MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/17



Change FA rules part 3
NEEDS ALL MARIO APPEARANCES 10-0

And finally, I'll finish off my proposals with this Rule:Change the rule that says needs all appearances of the character to needs all mario appearances of the character. Reason: This rule is redundant with another rule that states that articles cannot have any unmario appearances, if this rule stays; it will cancel about the featurability of the non-mario articles even if they are the best articles on the wiki! {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} (With ideas from {{User|Time Q}}) Deadline: October 14{{sup|th}}, 2009 (17:00.00)

Needs All "Mario" Appearances

 * 1) - Proposal
 * 2) Just making the MarioWiki only have Mario stuff (plus Yoshi and DK parts) and ONLY the Mario stuff makes MarioWiki look like a "one trick pony".
 * I'm copying this from the FA talk page: "What is wrong with the current rule in my opinion is that since we're the Mario Wiki, nobody expects to read non-Mario content here. If people come here to read an article about, say, Kirby, they don't expect any information that has nothing to do with Mario. There are other sources of information then. See: Kirby's or Ganondorf's role in the Marioverse is bigger than some original Mario character's. It would be unfair to reject FA status for characters like Ganondorf when the only reason is that they originated from a different series. Articles should cover Mario content, that's our task. And any article that meets this requirement should get the chance to become featured."
 * 1) Per all
 * 2) &mdash; Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Okay, now I see your point. As long as there is a short background section included, I agree with this!
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
BMB: What do we care about wikia wikis? We're the mariowiki and if our content is good, who cares what zeldapedia thinks? We care about the community, our community, not zeldapedia's, not Kirby Wiki's and not Wikipedia's
 * MG1: Think about the first sentence I said, "What if you were in their shoes?" I'm surprised you even say that about other Wiki's! The way you stated that was very cruel, because I help out with other Wiki's along with other users on this Wiki, and they would probaly agree with me on this. Our community has many things to do with Kirby, Zelda, Samus, and all the other characters. That's why we need them to stay in this wiki, they are very important to our Wikia!!!
 * Just to add, there is a DK, Wario, and Yoshi Wikia, so, in your words, your saying we should get rid of them because they are techically non-mario. Is that what you want?
 * I'm sorry if I add more confusion-spice to this stew of discussion, but isn't MG1s point just to lighten the requirements for an article to become an FA? To me it sounds like he's just saying "An article can become a FA, even if the article cannot contain all the infos related to the chara (such as Ganondorf)". Am I misinterpreting things? -
 * Thank you edo, you hit the nail on the head! BMB: Sorry, I shouldn't have been so strict, what I meant was I think that we should not discriminate, this is just racism in another form. No matter how you put it this is like gamism, very very bad :( Stop the gamism, feel the power!!!
 * Yeah, I thought for a sec a read it wrong. Sorry! Yes, lets stop the Wikism here (just made it up). Probaly should change my vote a little bit (talk to Dim. Kn. (he probaly just agreed with what I said)). I'm sorry, but I am still opposing this.
 * Time Q, there is mostly Mario content on the non-mario articles! We need to balance it out a little by adding some information about them being non-mario. Seriously, you got to admit that we do need to balance stuff out by adding a little bit of themself, read the above, and you'll see my reasons...
 * Hm, no, the characters' roles outside the Marioverse simply don't matter for our wiki. It can shortly be mentioned in the introductory sentence, but not more. Actually, I don't really understand why you're opposing this proposal. Your reason sounds like you would support it...
 * Well, what do you mean by that! I don't really understand what you telling me! I love other series! They have a right to be here, because that is what a wikia is! It shows all the stuff included in it. Yes, they should not have too much stuff about there origin, but at least a background section, about a paragraph (maybe two at most), be added to their article!!!

Um, some characters like Ganondorf only appeared alongside with Mario exclusively in the Super Smash Bros. series, which I don't really consider it to be part of the Mario series. The Donkey Kong series and the Yoshi series are branches off the Mario series, but Super Smash Bros. isn't from what I assume.
 * "Mario appearances" means everything that our wiki covers. This includes Super Smash Bros. as well (no matter if you consider it part of the Mario series or not).
 * Whoa, looks like one of my proposals is going to pass, one is going to fail and one is going to end up in no quorum. Those are the only three possible results for a proposal except for deletion and trust me, I could make a random proposal and then delete it :P

}}

Did You Know...
CHOOSE TRIVIA FROM ANY ARTICLE 9-0

...that there are quite a lot of proposals here at the moment? This one's the seventh one, so lets hope that lucky 7 will guide this proposal on its way to a good decision.

