|
Current time:
Wednesday, October 22nd, 11:04 GMT
|
|
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 link to the 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.
- 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).
- Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 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.
- 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.
- After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
- 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.
- 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. 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.
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
Miscellaneous
- Treat "both" King Kalientes as the same being (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: October 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT, 23:59 GMT
- Rename, expand or split Baker (Mario Paint) (discuss) by LadySophie17; Deadline: October 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT, 23:59 GMT
- Remove Bowser Candy and minigame info from Bowser Suit or split Bowser Suit (form) from Bowser Suit (discuss) by Pizza Master; Deadline: November 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT, 23:59 GMT
- Spell Donkey Kong Barrel Blast as Donkey Kong: Barrel Blast instead (discuss) by Snessy; Deadline: November 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Note: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Talk page proposals
Note: Not yet split for Partners in Time, Bowser's Inside Story, Dream Team, Paper Jam, and Brothership
Note: Missing Robo-Rabbit and flag articles.
Note: Not yet implemented for Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 subjects.
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Create a reminder for trimming audio
So, if you don't know, we have a policy which prevents audio files from being more than 30 seconds long, and must have fadeout. Right now, there is no reminder template. However, for many other upload issues, we have a reminder template. This reminder could also be given through {{Reminder}}, but all other case-specific reminders can also be given through {{Reminder}}. This could be good because these reminders usually tell the reciever how to follow these policies. The following will be what the reminder will look like:
|
|
Dear Proposals.
Thank you for your recent uploads. When uploading audio files, please trim the audio to 30 seconds long and apply a fadeout. If you don't own software capable of preforming these actions, go here to install a tool capable of doing this. If these actions continue, you will recieve a warning.
|
Proposer: Conkdor (talk)
Deadline: November 1, 2025, 14:08 GMT
Support!
- Conkdor (talk) Per proposal. (Proposer's note: I give full rights to the user implementing the proposal to modify this template in any way.)
- Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.
- Martendo (talk) Per proposal.
- Rykitu (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose!
- Altendo (talk) Admittedly, this does come down to personal preference, but I don't feel like a notice template is necessary for every infraction. I feel like {{reminder}} (or other warning templates, seeing how this infraction counts as most unlisted ones that constitute a {{warning}}) with a brief description is good enough for these types of notices. The other issue is that the template shown here isn't as sophisticated as the other upload templates (admittedly, it doesn't have to be), which further adds to my point about how just a warning (of some sort) template and a short message afterwards should be enough. This last point is admittedly a nitpick, but I also don't think that a fadeout is required; it's just recommended, and only the 30-second maximum length is required.
- PanchamBro (talk) Honestly the fact that a scenario like this doesn't occur frequently, not to mention that this isn't much a serious infraction than say "creating three sockpuppet accounts" makes me question if this is necessary at all. Illustrating my point further, I've checked the logs for the past month or so, and none of the uploads indicate that they needed to be replaced due to being over 30 seconds. There is some awareness of this rule, even if you think there isn't one. Not to mention I'm put off by the wording of this template, indicating that you "will receive a warning" when on some user notice templates say that "a warning will be issued", a tonal difference that just screams aggressive compared to being fairly neutral. I know you said people could change this template to fix the wording, I understand this. But at the end of the day, this feels like newbie biting. From my experience...or anyone who had to deal with Template:Userspace before its repurposing, a informal reminder about audio trimming is better than a template itself.
- Camwoodstock (talk) Especially now that the to-do bar exists to basically fire a signal flare anytime someone fails to properly trim audio so somebody can quickly open Audacity and fix it, we're not quite sure if this is a common enough occurrence to warrant a whole template just dedicated to telling people not to do it. As the ones that watch said to-do bar, you usually only get an incident like this once every other month, and it's only like, 1-3 files anyways...
- Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
- Mario jc (talk) From what I've seen, this hasn't happened too often; in fact, almost every new upload I've seen has been 30 seconds or less (at one point I even wondered if there was a system in place that prevented media files from uploading if it went over). I've also viewed these notices as quick ways to point the user to certain rules/guidelines without having to manually type a message out; I don't see them as something formal in place of a {{reminder}} and that they should go straight to a {{warning}} if it happens again. Excessive account creation, on the other hand, does happen often and there's more information that needs to be communicated to the user about it, hence the template.
At least for the files themselves, isn't this what {{Template:Media-length}} is for? 
~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 
16:11, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
- @Camwoodstock no, this is the reminder for uploading untrimmed audio files.
Conkdor! (T|C) 16:41, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
- I think the idea is for this to be a user notice, to be put on the talk pages of users who upload untrimmed audio, instead of using a generic reminder template. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:06, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
Has this been a recent recurring problem we need to address, or will this be an anticipated problem in the future? 
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:56, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
- @Mario A problem that actually just happened today. It doesn't happen very often, but neither does people making 3 sockpuppets. Conkdor! (T|C) 18:49, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
- @PanchamBro What do you mean "it's not as serious"? If we don't quickly trim untrimmed audio, we could get sued! Conkdor! (T|C) 07:22, October 20, 2025 (EDT)
- A simple audio gaffe (one that is over 30 seconds) might be a copyright issue, but can be easily addressed by anyone. A sockpuppet on the other hand can be a major hurdle. From new accounts made numerous times for some reason, to some socks not even making themselves known until they reveal themselves or someone eventually finds out who they are. Of course, an easy way to tell is to see if their editing patterns match, but I find the issue of sockpuppets way more serious in terms of conduct compared to someone not trimming the audio and posting the full music. This, by the way, is in your response to your comment about how infrequent "making 3 sockpuppets" are in comparison to "not trimming audio correctly", but the former is much, much understandable to warrant a user notice. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 10:57, October 20, 2025 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Split the image quality category 2: Artwork Boogaloo
Earlier this year, I proposed splitting the image quality category to give screenshots and game assets their own spaces for the sake of navigation and usability. It seems to have worked fairly well, at the time of writing less than half of the images that have been tagged for reuploading are in the main category. There's still well over 1,000 images in there though, so perhaps we ought to take this a step farther and split artwork next, which seems to be the largest category in there now based on a cursory skim. Like the previous proposal, this will create an "Artwork to be reuploaded with higher quality" subcategory and add a parameter to the image-quality template for categorizing it appropriately.
I've also noticed that some users haven't been using the subcategories when tagging images, so screenshots and assets are starting to pile up in the main category again. I'm hoping that by introducing some additional organization, it'll be easier to notice when something is in the wrong place and correct it.
Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: November 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split the artwork
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
Don't split the artwork
- Altendo (talk) I don't think this needs a split based on how many files there are; while there are 1,219 as of this vote's addition, there are even more screenshots than unsorted files, 2,168 to be exact, and to quote the proposer, "screenshots and assets are starting to pile up in the main category again", meaning that the amount of files minus those are even less than 1,219. I do understand that some things are meant to be kept consistent, and I would support the idea of a full category divide, but only if the other image types (scans and photographs among others) are included; it doesn't make sense to separate artwork but not those two image types, especially when there are more sorted screenshots than unsorted files, of which some screenshots are included. EDIT on 20:49, October 21, 2025 (EDT): I also just noticed that the original proposal split those two categories because they required certain tools (screenshots for older consoles and asset rips) that are not available to every user, but artwork, often high-quality, can easily be found on official websites and social media and they can just as easily be downloaded onto most devices, and it is possible that older, low-quality artwork may be lost to time unless an official source is found, especially for pre-Internet era artwork; while there are some high-quality artworks, most of them are unsourced, making them unviable for the Wiki.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 
16:11, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:56, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
