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.
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
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}}.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
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 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: "April 19, 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".
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.
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}}.
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:
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.
The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
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.
Split Magnet Sparky from Spark (discuss) Deadline: April 23, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Clean up Kangaroo (discuss) Deadline: April 23, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Create the Standard bike (vehicle class) and Sport bike (vehicle class) pages and limit the use of the unofficial inside drifting and outside drifting terms (discuss) Deadline: April 25, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Replace all related species/etc lines in infoboxes with a single "See also" line
As Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) has been so energetically pointing out recently, the way we handle "species" bears little-to-no resemblance to reality - an octopus is not a species related to a mushroom, even if an Octoomba is obviously derived from a Goomba, and trying to justify it is waaay beyond the bounds of a simple infobox list. And the likes of fishskeletonsforoneexample aren't even breedable! And, generally, obsessing over taxonomy seems rather misplaced for a Mario fansite.
This primarily affects {{species-infobox}}. In the immediate aftermath, this proposal will be achieved by putting all three variables in the "See also" line (with appropriate {{#if:*}}s so that they can be stacked vertically), inside a new {{{see also}}} variable, which will be on the documentation and override the older variables if both the new and old variables are used. In the longer term, it may require use of a bot to make wiki-wide changes, especially if full alphabetisation (as opposed to priority-based sorting) is desired.
Proposer: Reboot (talk) Deadline: April 24, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - The way we have it now is at least reasonably organizeable. No reason to obfuscate a perfectly good system. What I've been pointing out is that it should be consistently followed without people trying to make arbitrary case-specific decisions >.>
Yoshi the SSM (talk) The proposed system is worst than what is currently in place, only to serve as a fix for one flaw in it. The problem is two-fold. Either it isn't going to be organized like it is currently (which is already in the best way it could be), or it isn't going to be known where the things start and end. Trying to do otherwise would result in the flaw coming back. And in this proposed system, if it does go to the flaw, either there would be no change or it would add stuff that is not needed to the current system (which is the more likely of the two). The proposed system causes more problems than the worth of what it fixes. And thus, I can't support, but oppose.
BBQ Turtle (talk) While merging it into one section would deal with the issues that could arise from the initial classification, once it has been classified correctly, this is not an issue. However, this would make it harder for readers to distinguish between how the species are related, and would just be detrimental to the organisation of it. Per all.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) While I do agree with the general notion of this proposal, I feel it needs a bit more thought before it can actually go into effect, given we've used "species" for quite a while. Per all.
Chester Alan Arthur (talk) Per all (also octoomba's are a goomba cause a prima guide calls them Electrogoomba's)
Comments
Small question: You bring up alphabetical ordering vs. priority ordering, but which one is this proposal rolling with? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:57, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
I'm relatively agnostic. I'd probably prefer priority, since it will roughly mirror the way the "old" variables will stack initially, but if alphabetical was preferred by the consensus I'd be fine with it. It would require a bot to implement, however. - Reboot (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
I'm inclined to support (especially with the confusion surrounding Rocky Wrenches/Monty Moles), but does that mean the "see also" section will be included in the infobox or near the end of the page? I'd prefer the former, but I'm fine with either. (T|C) 15:14, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
Infobox. (Which does not prohibit end-of-page sections, but that's not what this is about). - Reboot (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
This is purely a display change on the infoboxes, not a structural change in general. It does not (currently) affect the species categories at all, although I would consider supporting a proposal about those. As for List of species, it doesn't directly affect that either, but that's already tagged rewrite-expand for being an incomplete mess with some stuff sorted under "parent" types and some not, so it doesn't really need a proposal to change to pure alphabetical sorting rather than the current part-alpha, part-hierarchical shambles, does it? - Reboot (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
I would suggest that, if one and only one was going to be done hierarchically, List of enemies would be the more logical option.
And re: your "I feel this should be more comprehensive..." edit summary, if you want to put together a more comprehensive proposal that incorporated this, I'd be prepared to withdraw this one in favour of yours. - Reboot (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
I don't know, I'm all for doing something - maybe just using less specific, more general terminology would suffice - but merging it all in one nebulous spot will probably cause even more confusion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
This proposal would seemingly have this enemy be in the same nebulous group as this enemy, without listing the stepsin between. What we have now makes the most sense to me, and doesn't lump a bunch of stuff into an unworkable mess. (Also, what do you have against obsessing over taxonomy? It's one of the few ways I can distract myself from my bouts of depression...) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
There's also the fact that a current proposal of mine is dependent on the current system, and this proposal's time will end before that one's will; ergo, if this wins, it will render mine invalid, and as such, this seems like little more than an attempt to sweep the rug out from under my feet to me. And I don't particularly like that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
(T|C) 15:14, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