Anyway, you all know the "Did You Know" section of the main page. This page is currently updated by me and it shows three more or less interesting facts from recently created articles. However, some voices have arisen, claiming that it might be better to change the sources of info for this section. That would mean that the trivia in there could be from every article that was ever created here, regardless of age. Using this policy would make room for witty, interesting trivia in that section, but it would also rob recently created articles of their base to be showcased.

This proposal's purpose is to give those arisen voices a chance to be heard, as well as potential opposing voices to arise as well.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Edofenrir}} (Inspired by {{User|Stooben Rooben}} and {{User|Walkazo}}) Deadline: October 17. 2009, 8:00 pm.

Put trivia from every article ever created in that section

 * 1) I think this is a good idea. Making the trivia section longer will help the main page to be less lopsided (Every time we switch featured articles, or get a new piece of recent news, it looks weird.) I'm all for beefing up the main page.
 * 2) - Per Funky.
 * 3) &mdash; As I said on this page, all articles (whether they're old or new) have interesting content that users may not even be aware of.
 * 4) - I'm trying to make a point against discrimination here. On the FI page with that SMB nom, in my above proposal with the allow non-mario characters thing and now here. I can not take some articles being singled out from other articles and I won't.
 * 5) - Ok, here goes my vote. I want the trivia in that template to be wittier, therefore a bigger source might be helpful.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - As I said in the original discussion, old subjects still have lots of interesting trivia to offer. New subjects get enough press without Did You Know?, so using the template to unearth obscure facts would be more worthwhile an endeavour.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) -Per all

Comments
I will leave this proposal here first and vote later on. -

FunkyK38: You know that this proposal just deals with where the trivia parts will be taken from, do you? The change will not affect how long the main page will be. Maybe I should rewrite that part. It's misleading... -

Well, that does help, but the main page does look a bit lopsided. Maybe you could make the trivia a bit longer, too? Just for when we are lacking in information on one side. To make it look better. I'm still behind you on this, though.
 * I could try to adjust it within my possibilities, but the mainpage's appearance also depends on the five other templates. If one of these template gets changed, the adjustment will be in vain again...
 * Well, if we need to fix it, we can. I'm only saying we put more trivia in to even things out.

I like the idea of using only the most recent articles as a source for the Did You Know section. However, I think that if there's really not enough notable facts in the most recent articles, we should take them from other articles as well. But the main focus should still lie on our new articles, in my opinion.

Edofenrir: If this proposal passes, could you (or whoever is going to update the section) still prefer more recent articles over older ones? That would be cool. But that's just my opinion and it's your job, so it's your decision of course.
 * I could of course check the newest articles for witty trivia, before checking older ones, if that is wished. -

}}

Definition of "Administrators"
PATROLLERS ARE ADMINISTRATORS 10-0

I feel this is an important matter, due to a recent debate that a few of our users are having, I feel it is time to redefine the term "administrators". Some are saying that Administrators are confined to Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards. Others are saying that Patrollers should be included as well. I am in support of the latter, since our Patrollers help with the clean-up and organization of the wiki as well as helping the Sysops in decisions that we can only make. The Patrollers are given extra powers to help keep the wiki in order, they also have access to a "secret" board in the forum so that we can discuss issues among ourselves. I feel that we should redefine our official meaning of Administrators (Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards) to a more moderate meaning to include the Patrollers (those who have the necessary powers to bring trolls to justice and enforce the rules).

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: Tuesday, 20 October 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per me.
 * 2) That page is pretty outdated. Anyone committed to helping the wiki is an admin in my eyes. Patrollers are trusted users with the responsibility to protect the wiki from  vandalism. How can I not think of them as admins?
 * 3) - In my opinion, patrollers are semi-admins, which makes them basically admins too, even if just lower-ranked ones.
 * 4) - Lemme show you my views: Admin = Patroller, Sysop, Bureaucrat, Steward . Patroller = Patroller . Sysop = Sysop . Bureaucrat = Bureaucrat + Sysop . Steward = Interwiki, Steward, Widget Editor, Mayor. See how that works out?
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) &mdash; Per SMB. Patrollers are users that are trusted enough to block vandals on the wiki. I see no harm in allowing them free reign to remove unnecessary support votes. (Though, I still think removing support votes is rather silly.) If anything gets too out of hand, it can be taken care of.
 * 7) - Per all. "Sysop" can already be used to describe Sysops and up (since all the higher ranks keep their Sysop rank, they still count as Sysops), so "Administrator" is just a superfluous synonym as it is now.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all

