MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Tuesday, November 12th, 18:01 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. 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) 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.
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% 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 the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
11. 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 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 six days of their creation. 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, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 12, 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. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
4. 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

• Determine what to do with Jamboree Buddy (discuss) Deadline: November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Cursed Mushroom from Poison Mushroom (discuss) Deadline: November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Orbs that share names with pre-existing Mario Party series items with those items (discuss) Deadline: November 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create a number of articles for special buildings in Super Mario Run (discuss) Deadline: November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Deep Cheeps' appearance in the Super Mario Maker series a design cameo rather than a full appearance (without Blurps being affected) (discuss) Deadline: November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Mushroom, Dash Mushroom, and most of Super Mushroom (discuss) Deadline: November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Expand and rename List of characters by game (discuss) Deadline: November 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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 Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

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)

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)

Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)

Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)

Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)

Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 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 Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Always use past tense when describing pre-release and unused content

Fairly self-explanatory. These kinds of pages need to be more consistent in this way. The only time present tense should be used is when drawing comparisons to the final release.

Example: "At the start of Lap 3, Lakitu's sign said 'Final Lap'; in the final version, it says '3/3'."

Proposer: DannyTheDingo (talk)
Deadline: April 8, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. DannyTheDingo (talk) Per proposal.
2. Archivist Toadette (talk) Yeah, makes sense. Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) I'd say this matter has to be explored on a case-by-case basis. In some situations, we only have some form of documentation to attest the existence of a game's early state, and, with no present whereabouts of its physical existence, it's indeed sensible to use past tense in any references to it until proven otherwise. But as Doc pointed out in the comments, some prototype builds are known to exist in the present and may even be readily available to the public--what would be the logic in referring to these using past-tense, then?
2. Results May Vary (talk) I agree with Koopa con Carne -- the last sentence (about prototype builds resurfacing) is especially true.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. We're not going around changing everything regarding Super Mario Bros. 35 or Dr. Mario World to past tense either, so I wouldn't say this is necessary.

Comments

What about leaked prototype builds? They still exist in a current state. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

@Koopa @Doc Fair point. When making this proposal I was primarily thinking of that "early state documentation", like E3 footage. But in terms of prototype builds, the wiki has used past-tense for them before (See Super Mario 64 and Luigi's Mansion). DingoHazel [00525] 02:49, March 30, 2022 (EDT)

Forbid "special symbols" from being used in article titles

This page - ★ door - basically describes it. While it is true that the source refers to the Star Door as the "★ Door", I believe this is unintuitive for readers of this wiki. It makes more sense for an average user to search for the "star door" instead of copypasting a character that isn't even present on many keyboards. The name "★ door" should still be used in the article itself, but the title should transcribe the symbol instead of using that symbol. This would also be consistent with other articles:

• World 1-Castle (New Super Mario Bros.), where the title uses the transcribed name instead of a castle emoji (🏰).
• Minna de Atsumete!, where the title of this official SMM2 course does not use the Japanese symbols.

I believe, for the overall consistency of naming pages and unneeded complexity for readers of this wiki, uncommon symbols such as the star or emojis should be forbidden from being used in the names of articles.

Proposer: Spectrogram (talk)
Deadline: April 12, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Spectrogram (talk) per my proposal.

Oppose

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The problem with the ★ door example is that "Big Star Door" is already pending a move (and currently redirects) to "Star Door" due to that being the in-game name, which complicates matters. Additionally, how levels are titled is generally consistent with official guides, and I don't think romanization systems for foreign characters can be compared since they're an established rule-based process. Overall, I don't think this comes up enough to be an issue like the use of hashtag at the start of a name. The only other one I can think of at the top of my head is ♥ from Yoshi's Story, which is deemed a unique subject from other heart articles.
2. Hewer (talk) It's still the official name of the subject, and people not being able to type it isn't a problem because of redirects. By this logic we should also move Pokémon to Pokemon (just as an example, there are loads of pages with accents in their titles).
3. Swallow (talk) This is a little bit like censoring content.
4. Somethingone (talk) There is a fine line to draw between accessibility and accuracy, and this is pushing it a bit too much. Redirects will work just fine.
5. Niiue (talk) Per all.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

Establish proper size of the Media section for game articles with a dedicated media list

Most Media sections of game articles link to a separate list of media (mostly music). It has been the standard for Media sections to have a small sample of files to give an approximate preview of the full list, but the wiki is inconsistent in how many are chosen. At the time of writing, the Media section for Super Mario 64 has five audio files (plus a video), yet Mario Kart Wii and Mario Kart 7 show only one file each. Mario Party 8 has seven!

