MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Monday, May 6th, 06:04 GMT

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. "Vote" periods last for one week. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). 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.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
5. 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 at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
   • 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.
6. 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 "(banned)" 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.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. 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.
9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
12. 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.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. 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.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Merge Party Ball (item) with Party Ball (discuss) Deadline: May 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split "Big Boo (character)" from Big Boo (discuss) Deadline: May 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Potentially consider the Donkey Konga series, Barrel Blast, or Jungle Beat as related to DKC (discuss) Deadline: May 8th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Replace Princess Peach: Showtime!#Plays with Sparkle Theater (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Bar Spin to Wire Spin (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Speed Mario Bros. from Ultimate NES Remix (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Re-merge Pixels with List of references in film (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs (discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Hat trampoline (Cascade Kingdom) to Trampoline (discuss) Deadline: May 15th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)

Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)

Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)

Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)

• ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.

Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)

Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)

Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)

Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)

Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)

Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)

Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)

Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)

Merge Start Dash with Rocket Start, Koopa con Carne (ended August 17, 2023)

Use italics for the full title of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, Hewer (ended September 15, 2023)

Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)

Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)

Decide which series certain Yoshi games are related to, GuntherBB (ended December 14, 2023)

Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)

Replace "List of Game Over screens" and "'Game Over' as death" sections with a "History" section, DrippingYellow (ended December 20, 2023)

Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)

Make major changes to the MarioWiki:Links page, PnnyCrygr (ended January 10, 2024)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Merge the "Johnson" running gag into one page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)

Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)

Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)

Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)

Merge Masterpieces to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U articles, Camwoodstock (ended March 31, 2024)

Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)

Rename Beanstalk to Vine, DrippingYellow (ended April 11, 2024)

Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)

Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section

I'm working on the assumption that joke proposals aren't actually banned entirely and are allowed on April Fools.

I'm not against the concept, however, I feel like there should be a specialized area for these things. Easy as it may be to tell such jokes from serious matters (ymmv on how serious of a pursuit you find editing a Mario fansite to be), the fact of the matter is that they have no business mingling with each other. April Fools content, at large, is already being separated from the rest of the wiki, albeit seamlessly so (it's being directly presented on the home page, but not linked from the mainspace), and you're still not allowed to vandalize actual articles on that day--shouldn't a similar restriction be applied to proposals? This here proposal aims to introduce a brand-new section on this very page (alongside "Writing guidelines", "New features" etc.) that will only be instated on April Fools day and will be reserved for joke proposals. (To clarify: it won't be a permanent part of this page, just on that day of the year.)

Option 1 of this proposal is to name this section the "April Fools' Day proposals" section. Prim, proper, self-explanatory. Option 2 is to give it a more jokey title, to which I raise "Extremely important proposals". Option 3 is to not add a section and let joke proposals wander about the page.

Neither of the first two options would actually "kill" any joke. The entire "punchline" of these joke proposals is the silly interactions between users, and, looking at their history, these proposals tend to be so clearly frivolous that they're easy to tell from the actual proposals. There's no surprise to ruin by putting these in their own section, but it's beneficial in actually drawing a line between them and the actual wiki discussion, and minimizing potential spillover into the latter.

TLDR having genuine stuff crammed with jokey stuff looks bad

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: March 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1 (add section, name it "April Fools' Day proposals")

#PnnyCrygr (talk) A more straight forward and formal title. Makes sense in context.

Option 2 (add section, name it "Extremely important proposals")

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Fuck pies
2. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, non-agresivelly.
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) SolemnStormcloud's Vote is a vote made by SolemnStormcloud. (Per all.)
4. Tails777 (talk) Honestly, I agree the most with the statement of being a means of preserving the humorous interactions between the users. We put in a lot of work on this site, giving it an air of profession as we strive to gather and show as much information on the Mario series. I like the idea that it's less about preserving the jokes and more for preserving the, shall we call it, off-stage behavior of the users. So let us have our pie fun (I'm still waiting for the pie though... it's been years). In short: Per proposal.
5. Axis (talk) Per proposal

#BMfan08 (talk) While the other option does make more logical sense, I think this option would be fitting for the joke-filled nature of the proposals. Now can someone help me with my comic project on N Gang and Club Nintendo?

Option 3 (do nothing)

1. Glowsquid (talk) - It's April Fools. Having to preface it's a joke, kills the joke.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) - Per above.
3. MCD (talk) - Per Glowsquid. It's one day a year.
4. PnnyCrygr (talk) Stating that it's a non-serious, jokish proposal before adding in the funny April Fool (which is only once per year) proposal itself obviously, leaves the humor out of the bag. Captain Obvious kills the cat's humor. So forth, per the glow squid.
5. YoYo (talk) per Glowsquid
6. BMfan08 (talk) Glowsquid and PnnyCrygr have a good point, so I'm changing my vote. I still need help with the comic project on N Gang and Club Nintendo by the way
7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
8. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
9. Drago (talk) Per Glowsquid.