Comments
I would support that, but what I don't like about this proposal is that it has quite a huge impact on a previous one. It said that any admin is allowed to remove support votes from FA nominations they think are "invalid". In the comments section of said proposal, Marioguy1, Edofenrir and I agreed that admins are sysops and bureaucrats only, excluding patrollers. Who knows how many people who supported that proposal did so because they believed only sysops and bureaucrats would get the privilege? If the definition of "admin" is immediately changed now, that's hardly fair. I know it sounds like I'm just annoyed by the proposal's outcome, but I hope you see my point.
 * I see your point, indeed, but I doubt it would make any difference if only sysops could enforce that removals, or if patrollers could do that as well. If I recall correctly, Stooben Rooben said something about that even regular users should be allowed to do that, something I would encourage as long as someone looks over. As ordered by the page Knive posted, sysops are urged to not place themselves too high above regular users, so they shan't place themselves over patrollers as well. Therefore I see no problem in this proposal, even if it minorly affects a previous one. -
 * My philosophy has always been that users should have equal rights to that of the Administrators. (As long as it doesn't pertain to Administrative matters, of course.) --

The FA policy should actually be updated to reflect the new terminology if this passes: just say "Sysops" instead of "Administrators" and it'll mean the same thing. Personally, I'm neutral as to whether patrollers should or shouldn't be allowed to remove FA votes (though I am leaning towards Stooben's equal rights mantra), but I do feel that granting them that ability based on a terminology quibble is a tad slimy; the honest thing to do would be to decide "yes" or "no" in a discussion that is separate from any naming pretenses. -
 * This is actually based on a trivial argument that was between Time Q and Tucayo, whether Patrollers are considered Administrators and are allowed the same editing rights as Sysops. I meant no sliminess when I posted this proposal (I'm sure you don't think that I meant to), and I actually wanted a direct way to deal with the situation as I understood it.

This is an interesting topic, especially considering the fact that the term "Administrator" is used to describe Sysops on most other wikis that don't have the rank of Patroller. The latest MediaWiki version doesn't say "Sysop", it says "Administrator", and that can be an issue when we upgrade. I believe that patrollers should be allowed the same editing rights as sysops, but to avoid confusion, I think we should refer to them as "Junior Administrators" or something along those lines. Thoughts? --
 * Sounds good to me. It would clear up confusion, and Junior Administrator sounds more official than Patrollers in my opinion (Patroller is also a misnomer of sorts, we also have Blocking and Rollback). Also, an issue that I will bring up on the Talk:Main Page will need to be addressed as well (about a possible glitch with Patrolling).
 * Personally, I'd hate to be labeled a "Junior" anything: to me, it sounds like it's devaluing the rank (being a Patroller is more than almost being a Sysop). I also think "Patroller" sounds more official (and I think "Sysop" sounds better than "Administrator" too...). And to make this paragraph worth-while, in response to your your earlier post, SMB, yes, I didn't mean that you were being slimy, I meant that people with a grudge about the other proposal's passing might take this proposal the wrong way and try to make something of it. I just don't want to see any fights breaking out over misunderstandings. -

}}

Platformer levels articles
KEEP AS IS 4-0-9

Some platforming levels (like Super Mario World articles) has whole article. Some has section in world (like SMB3). These in articles aren't short, but they sound like walkthroughs (Donut Ghost House). Also they contain basic errors (for example in Iggy's Castle we hear "Hitting the Yellow P-Switch will cover up some of the holes in the ground."). Where is yellow P-Switch? SMW has only Blue and Gray P-Switches.

