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]
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 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.
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.
Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.[Proposal 8]
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.
Reorganize Rocket Barrel (splitting the Donkey Kong Country 3 and Donkey Kong Country Returns iterations; split or remove the Donkey Kong: Barrel Blast iteration) (discuss) by Arend; Deadline: January 10, 2026, 23:59 GMT
Miscellaneous
Restore "Loading zone" article (discuss) by Koopa con Carne; Deadline: December 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT
With so many Mario characters, what do you think about including established year in categories? I'd like to hear our opinions.
Example: Category:1985 introduced characters
Proposer: Windy (talk) Deadline: January 11, 2026, 23:59 GMT
Support: Necessary
Oppose: Unnecessary
Salmancer (talk) Slippery Slope Sal here. There's no reason to not then make categories for items by year of introduction, categories for location by year of introduction, categories for moves by year of introduction, and so on. Doing all of that sounds like which sounds like a lot of work. (Why do we not have to do this right now even though we have Category:Games by date? Games are non-fictional, so the implication of Category:Games by date are categories for other non-fictional things like Category:Books by date and Category:Episodes by date. There are fewer articles about non-fictional products that would need these categories than articles about fictional subjects that would need these categories.)
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Salmancer, this feels a little too broad for its own good, especially when you happen to hit years that have RPGs in them, and thusly cause that year's category to basically boil down to "the cast of this RPG, and also some other guys are in here." You wouldn't really get much from having a second copy of the Super Paper Mario characters category with added Terrormisu.
RickTommy (talk) The very definition of both trivial and irrelevant.
Comments
Who would you consider "established" or a "character"? Goomba is established, but I wouldn't consider it a character per se. I feel like the definition of "established" can also be quite blurry the further you go down the list. Is Candy Kong still an established character? How about Toadsworth? Are recurring characters with large absences that have recently come back still "established"? rend(talk)(edits) 11:40, December 28, 2025 (EST)
I thought "established" was being used to mean "introduced", as in "characters introduced in 1985". And the question of whether we should categorise entities like Goomba as "characters" is not specific to this proposal, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:50, December 28, 2025 (EST)
From what I can gather, "to establish" means that something is being set up for a prolonged if not permanent time, and/or for the foreseeable future. Like, the seven kings were introduced in Super Mario Bros. 3, but considering that's their only appearance, I wouldn't call them "established". And, I dunno, Goombas are established parts of the franchise and often considered by Nintendo as part of the main cast. I could see why someone would want to include a Goomba as an "established character". rend(talk)(edits) 13:10, December 28, 2025 (EST)
I'm not saying I don't personally think Goomba should be categorised as a character, I'm saying that's an entirely separate issue that doesn't make much sense to bring up as if it's a problem with this proposal. The way the wiki is currently organised, we have character categories and species categories as separate things, and this proposal isn't trying to change that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:28, December 28, 2025 (EST)
Yeah I know, I guess I was trying to think too much ahead of any potential "broadification" of the scope. rend(talk)(edits) 15:49, December 28, 2025 (EST)
I don't really get what this proposal is meant to mean. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 14:32, December 28, 2025 (EST)
I feel like this proposal needs additional clarification. What use would this have? Why exactly do we need this? And what do you mean by "established"? You don't even provide any reasoning for this. TheDabMaster 14:45, December 28, 2025 (EST)
Renamed "established" to "introduced" right now. The category is based on "Video game characters introduced in (year)". Windy (talk) 15:01, December 28, 2025 (EST)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Decide how to add the "fandom" interwiki prefix
Fandom launched in 2016 and Wikia was fully phasing out from 2018 to 2021. I was wondering if we could rename the wikia:c: interwiki prefix fandom:, like we did with the {{Fandom}} template on the last proposal that succeeded.
I offer three options:
Option 1
Add the fandom: interwiki prefix remove the wikia:c: prefix.
Option 2
Only add the fandom: interwiki prefix.
Option 3
Keep as-is.
This is what an interwiki link that starts with wikia:c: currently looks like:
Once this proposal passes with either options 1 or 2 having the most votes, then this is what the interwiki link that starts with fandom: will look like:
Yoshi18 (talk) Having both would avoid confusion if this proposal passes.
wikia:c:option3:Keep as-is
LinkTheLefty (talk) ↓ Per Arend (I'd quite like to overturn the previous proposal too).
Arend (talk) I don't want to overturn the other proposal like LTL, but I feel that I have to oppose this per my comments below. Given that he proposed to have the :c removed from the interwiki link when Special:Interwikidoesn't list it as part of the interwiki link anyway (and is in fact something from Fandom's part) feels like a change GuntherBayBeee proposes without understanding why it is like that in the first place (which, uh, isn't exactly uncommon for his proposals, either). Also, I REALLY don't like the idea of outright REMOVING the old interwiki code.
[[talk:c:editcount:Altendo|Altendo]] Per Arend. I would much rather have the new prefix added than the old one replaced entirely (although {{fandom}} does make even this questionable).