Comments

KCC if you don't make an april fool's proposal this year we're gonna be so sad We'd honestly prefer if there was no section, but it was disclosed to an admin that yes, it is indeed a joke or is an actually serious proposal--that way, the joke doesn't get "ruined" for most people, but there's at least someone who's able to, y'know, make sure if things get out of hand for what's meant to be a serious proposal/if things get too serious for what's meant to be a joke proposal, they can intervene. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:09, February 25, 2024 (EST)

@Glowsquid @Camwoodstock, option 2 directly addresses that issue. Either way, the point of joke proposals is less the "joke" itself and more to get others in on the play house and goof around. The "punchline" is the entire community interaction itself. That kind of stuff should not share a corner with Very Serious wiki discussion, the same way the wiki's April Fools campaigns should not be a part of the actual knowledge repository. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:59, February 25, 2024 (EST)

I don't think Option 2 actually addresses the issue because nearly everyone who sees something titled "extremely important proposals" would immediately know it is anything but. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:36, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Sure but the point of a joke proposal isn't to actually fool people into thinking it's a real proposal. It's to goof around something outlandish. The "Extremely important proposals" title does not ruin that goal, especially since looking at the history of these proposals, they tend to be obvious jokes from the onset ("Remove removals", "Pie for everyone", "Create SUPREME rank" etc.) -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)

Just a quick question; has the issue this proposal intends to address (joke proposals appearing simultaneously with real ones on April 1st) actually occurred before? I've only been on here since late spring of 2021, so my perspective is rather limited, but I don't think that's been the case since at least then. Last year (2023) when I made my 「ウィキを青にしてマフィンを焼く」joke proposal, it was the only one up on the Proposal page that entire day; and the year before that (2022), there weren't any joke proposals made, and serious ones were on the page. ^S _o ^m _e ^t _h ⁱ _n ^g _o ⁿ _e ! 19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST)

2018, 2019, 2021 had them. I only just skimmed the revision log, though, so there should be more instances. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)

I take it the opposition didn't read my comments or what I added to the proposal. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:27, February 28, 2024 (EST)

We saw, we just personally don't really agree; we personally feel the element of surprise is, indeed, part of the joke. Hence, while we'd still prefer our option of "tell an admin and nobody else", we abstained from both any form of support as well as a direct oppose for the time being. ~Camwoodstock (talk)

Is this supposed element of surprise (whose existence is debatable) really worth bogging down actual discussion? As I said, moving these to their own section could help minimize these jokes spilling over into the real deal. Even if it's only one day a year, that's enough time to have a joke vote or something to that degree worm its way where it shouldn't be and go undetected. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:27, February 28, 2024 (EST)

To be honest, I misunderstood the proposal and assumed these proposals would be added to BJAODN if you couldn't tell by my quick-edit. I wouldn't mind having these proposals there instead, as some of them already are, though admittedly it should be considered whether to differentiate from the other joke proposals there or not. BMfan08 (talk) 00:27, February 29, 2024 (EST)

To be honest, it IS kinda weird why we don't do that already. We preserve April Fool's Day main pages as well as funnily bad proposals at BJAODN, so why not the April Fool's proposals? Would it violate the "don't write badly on purpose" rule? Then why are the April Fool's pages preserved there anyway?
To me, it certainly would be less of a hassle to just find them at BJAODN than manually going through countless pages of revision history. rend (talk) (edits) 11:20, February 29, 2024 (EST)

I agree that we should do that. Perhaps we could create a subpage for MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals similar to the three DK Wiki subpages? SolemnStormcloud (talk) 19:26, February 29, 2024 (EST)

There was this proposal about it, but to be honest I also agree that it would be good to archive the April Fools' proposals in BJAODN. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:44, February 29, 2024 (EST)

Split game series articles into sub-series articles

My proposal to move the Super Mario series article to the name of the Super Mario Bros. series has been declined last year, so I had to make a follow-up proposal after five months since the last proposal was declined.

The following pages being split are as follows:

• Super Mario (series) will be split into the following pages:
  • Super Mario Bros. (sub-series)
  • Super Mario Galaxy (sub-series)
  • Super Mario Maker (sub-series)
• Mario Kart (series) will be split into Mario Kart Arcade GP (sub-series)

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: March 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

1. Tails777 (talk) While I did support the idea of the New Super Mario Bros. series getting it's own sub-series article, I can understand why it isn't. And if that series can't get a sub-series article, I fail to see how the Super Mario Galaxy games can. They're all apart of the same overall series so I don't see why we need to divide things up further.
2. Hewer (talk) I previously supported New Super Mario Bros. getting an article because I thought it would be the most eligible sub-series at four(ish) entries. But since then, Super Mario Land had its article merged, and now that we have all these sub-series merged (Super Mario Advance gets to stay the only exception since it covers Yoshi's Island as well), I feel like this is a much better choice for organisation when they're all just part of one series, splitting them all out would feel messy and redundant. It also calls into question the criteria for splitting sub-series - if Mario Galaxy is eligible, why not "Super Mario 3D" which also has two games? Or the aforementioned New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Land? Better to avoid the headache and stay consistent by merging all of them.
3. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) I may support splitting just Super Mario Bros. since with Wonder it's been given further distinction from the 3D games as a series, however if supporting that here means splitting Galaxy and Maker as well, then I'm gonna have to oppose per all.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser. Splitting the Maker and Galaxy games in specific when they are strictly duologies is especially overkill to us.

Comments

This should really be either a case-by-case or have multiple options rather than all-at-once or none at all. Nightwicked Bowser 19:16, February 29, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.