{{scroll box|content= Propeser: {{User|era64}} Deadline: October 14th, 2009 17:00PM Extended: October 21st, 2009 17:00PM

Each world article contains all levels in world

 * 1) - Merging the levels into the worlds would streamline navigation and cut back on stubs and red links. Yes, there are many good level articles, and yes, with enough effort they can all be good, but that's a long way away, and in the meantime, the case-by-case policy isn't cutting it: it just looks sloppy. Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki or undo what hard work has been done - it would simply move the level pages in their entirety (templates and all) to sections of the world articles. There shouldn't be a stigma about whether or not something gets a page: the important thing is the information, not the presentation. Also, I personally disagree with the name-vs-number rationale: just because a level (or anything else, for that matter) has a name shouldn't mean it is any more pageworthy than one which happens to be identified with numbers instead of words: that merely reflects the arbitrary style the designers decided to go with for that particular title. In a perfect world everything (both named and numbered) would have an article, but we're not there yet, and merging would make that less apparent.
 * 2) Walkazo's sounds more reasonable. If we expand these sections, they can end up being split later.
 * 3) As Walkazo said it is about the information. If the levels have little information on them it's much easier to read a comprehensive list than to have to click on each one individually.
 * 4) - I'm going to have to agree that we are getting biased about articles with names vs. numbers.

Continue like is actually

 * Probably this isn't the best solution actually, but IMO it's the best we can do now. Even if I'd love to see in-depth articles on Mario levels, I guess it's okay to merge some of them in world articles (as we do with the Super Mario Bros. games and probably more). But levels in more recent games are often complex enough to give them separate articles (especially if they are named, not just "World 1-2", but actual names. Those in Super Mario World are actual names for me as well). To sum it up: I think "case by case" is the solution here, rather than a general decision.
 * 1) - Sorry but as another user said before me: If something 'aint broken, don't fix it! These articles just need some help.
 * 2) - Aside from the fact that I created about 60 articles for Wario Land 2 levels and worlds, and I would be really annoyed if they were all merged: I concur with Marioguy1. I am currently at it to revamp the articles for SMB3, and once I'm finished with that, I will take a look at SMW. These articles just need some maintenance/rewrites. Perhaps making a PipeProject would be meaningful, but don't make the situation more complicated with rashly decided merges/splits/etc.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) &mdash; I think the original reason we kept things this way is because those levels didn't have a 'name' per se, like Super Mario World's levels did. Either way, per all.
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) – It would be way too much work.  Plus, the system we currently have appears to be working.
 * 7) - Per Time Q. Also, I'd like the Yoshi's Island levels kept separate.
 * 8) - Per all.

Comments
I abstain from voting on this proposal. I feel that we need a uniform way to have these articles, but we would end up with many more stubs, which would take up space on our server as well as make us look unorganized. I feel before any action is taken, we need to expand these little stub sections. After that, we can reconsider making it with each article.
 * I change my mind. I think Walkazo has a point.

Walkazo: "Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki" - Yes, it would. For example, we could not categorize the levels separately.
 * I concur here. I can tell that I constructed my Wario Land 2 level articles as independant articles. If they are simply tacked together, they will get stupid and repetative. And if they are rewritten to be less stupid and repetative, then it can no longer be said that my work wasn't reverted in any way. I can also see that parts of my articles get ripped apart and re-combined with other parts, and... I just don't think that's necessary :/ -
 * Time Q: Good point. The only solution I can think of is to include raw lists of applicable levels in the category summaries themselves; it might not be conventional categorization, but in the end, the readers will be presented with all the pages/sections that they're looking for, so it'll still get the job done - and it could even do it better than the straight categories, as we'll have more control on the organization of the data. Instead of having the levels all mixed up, as they are now, we could subdivide the list of levels into their parent games. See here for an example of what I mean and some more justification.
 * Edofenrir: it's more like it would be forcing you (or someone else) to rewrite all your hard work - but infoboxes and much of the text will stay, as will the information itself - which is the biggest part of anyone's contributions. Rewrites are a way of life on any database, as is trimming back on repetition; it's painful, but it's necessary if it'll present the info in an clearer, more concise way.
 * I also thought of two more arguments for merging. The first is minor: in plot-driven games, the story would flow much better if it were all on one page, whereas there has to be short recaps on the individual level pages (at times). The second is also about continuity between articles: none of the missions or episodes ("levels" by any other name) of the 3D titles (Super Mario 64 etc.) have individual pages - a point always seems to be ignored when these debates comes up. The only difference is that the 3D episodes take place in exactly the same area of a world (give or take enemies and interchangeably reachable/unreachable obstacle courses, platforms, planets - and other things like that), whereas the 2D games are spread out in different areas of a world. Is that enough of a difference to continue splitting one genre while merging the other? -
 * I actually think that 2D platformers and 3D platformaers are hard to compare. I disagree with the comparison "Course = World" and "Mission = Level" for different reasons.