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Arend. We really shouldn't be outright deprecating interwiki link code senselessly like this, and the fact that one of the suggestions (removing the "c:" portion) is actually impossible to do without fundamentally reworking MediaWiki really doesn't give us the vote of confidence that this is motivated for any reason beyond "change for change's sake."
wikia:c:comments:Suggestions
On Fandom wikis, wikia:c: and its shorter equivalent w:c: are still in use there to link to other Fandom wikis to this very day; they didn't rename this to fandom: in the slightest, which is instead attributed to Fandom the main site (which isn't actually a wiki). Beyond that, the c: in both wikia:c: and w:c: is actually really important for linking to other Fandom wikis, since that is the actual parameter that makes it happen. If you were to use wikia: or w: without the c: at the end, the page would link to the Fandom Community Central wikiregardless of what other wiki prefix you add at the end. rend(talk)(edits) 11:32, December 27, 2025 (EST)
In addition, Special:Interwiki only appears to list wikia, without the :c, which would then link to https://community.fandom.com/wiki/$1, just like how it normally works on Fandom wikis. This only cements the fact that c: does all the heavy lifting of linking to other Fandom wikis, and we don't have ANY power to change that, as this is mostly on Fandom's side and we don't even have that as part of our own interwiki list. Frankly, I think it's not even possible for us to link to other Fandom wikis if we link it to anything other than the Fandom Community Central wiki, meaning the :c is pretty much mandatory for the interwiki link to actually work. rend(talk)(edits) 11:50, December 27, 2025 (EST)
@Altendo Your name in the oppose vote is barely readable in Dark mode. Since you're using the {{color}} template to change the text color, may I suggest you to make use of the dark parameter as well? (e.g. {{color|black|dark=white|Text goes here}}) rend(talk)(edits) 20:06, December 27, 2025 (EST)
Thanks for the heads up! I changed it to fit more with the text. Altendo 03:02, December 28, 2025 (EST)
@GuntherBayBeee Given Arend's comment and the oppose votes, I recommend that you add a third option, which would add the fandom: interwiki link without outright replacing the wikia:c: one currently in use. I would support that compared to an outright replacement. Altendo 04:53, December 28, 2025 (EST)
I would also recommend to exclude the c: from the wikia:c: interwiki link, because, again, it's not part of said code being listed on Special:Interwiki and is on Fandom's side of the coding, making it pretty much required to include c: if we want to link to other Fandom wikis regardless of what our interwiki link for it is. rend(talk)(edits) 07:23, December 28, 2025 (EST)
@LinkTheLefty@Arend@Altendo I respectfully disagree. FANDOM got rid of the name "Wikia" between 2018 and 2021. Also, adding the third option to add the fandom: interwiki prefix is actually a bad idea because that prefix is a duplicate interwiki prefix for wikia:c:. To me, Salmancer said that renaming the wikia:c: prefix fandom: already makes things more consistent and more approachable for those who aren't familiar with FANDOM's past. By the way, I added an additional option on adding the fandom: interwiki prefix without getting rid of wikia:c aside from not only an option to both add the fandom: interwiki prefix and remove the wikia:c: prefix, but also keeping wikia:c: as is. GuntherBayBeee 10:10, December 28, 2025 (EST)
You are still completely ignoring the fact that you cannot get rid of the c: part of wikia:c: like you are proposing. As I said multiple times before, the code is listed as JUST wikia, WITHOUT the :c portion, on Special:Interwiki, and it links to https://community.fandom.com/. This means that the c: portion is entirely on Fandom's side, NOT OURS. In turn, that means including c:is the ONLY WAY linking to other Fandom wikis will actually work. Hence why I'm suggesting to leave the c: out of this mess, as we cannot do ANYTHING about it. Also, again, wikia:c: its shorter version w:c: are still in use on Fandom wikis with the exact same function as our interwiki link, and fandom: links to the non-wiki main site instead, so keeping wikia:c: as-is is closer to how Fandom wikis do it than you think. rend(talk)(edits) 10:21, December 28, 2025 (EST)
Remove images from infoboxes of musical themes that aren't in Nintendo Music
In short: unlike themes that have an official NM screenshot, they're unofficial and have potential for subjectivity.
Proposer: RickTommy (talk) Deadline: January 12, 2026, 23:59 GMT
Altendo (talk) While I do agree with the proposer's take on "officialness", making sure that the only images attached to a musical track are from Nintendo, I still feel like some sort of image would be nice to guide users into a quick introduction to the track, including where it plays. This would also create a weird inconsistency with tracks that have yet to be added to Nintendo Music, and some tracks might never be added, not just because of the dripfeed, but because some games do have their tracks on official streaming services (the Mario + Rabbids games have their soundtracks there due to Ubisoft being the owner of Rabbids). And if every infobox image has to be "official", then this will affect level pages en masse, since most of the screenshots are unofficial. I think retaining "unofficial" screenshots in the infoboxes is fine.
rend (talk) (edits) 11:40, December 28, 2025 (EST)
Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 14:32, December 28, 2025 (EST)
GuntherBayBeee
10:10, December 28, 2025 (EST)
