (EST)
The body text in Sticker Star's article *does* talk about the noticeable discrepancy in user vs aggregate score in Metacritic, and imo, I think it should be noted because there is quantifiable data there than vague gossip you read on social media sites. A lot of games get meta-bombed on Metacritic if they're controversial, one of the worst examples are Warcraft III: Reforged and Diablo Immortal, which are enough for games journalists to note and write articles about. Now I don't think Mario games will ever got on that scale of metabombing, but I do think it's at least worth noting if there is a noticeable gap between critic satisfaction and anonymous reviews. How big should that discrepancy should be until it is noteworthy to opine about is another topic I guess. Xiahou Ba(the NastyWarrior) 20:21, January 5, 2026 (EST)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Limit the amount of game series logos in their infoboxes to one
I have noticed a major inconsistency with some of the game series pages, and that their infoboxes have multiple logos, whether to represent the multiple eras, different formatting, or both. While most game pages have only one logo in their infobox, some of them have multiple logos, creating a weird inconsistency, not to mention that only showing the latest version of the logo in the infobox would be enough to get readers to understand the franchise.
This proposal will aim to limit the amount of logos in their infoboxes to just one, and extra logos will be moved to the gallery. This will not only remove unneeded bulk from the infoboxes, but would also make them consistent with each other. Extra logos, like alternate formatting and historical logos, are important enough to keep on the page, but only in the gallery where they don't take up the main bulk of the page.
"But Altendo, these logos signify different eras of a game series and can give a look at the past!" Well, they can still get that look through the gallery, but even if this argument is taken into account, it still wouldn't be consistent. Take Mario Party (series), in which the logo used for the first three games and would inspire the logo for the future Hudson Soft-era games isn't even on the page. And don't even get me started with Super Smash Bros. (series), which has five logos, yet only the one used for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is in the infobox.
Wandering Poplin (talk) Especially for any series that might've never had a consistent logo to begin with. (Not that I can think of any at the moment...)
rend (talk) (edits) 09:47, January 5, 2026 (EST)
Xiahou Ba(the Nasty Warrior) 20:21, January 5, 2026 (EST)