 * The first one is the one you mentioned already: The setting in a course is always the same, while only the objectives differ. A level is an independant instance. You can f.e. not play two levels at once. In Super Mario 64 however, you enter a course and have access to the objectives of every mission from the start. If you compare missions with levels, that would mean you play six levels at once in that game.


 * The second reason is: Take a look at Super Mario World. The game is notable for it's branching level system, and many levels have more than one exit, hence you can complete them in more than one way, which gains you different results. If we regard your objection here (different missions throughout an instance equals different levels), that would mean we have to split many of the SMW level articles, just because you can complete them in two ways. I think that would not be meaningful. -

Bloc Partier: If you vote for the third option, all Wario Land world articles would be kept as well. May I ask why you prefer the first option?
 * Hmmm true. I just now thought about the Yoshi's Island levels. I would definitely like those separate. Thanks for the clearing up there. --

Ah, something that popped into my mind just now. Merging levels into the world article isn't always a warrant for good, non-gameguidish articles. Look at this one for example. It shows us the same flaws the proposal tries to attach with single articles. One of the main reasons for merging this articles, the improvement of quality, seems to be forfeit with this. Please take this into account before giving a final vote. -
 * That is a pretty heinous world article... While it's true that bad writing can crop up at every level, at least on world articles, the re-writers won't be as pressured to keep the sections as long as if an entire article depended on it (no matter how you justify it, halving an page is still halving a page, and a lot of people balk at that prospect). Like Bloc Partier, I'm basing my opinions mostly on what I've seen with Yoshi's Island: half five-page walkthroughs, half five-line stubs, both of which require hours of work to fix-up. Rewriting each and every YI page is even more daunting a task than fixing Pipe Land; the difference is, Pipe Land can be trimmed at first to make it less of an eyesore and re-expanded/expanded at a later date whereas the individual pages will not stand up on their own if they're stripped down to stubs and left for a few days. The obvious solution is to do your research before even trying to tackle the pages, but unfortunately, only the really dedicated writers will do that sort of thing (plus, doing things in steps is simply easier, no matter how good an editor you are). As for your earlier point about the SMW levels, you do have a point - I was just saying how, superficially, someone might think "mission = level" and wonder why only one gets pages; from that perspective, merging would seem more consistent. The question is, which way of thinking will be more prevalent. Our goal should be to make navigation as easy as possible for the largest number of people, and I feel that means merging certain groups of pages. -

}}

FA Vote Margin and Requirements
KEEP AS IS 1-7

Some of the FA rules seem like they need work. I think an article needs at least 25 total votes, and at least 60% of those votes need to be to feature the article. This way, not only does an article need a large number of votes to feature it, it also needs a large number of voters altogether.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Ralphfan}} Deadline: Wednesday, 21 October 2009, 17:00

Add vote rules

 * 1) – Per above.

Keep as is

 * 1) - The system we have may have some flaws, but it is fine the way it is now. I think that new rule would invoke more chaos than it would get rid of. Also: Please change the oppose sections header; It is heavily biased!
 * Per Edo. The FA system works perfectly. If it ain't broke...
 * 1) - ...don't fix it. Per Edo
 * 2) Per Edo.
 * 3) - Per Edo.
 * 4) - Well, it seems we're keeping a trend here so...per Edo
 * 5) – Per all.

Comments
Uhm, there's no rule that says how many votes are required for an article to become FA? Sorry but... AFAIK yes, there is. An article becomes featured when five people give their support and noone opposes. -

