MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Friday, September 20th, 04:20 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. "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, but they may not vote for every option available.
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(s) 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. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
10. 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% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then 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 canceled 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 canceled 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: "September 20, 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

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 {{TPP discuss}}. 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 {{settled TPP}}.
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 subject page of the talk page 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

• Split truck into cargo truck and pickup truck (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split the navigation template for Donkey Kong between arcade and Game Boy versions (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64) to Crocodile Isle (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Prune "sports" games from Black Shy Guy in line with White Shy Guy and Red Boo (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine what to do with the feather item from Super Mario 64 DS (currently on Wing Cap) (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider the "Blurp" and "Deep Cheep" in the Super Mario Maker games an alternate design of Cheep Cheep with the former twos' designs as a cameo rather than a full appearance of the former two, in line with the game's own classification (discuss) Deadline: September 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Add English to {{foreign names}} and retitle to {{international names}} (discuss) Deadline: September 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Allow usage of {{Release}} as a generic "flag list" template (discuss) Deadline: September 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Preying Mantas with Jellyfish (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create article(s) for the SM64DS character rooms (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create an article for the Peach doll from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Remove the remaining non-Super Mario "stage gimmicks and hazards" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Remove non-Super Mario "stage cameos" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder

Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)

Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024)

Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)

Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)

Talk page proposals

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

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

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

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

List of Talk Page Proposals

• Merge Rainbow Mario with Invincible Mario. (Discuss) Deadline: May 30, 2016, 23:59 GMT
• Move Skull Switch to Template:Fakelink, incorporate Super Mario Land equivalent (and possibly NSMBWii/U equivalents). (Discuss) Deadline: June 1, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Change rule 9 to centre on voters rather than votes

In the wake of this proposal passing, rule 9 is slightly vague - it says a multi-option proposal must have majority support, and a majority of all votes. It's now possible to pass the first criterion (more than half of voters support something) but fail the second (because of multiple votes).

This proposal would make two changes:

1. Change the section of Rule 9 that says "more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option" to "more than half of all voters must have cast votes for a single option"
2. Change the last bullet point in the summary brown box at the top of this page from "All proposals must pass by a majority, including proposals with more than two options." to "All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options."

This won't change much, it's more cleanup to reflect the new status quo than a major revision.

Proposer: Reboot (talk)
Deadline: May 30, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Reboot (talk). Per above.
2. Ghost Jam (talk) Per my comments below, provided the language is expanded.
3. 3D Player 2010 (talk) per all.
4. Fawful's Minion (talk) per all.
5. AfternoonLight (talk) I agree! Per all.

Oppose

1. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Your worry about my proposal passing skewing results unfavorably or proposals ending in NO QUORUM is all theoretical. The voting system I proposed was vote for the outcome(s) you are comfortable with if one were to win rather than vote for your favored outcome. The votes operate as an OR gate of sorts. It's a rather simple change and it is as simple as it gets for voting. Also the majority requirement may not be as bad as it sounds because the new algorithm could reveal how controversial the proposed change was (controversy not meaning good or bad just meaning there was a lot of debate). I say you should just see how things go after several more than two choice proposals have run their course before this should be thought about. Until the results are in, then we review our voting system handling more than two choices. Also if you really think the voting system is flawed, then we should overhaul it for more than two choice proposals but keep the same rules for two-choice proposals.
2. Tucayo (talk) - I will oppose for the time being because I don't see the benefit in doing this and I don't want the proposal to pass before I get an answer.
3. Roy Koopa (talk) I oppose this for one of the same reasons I didn't like the proposal mentioned; having the multiple vote function seriously screws with the outcome because people who vote more than once for the same option (i.e. 10 vote for option 1, 10 vote for option 2, and 7 vote for option 3; with option 1 and option 2 being made up of only people who vote more than once) result in margins that are not wide enough (for TPPs) or ties (in normal proposals). That's related to this proposal in that in a proposal with 15 voters and 3 options, 8 can vote for option 1, 7 (who are people who only voted once) can vote for option 2, and 1 (who voted twice) can vote for option 3; but then option 1 passes but by a rather narrow margin, which in TPPs would be extended. However, this seems flawed because a margin of 8-7 is nowhere near a majority, and the saying "majority rules" comes into play here. Because of this, I would consider changing my vote if, and only if, the passing margin was changed to either 3/4 or 2/3. This allows for the community to actually agree on what they want, and not have the 7 who voted for option 2 in my example proposal to be constantly complaining about how "this system is flawed" and "we need to change this but can't for 28 days." However, until the margin is changed according to my aforementioned point, I won't be changing my vote.