This proposal should settle on how many audio files should be chosen for Media sections. This would be more of a strong recommendation than a hard rule, but consistency is the goal here.

Video files are uncommon, but they should still be kept to one per Media section where applicable (see Super Mario Sunshine).

Proposer: DannyTheDingo (talk)
Deadline: April 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

4-5 audio files

1. DannyTheDingo (talk) My preferred option. Leaves room for more diverse choices.
2. Somethingone (talk) Per proposal. This gives us plenty of diversity options while not over-crowding pages with media.
3. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
5. Ray Trace (talk) 4-5 audio files is a good sweet spot for this.
6. WildWario (talk) Per all.

Comments

I have also come across a few Media sections that merely display the beginning few files from the media list. (Until I recently changed it, the Media section for Mario Super Sluggers showed the first four in the list. This was a problem because it was largely unrepresentative; the first two were an unused theme and a repetitive 20-second loop heard once in the entire game.) I almost made a proposal about prohibiting this kind of thing, but it seems too uncommon to be worth doing that. DingoHazel [00525] 05:20, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

There technically is a rule against that sort of thing (the policy doesn't mention media but it can be reasonably assumed to extend to that), so we should probably just add a mention of media sections there. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:31, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

I feel that it would definitely make sense to add a mention of media sections onto that policy page. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 10:46, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

Allow/prohibit fan work by former Nintendo staff

After their contractual obligations for Nintendo have ended, certain affiliates such as Steve Mayles and Masanori Sato have continued to celebrate the franchises they helped shape through various pieces of artwork. These works, consequently, are not direct promotional material nor are they endorsed or acknowledged by Nintendo, pertaining potentially to the realm of fan art more than what this wiki outlines as official material. Nevertheless, the notability that tailgates these people was reason enough for me to have already uploaded a number of their post-contractual works on the wiki.

The proposal's aim is to sort out whether this practice should be further allowed--and on what conditions.

In hashing over the proposal's options, I will divide these "fan" works by two paradigms, so to speak: those that portray at least one specific character from the Mario franchise (which can be modified but otherwise still recognizable), and those that are parodies or feature vaguely-represented elements pertaining to the franchise, but do not otherwise portray any officially recognised character. Examples from the former include an illustration of Dixie Kong by Steve Mayles (twitter.com), a sketch of Yoshi by Masanori Sato (instagram.com), and a Bob-omb King-like creature accompanied by an actual Bob-omb (instagram.com), also by Sato; examples of the latter include an illustration of two Mario&Luigi-like characters (instagram.com), another of a turtle-esque fairy (instagram.com) resembling Boom Boom or Pom Pom, and yet another of a distinctly Wario-looking fellow (instagram.com).

In this respect, I propose three directions:

1. Allow any and all such works;
2. Allow only works that portray at least one recognised Mario element, but not those that are derivative of the Mario franchise; could likely help the wiki avoid legal stuff;
3. Prohibit all such works and delete existing uploads. If Nintendo didn't recognise them, they don't belong here.

I should note that the proposal excludes work that has had a function in the promotion or development of a certain media product or the franchise in general, such as Miyamoto's drawn cover for the Edge magazine, or the Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Mario-Rathalos artwork.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: April 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Allow all

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) My choice.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Makes sense to me
3. Niiue (talk) Per all.
4. Hewer (talk) Per all.
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
6. Results May Vary (talk) Very interesting proposal that raises some good points. I'd say that because the staff are still recognized for when they were involved with the Mario franchise, their artworks should be allowed, especially because a lot of stems from when they were involved & many of the subscribers and viewers would perceive it this way as well.

Option 2: Allow only on-brand depictions

1. RHG1951 (talk) While I do love Sato's Mickey & Goofy artwork, I don't think it or any image that only belongs in the artists' gallery section should be uploaded here.
2. Somethingone (talk) This is a cool idea, but let's at least try to keep it relevant to the namesake of this fan wiki, mkay?
3. Ray Trace (talk) Per all.

Comments

At any rate, what do the users in here think of Sato's Mario & Luigi-esque portrayal of Mickey and Goofy? Is it worth keeping it on the wiki for the stylistic and dynamic similarities alone? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:44, March 30, 2022 (EDT)

@RHG1951 @Somethingone I pointed out the Mickey and Goofy image as an individual case, because I thought some users may find its connection to Mario way too tenuous, and probably only coincidental given the fact that an artist can practice their style without this necessarily connecting their works. The artwork deprecated by the second option still relates to Mario in more than just style; do keep this in mind. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:01, March 30, 2022 (EDT)