I changed the oppose header to a non-biased one.
 * Good, thank you. -

}}

Remove BJAODN
KEEP 3-28

BJADON is pointless and does not serve the wiki in any way. We are not the UnMarioWiki, we are the MarioWiki, and therefore "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" should not be allowed here. The only purpose it serves is the purpose it says on the page, "To have bad word documented, the most silly and dum word in the wold!". That is clearly not our goal at the MarioWiki. We are wasting server space with completely irrelevant and nonsensical.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Yoshario}} Deadline: Wednesday, 27 October 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) – Per above.
 * 2) – Per above.It's not even funny
 * 3) Well... once I thought it over a bit I think I'll support(please don't kill me for that). Most of the stuff on the BJAODN is "bad jokes" which people put on just to be funny. Other users can read this and can be encouraged to make up MORE stupid jokes. Mariowiki shouldn't have stupid jokes all over its pages and as I was told, Mariowiki shouldn't be funny, but informative. Besides, I've only read the BJAODN once and I really don't feel like reading it again. It gets a little boring after a while. And I do not think this is a stupid proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - Well, this ill be clearly polemical. I say no. After all the effort I put into it? And it is just like a way of diversion. I find it really funny.
 * 2) I think you are being a bit harsh there, Yoshario. Many users contribute there, and many users would be upset to see it go. BJAODN is kind of like the 'Shroom, it provides some comic relief to the members of the wiki (I'm not saying that the 'Shroom is a joke, which it IS NOT.), and getting rid of it would get rid of a lot of good stuff on the wiki.
 * 3) It keeps users entertained. And when it doesn't, it teaches new users how not to be humiliated.
 * 4) Per FunkyK38. And BJAODN also shows new users what not to do.
 * 5) - removing it would be a bad idea, since a lot of users like to add the dumb stuff that noobs make, it would be kind of like deleting the Mario article. even if it has some content that is irrelevant to the mario series, it still has some stuff related to it, so no
 * 6) Well I see that Yoshario has a great and persistent argument I think we could meet a compromise using SMB's comment below...
 * 7) While the BJAODN may include alot of funny and weird BS, I don't support removing it. Did you know Wikipedia has a BJAODN? So you think theyre uninformative and unorganized? Seems like it. Your going way too overboard. We have unlimited server space, don't we? Well not unlimited, but alot. MarioWiki is a community, not a place where everyone just edits and thats it. Removing BJAODN is like removing User Talk, because oh, most of the time people just say "hay sup" and archive like 20 headers in 10 archives. I'm not saying User Talk is just a place to talk with your friends and what not, because people can give warnings and reminders and what not and help the user out.
 * 8) Per all. I also think we can come to a compromise using SMB's comment below.
 * 9) - I should only have to say "I'm the creator duh", but I'll also add there's some legetimate, obvious bad writing archived in there. If it's "useless", then so is the 'Shroom because it's also irreverent and nonsensical lol.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Yoshario is just mad cause he hates us all now, and is trying to remove part of the community. Besides, BJAODN doesnt harm us, waste space, or put us backward from our goal of haivng the most mario stuff, even if it doesnt get us any closer.
 * 12) - BJAODN is a fun way for people to express themselves and show creativity. Many users may not stick around after there is nothing left for them to do. Users have put so much effort into it, it would be a shame to delete it now.
 * 13) - Per my comment below.
 * 14) "Wasting server space" can hardly be an argument. I don't see how BJAODN is different from The Shroom.
 * 15) - Bah, using your logic, all userspaces and pages including the words "fun,happy,good," or any other kind of positive content should be removed. >:P
 * 16) - Per Glowsquid and Stooben Rooben. While not everyone will find everything funny (as Super Mario Bros. pointed out), real life satire is always better than manufactured "bad writing" exemplars: honest laughs will be remembered much longer. Compared to The 'Shroom, chat and the forums, the amount of space BJAODN eats up is a mere pittance, and a small price to pay for the simple joy it offers our editors - who might just learn a thing or two about what not to do while they're at it.
 * 17) - Per all.
 * 18) - Per FawfulFury. I love reading BJAODN, and deleting it would make Mariowiki a dull place. :(
 * Aw, don't be mean! The BJAODN is what makes our Wiki look like more of a community in guests find it. It's also funny :D We don't want this place to like like 'Super Mario Dictionary & Thesaurus', do we? Who'd want to click on athat link?!
 * 1) Listen Yoshario... If you get rid of BJAODN a lot of users will leave and this place would fall apart! Conprendo!
 * 2) Per all. As Alphaclaw showed in chat, even Wikipedia has pages like BJAODN.
 * 3)  Off with his head!  (Translation from Xzelionese: Per all; I counterpropose that we remove the proposals pages since stupid proposals like these waste both server space and people's time.)
 * 4) - It is worth to take away stress from serious contributing here.
 * 5) Some people wouldn't even know it exists (and that's me; I learned it by walking into this page). Even so, removing BJAODN will make our Mariowiki a sad, monotonous place. I only find a few BJAODN funny, but eh, whatever. To shorten up my request, no.
 * 6) - A lot of things in BJAODN are considered funny by the Super Mario Wiki community, and removing it is ridiculous. In other words, per all.
 * 7) - Per Plumber, who per'd all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) NO WAY! BJAODN contains funny content from Mario series and some Wiki's mistakes. I like it and a lot of people does.

