|
Current time:
August 26, 2026, 11:57 (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
None at the moment.
Splits
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
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
None at the moment.
Removals
Delete a handful of unnecessary horizontal infoboxes
Now, I suppose it may seem a bit strange to tackle a bunch of infobox templates at the same time, but I do believe these have a good amount of things in common: all of these (with the exception of one) have been created by disgraced user Super Mario RPG (talk) (who had also proposed other highly unnecessary templates, which either failed spectacularly, or succeeded only to be reverted later); all of them use the same horizontal infobox template style used on {{SMG boss}} created by Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) (admittedly not a bad design per se, as seen with the Smash Bros-related infoboxes such as {{SSB4 trophy}} and {{Spirit}}), and, most importantly, these tend to either convey non-profile statistics that can easily be conveyed in the History section (or don't seem all too necessary to be conveyed at all), or seems to convey profile information and stats that can be easily conveyed without the need for an infobox template like that, often having a (unnecessarily large) space for an (often tiny) image as an excuse for its existence.
Here's the templates being covered for this proposal, alongside my reasons for why I think they're unnecessary:
- {{SPP enemy}} - As can be seen in videos such as this one, the only information the Glossary provides beyond the enemy's image, is a short description, and the number of the entry out of 89 entries, yet this infobox also has parameters for the Vibe (something that the article itself already clarifies), and the levels it appears in (which could be conveyed in the History section). The template also seems to display specific Vibe icons depending on which Vibe the enemy has, so the excuse to use more images may have been a factor here as well. Moreover, not every enemy seems to use this template at all either.
- {{DKC GBA enemy}} - The GBA versions for the DKC games have no official in-game profiles (not even in its two Scrapbooks), so mostly this is just an excuse to convey the levels and worlds an enemy appears in, in a fancy template instead of the History section. I say "mostly", because the infobox also provides information about the page of the scrapbook the enemy appears on, and how to unlock said photo, as well as the points the enemy provides in DK Attack, which I'm sure can be conveyed without the need of this template (maybe in a template w/ the actual scrapbook photo would be nice). Neither of these appear in DKC3... and so, this template hasn't been used on any DKC3 enemy, either
- {{DK boss}} - This uh, seems even less necessary to me than the previous one. It display the world and level it appears in (always just the one they appear in), the amount of hits it takes to defeat it, and the... reward after defeating it (this is often just a big Banana or just the next world, or Completion if it's a final boss). This is quite clearly the most like {{SMG boss}} in the way that it has an unnecessary reward parameter, and a somewhat strange replacement for the mission parameter (of which there is no equivalent of in DKC), and it shows how this template just doesn't work for these type of bosses. Moreover, it's only been used for DKC1 and Tropical Freeze bosses
- {{WL4 enemy}} - Again seems to only be listing the worlds and levels it appears in, the difficulty in which it appears in, and the money you get from defeating it. As Spear-Mask shows (the one enemy I'm aware of which appearance rate is affected by the difficulty setting), you don't need to convey this information in that infobox. It's not used for every enemy in WL4, and those that do use this infobox appear in every difficulty in the game, proving how useless that particular parameter really is
- {{WL4 item}} - By far the most baffling one to me. It provides the amount of damage a particular item deals against a boss. Why can't this be conveyed in a simple list?!
- {{Constellation}} - The one template not by Super Mario RPG (instead, it's by GuntherBayBeee (talk), who has had his fair share of proposals for unnecessary templates too). The only relevant parameters for this Mario Party 9 template are the constellation name, image of the constellation itself, and the shorty description. Given that we don't have infobox templates for other Mario Party profile things (as seen with List of Goomba profiles and statistics#Mario Party series), this couldn't have been a simple table as well... why?
Proposer: Arend (talk)
Delete SPP enemy template?
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
- Delete
- Arend (talk) Per proposal.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal. Some of those would be analogous to having templates for Super Mario Bros. enemies. All this info about level appearances are never conveyed on tables and descriptions already have their own sections.
- Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
- Calm Wandering Poplin (talk) Per all.
- Camwoodstock (talk) The only thing this actually adds is a list of levels these enemies are present in, which could easily be listed as a bullet-pointed list on the enemy's page, or its History section for Super Princess Peach. Glossary numbers and entries could be specified in the form of simply... Listing it as a single bullet in a section dedicated to glossary entries. You won't believe what some of these pages did before this template.
- Wilben (talk) Per all.
- Keep
Delete DKC GBA enemy template?
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
- Delete
- Arend (talk) Per proposal.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote.
- Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
- Wandering Poplin (GBA) How was this even made in the first place. If it was for both the SNES and GBA combined, I would almost understand. But solely the Game Boy Advance specifically??
- Camwoodstock (talk) We think this only exists to specify the Scrapbook page, the unlock condition for them, and the score values in DK Attack... All of which could be specified in prose in like, two sentences.
- Wilben (talk) Per all.
- Keep
Delete DK boss template?
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
- Delete
- Arend (talk) Per proposal.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote.
- Illuminoid (talk) Per all. This template's page has rather odd and mobile-unfriendly formatting.
- Wandering Poplin (boss) Per all.
- Camwoodstock (talk) ...this literally isn't even listing anything that can't just be explained in text?????
- Wilben (talk) Per all.
- Keep
Delete WL4 enemy template?
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
- Delete
- Arend (talk) Per proposal.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote.
- Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
- WA-ndering Poplin (talk) Per all.
- Camwoodstock (talk) This one, we will admit, does have the best argument for keeping it, just because displaying all the levels an enemy appears in is kind of weird otherwise, thanks to the 3 difficulty levels changing enemy locations. Even still... Just make it a bullet pointed list.
- Wilben (talk) Per all.
- Keep
Delete WL4 item template?
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
- Delete
- Arend (talk) Per proposal.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote.
- Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
- Wandering Collecter (talk) Another useless template. Per all.
- Camwoodstock (talk) You could genuinely write a regex equation to convert all of this information into a bullet-pointed list to display this exact same information, trivially... In fact, look at the comments.
- Wilben (talk) Per all.
- Keep
Delete Constellation template?
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
- Delete
- Arend (talk) Per proposal.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote. This one is particularly egregious.
- Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
- Wandering Stargazer (talk) Completely, utterly, and absolutely unnecessary. Per all.
- Camwoodstock (talk) This one speaks to what we feel like is the ultimate problem with each of these templates, in that they're trying to "profiles and statistics"-ify random descriptions or elements that really don't... Need to be wedged into the profiles and statistics sections or pages? And being way too complicated about it, in some misguided attempt to be "professional" or something, when the end-result is just more annoying to work with or read. This one could be a single bullet-pointed description and the images could go on List of constellations in Mario Party 9, which is already an actual table.
- Wilben (talk) Per all.
- Keep
This is a bit of a hack, but the regex to replace the information in {{WL4 item}} with a bullet-pointed list would just be to replace {{WL4 item\|spoiled_rotten=(.*?)\|cractus=(.*?)\|cuckoo_condor=(.*?)\|aerodent=(.*?)\|catbat=(.*?)\|golden_diva=(.*?)}} with *[[Spoiled Rotten]]: $1\n*[[Cractus]]: $2\n*[[Cuckoo Condor]]: $3\n*[[Aerodent]]: $4\n*[[Catbat]]: $5\n*[[Golden Diva]]: $6. 
~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 
17:22, August 24, 2026 (UTC)
- I uh, don't know how to use regex here, but I imagine it wouldn't be incredibly difficult for those that can implement it, either.
rend (talk) (edits) 18:07, August 24, 2026 (UTC)
- This is something that could be automatically run through PorpleBot, provided we wrote the syntax correctly. ;P ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 18:22, August 24, 2026 (UTC)
Additions
None at the moment.
Changes
Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on August 29, 2026 at 23:59 (UTC) and close the proposal if applicable.
Vs. Lakitu Launch, Jumping Brothers, Vs. Pair-a-Gone, Vs. Mario's Slides, Bob-omb Sudden Death and Vs. Trampoline Time are essentially multiplayer versions of Lakitu Launch, Bounce and Trounce, Pair-a-Gone, Mario's Slides, Sort or 'Splode and Trampoline Time respectively. Danger, Bob-omb! Danger! is named Run, Bob-omb, Run! in multiplayer, so I don’t see why these minigames shouldn’t be merged.
Proposer: Remembered Old Buddy (talk)
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Merge all minigames
- Remembered Old Buddy (talk) Per proposal.
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, as well as the original TPP this was based on. These all feel like fairly standard merges.
- Bretts (talk) Per proposal.
- The OTHER R.O.B. (talk) Per my comments on the original proposal.
- Wilben (talk) I don't see why not.
- VS. Iand255 (talk) Per all and my comments on the original TPP.
- Drago (talk) These are all the same as the single-player versions, with some small changes to accommodate multiple players.
- Vs. Yoshi18 (talk) Per my comments on the original TPP.
- The Wandering Poplins (talk) Per all. It seems like these are less "slightly differents variants of the minigame" and more "alternate mode of the minigame which is played under different circumstances.
Don’t merge the minigames
Why is this a poll proposal? 
The Dab Master 13:32, August 22, 2026 (UTC)
- And also, which minigames fall under "some minigames, but not all"? rend (talk) (edits) 14:48, August 22, 2026 (UTC)
- Was going to make it all or nothing but was thinking some users would find an argument for why some minigames should be merged but not others so included a “some minigames” option thinking people would make a “why isn’t there an option to merge some minigames but not others” comment.
Remembered Old Buddy
15:45, August 22, 2026 (UTC)
- ...That still doesn't answer my question which minigames would have to be merged. You can't just put it there as an option without clarifying which minigames would be affected: especially if everyone has different ideas which minigames have to merge with their singleplayer counterpart. Imagine if that option won out, but all the votes in there wanted different minigames to be kept split (e.g. one might want to have all but Vs. Lakitu Launch be merged, another might want only Lakitu Launch be merged, a third might even want Run, Bob-omb, Run be split off fsr, etc).
If you really wanted to be thorough about this, you might as well make it a poll proposal, but w/ each subtopic representing the affected minigames (e.g. one topic being "Vs. Lakitu Launch", another being "Jumping Brothers", etc). That way, you can have a clear view who wants which minigames to be merged or kept split without anything being slowed down.
To put it simply: please avoid vague proposal options; all your options must be clear in what they affect. If you have an option that sounds vague, you have to clarify exactly what would be affected. Otherwise, you might as well not include it at all. rend (talk) (edits) 17:05, August 22, 2026 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 
17:22, August 24, 2026 (UTC)