Comments

Re: Wildgoosespeeder. The situation as it stands after your proposal is not an OR gate because of the "majority of all votes" requirement - this proposal would make it more like an OR gate. It would make literally no difference to Yes/No proposals. It can only affect A/B/C(/etc) proposals where enough people have voted more than once to cause a proposal outcome that fulfils every other requirement to get a definitive result to fail purely on majority of votes, while still getting a majority from voters. So that last sentence is irrelevant.

OR gates as in if(a || b || !c){OK with winning change}else{Not OK with winning change}}, not if(a && b && !c){OK with winning change}else{Not OK with winning change}}. One will have more trues (OK) than falses (Not OK) if you were to do a Truth table if you were to set one of the variables to true and the rest to false. The boolean inside the if() is just a sample how the user voted (! meaning no vote). Majority vote on the other hand, let's say three options are 45%/25%/30%. That would be a NO QUORUM based on a majority needed for one option. 55% of the votes didn't want the option that got 45% of the votes. Looking at those numbers, there is quite a split how people felt about the proposed change. I say the system is working in that case. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 23:23, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

And I see no reason to let a bunch of proposals with popular support fall as inquorate just to prove that the situation after your proposal is flawed - this is the simplest way to patch the main problem without having to overhaul everything. - Reboot (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

It's hard to visualize your wanted changes to the rules. It has to be easy to understand. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 23:23, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

Until another three plus choice proposal comes along, all of these rule patches are basically conjecture. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd agree to the proposed change if it only applies to the previous rule patch. The current text of this proposal suggests that it's across the board change. -- Ghost Jam 23:26, 28 May 2016 (EDT)

It only applies to the previous rule patch. (While technically it applies across the board, in practice it is 100% identical when one member=one vote. The only reason I didn't spell this out was that it's just more words to the same effect.) - Reboot (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

Spell it out in future, no one enjoys semantics fights. -- Ghost Jam 15:03, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

I can't edit it now though without admin permission - it's been going for more than three days. - Reboot (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

Which is why I said "in future". :D -- Ghost Jam 22:58, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

I must not be getting it but can someone explain what this proposal does? I feel that my oppose vote and its explanation are way off the mark and has been that way for several days. If it is just a wording change and that's it, OK, but if this proposal is changing how we determine the winning option, then my oppose vote stands as this proposal could be in violation of rule #7. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:07, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

If you're even looking at Rule #7 (no overturning votes within a month), you're definitely way off the mark, but I don't see how to explain it to you in any way I've not already tried. In no way, shape or form does this reset things to the way they were before your proposal, so R7 is irrelevant. - Reboot (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

Googling for "define overturn", overturn doesn't necessarily mean to reverse or undo. It can also mean to invalidate. So it is just a change of words and NOT how we evaluate a winning option (if NO QUORUM). Since that is the case, why put in that much effort into a proposal for such a tiny change? Past experience with proposals I made dealing with small changes lead people to vote against it claiming the payoff is very little. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 17:03, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

Defining it vs. how it's enforced. We don't enforce rule #7 the way Google has defined the specific words for you, so it's not going to be an issue. That said, we've made far more fiddly changes in the past for much more minor aspects of the site, so arguments to that effect are going to be less effective. -- Ghost Jam 22:58, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

OK, clear something up for me regarding your point #1. For example, we have a proposal with three options. Reboot, Ghost Jam, and myself voted for option #1; Reboot and myself voted for option #2; Ghost Jam and Wildgoosespeeder voted for option #3.

• "more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option", which is how we have it right now. This way, the proposal would not pass.
• "more than half of all voters must have cast votes for a single option", which is the proposed change. This way, the proposal would pass.

Which one do we prefer? What is better for proposals? --™ The 'Shroom 23:09, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

You have it right (except for the fact that point 2 is the same as point 1, it's just because the thing is written in two separate places), and this was the question I was asking by making this proposal!

Clearly, I prefer the second one - my whole reason for doing this, as I think I've made clear, is that I see this situation as a bug caused by a rule that SHOULD have been part of the prior proposal but wasn't because it wasn't thought through enough. (I listed alternatives there, but this was by far the simplest option). Having proposals with majority support which fulfil all other requirements (number of votes, margin of victory, etc) fall as inquorate because some voters have cast secondary votes, when the reason it falls as inquorate is a rule which never envisaged secondary votes as a possibility... it's a bug, to my eyes. - Reboot (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

MarioWiki's proposal system is supposed to be the right balance of fairness and understandability with its participants. Getting really technical with the rules would likely not be in the best interest of MarioWiki. A proposal system shouldn't favor the proposer but rather favor those who contribute. Your rule change proposal suggests this. If my 45%/25%/30% example is NO QUORUM, so be it. The proposed change was likely not a good one anyways. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 00:38, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

Thing is, I would see your 45%/25%/30% proposal, with some users giving multiple votes, as (e.g.) 60%/35%/30%. It's all about "can it command majority support". If yes, then - if it fulfils the other criteria such as "margin of three if there are more than ten votes" - it has received enough support to pass. I really wonder why you're so angry about this... - Reboot (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

That's 115%. I'm not angry. I am disappointed. This proposal feels like it is trying to dodge rule #7 in a technically non-violating way to reduce the power of voting more than once without giving it enough time to see the actual results first before considering making another amendment if voting more than once causes issues. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 01:40, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

If you are right about that, that was my initial concern about this proposal messing around with rules, which had me concerned this proposal could be violating rule #7 because the result of my proposal was enforced since May 10 (almost three weeks, which isn't enough time). Also, Reboot (talk) has another proposal active on Talk:Skull Switch that has more than two options, which ends two days later than this one. This is striking me as kind of odd. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 23:32, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

Again, as Ghost Jam has now pointed out to you as well (above), Rule #7 doesn't come into it. This is not in fact nor in intention, in the way MarioWiki habitually uses the word, overturning a vote. (And the Skull Switch one requires a huge last-minute inrush of votes not to be inquorate no matter what, so it hardly matters.) - Reboot (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

It doesn't hurt to see what other admins think about my thoughts about your proposal. It would be in the best interest of MarioWiki if they acted as a group instead of individually with something as complicated as a proposal. The individuality they possess would be more useful in stopping vandals or something, but not proposals. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 00:29, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

The administration team is an assortment of individuals, not a hive mind. The fact that we can openly disagree with each other is part of why admins are allowed to participate in proposals in the first place. I'll thank you to not tell us how to do our job or what our place is. -- Ghost Jam 00:56, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

OK, wrong phrasing. What I mean is that one admin saying I am wrong about rule #7 does not mean all admins would think that. You weren't telling me that on behalf of the others and I should stop saying that. You were telling me that on your own judgments. Unless a lot of the admins think what you are thinking, I'll stop saying that. That is what I meant "as a group". I think that is what Reboot (talk) thought the case was. I wasn't telling you how to do your job. Sorry if you thought that. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 01:33, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

@RoyKoopa: ...8-7 is not a winning margin. If there are seven against, it needs to be at least 10-7 to pass, per Rule #10 ("If a proposal 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."). That isn't changed at all by this. - Reboot (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

That's right. I forgot that rule. But still, my point stands that the margin of 50% of all voters being enough to pass is too small. If you do consider that, I might change my vote. J-Luigi (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

I think changing from a simple majority to a supermajority is a very different proposal, which would affect every proposal and TPP on the wiki going forward, not just a small minority. Besides, far too late to edit this one, which ends today. - Reboot (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.