Comments
I do neither support the removal of BJAODN, nor do I think that we have to keep it by all means. I think I will abstain from voting here. -
 * @Tucayo: Despite some people finding it "really funny", that's not our goal here. An how is it a way of "distressing us"?
 * @FunkyK38: How am I being harsh? Many users contributed to their userspace, yet we removed it because it was a distraction from the mainspace. This is worse, as it's completely nonsensical and doesn't help the wiki reach it's goal. If members want comic relief, they can visit the many joke wikis out there.

We have new rules that prevent adding comments, which was the m ain distraction
 * We still waste server space with BJAODN. By keeping this, you're saying that a page which purpose is "To have bad word documented, the most silly and dum word in the wold!" fits our scope.
 * Well, we have things that waste more space. And I dont consider it to be a waste of space. Have you read it?
 * What other things waste more space? And yes, I have read it. Most of it seems to be inane and ridiculous. (e.g. "Madden is a game not in the mario sieries that is football made by EA sports.")
 * @TehDman: The wiki isn't meant to be fun, it is supposed to be informative. If you don't find this wiki's goal "fun", then it's your own issue. We should not amend our scope so users can have "fun".
 * Then let's remove the Forums, Chatroom, 'Shroom, and even our skin. Because we're informative, right? 18:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * The Forums and Chatroom were made so people could discuss non-wiki things.

I don't get it. What is BJAODN? Bad Junk And Other Deleted Nonsense... how are we to get rid of something that's already gone? And where is the BJAODN?
 * The BJAODN is an archive of deleted content that was removed because it was ridiculous in some way, but was too amusing to delete it completely. -
 * I feel we should remove TehDman's and Master Lucario's comments, as they do not help the situation in any way . Also, perhaps we could just go through the completely pointless crap (like the "Madden is a game not in the mario sieries that is football made by EA sports.") and remove it? we could keep the jokes and other things, but not those stupid one line and poorly written articles that have triggered this proposal. And, a joke wiki... That gives me an idea. Let's see how my first idea goes though.
 * I agree to an extent with SMB. I think the page should be filtered removing things like the Madden articles and such that are one liners and completely not that funny. I've also noticed that the latest additions to the pages were very minor. I think the way it has been updated is a much better system.

Super-Yoshi: Actually, that "unlimited" serverspace is moaning and cracking under the weight of unnecessary material, to such extents that we have server slowdowns and such. A certain dager of overload is present. I am not saying that removing BJAODN is an appropriate measurement to solve that problem (that's why I don't vote), but it is not like we have unlimited server space. UPDATE: It seems like I have been misinformed, so this comment isn't of validation anymore. -

Yoshario, what's your stance on the 'Shroom. Most of it isn't exactly NEEDED and PURPOSEFUL either (lol faek news).

Also, no removing of ANYTHING. Humour is in the eye of the beholder.

The argument about sever space is ridiculous. A few text files and some images take, like, 2 MB at most? Purging BJAODN would do to the server what drinking a glass of water do to the ocean. --Glowsquid 20:05, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

People, this is just an OPINION! Stop overdramatizising it and come down to a constructive level again! And ditch the personal attacks. They poison our community! -

...are you serious

This whole "server space" thing is becoming a rather invalid reason for a lot of issues. One page is not going to cause enough of a dent in the server space to justify getting rid of it. Hundreds of non-beneficial user sub-pages does cause a fairly minimal negative effect on the server, but one page? Come on. If you want to delete that page, you might as well delete all of these pages too. (The first three are community projects, just like BJAODN; the next three explain stuff that users can ask an experienced member -- and is common sense, on some level; the rest of them are pages that act as a category.) I could find many more, but I think I've made my point there. All of those pages cause about as much damage to the server as BJAODN, which isn't much. And for that matter, the comments added to BJAODN don't cause enough of a difference in server space to justify disabling users' rights to add their two cents to that page. You might as well outlaw casual conversations on user talk pages if you're going to go that far. (Unlike BJAODN, that actually creates a dent in server space that's "not beneficial to the wiki". If users want to talk to each other, they should just use the forum or chat, right? And for that matter, we may as well ask Steve to get rid of 95% of the forum and the chatroom because they're not beneficial to the wiki either.) I never liked the idea of disabling comments on BJAODN to begin with; this is taking that insane motion a step further. Besides, BJAODN isn't just for laughs; it's also a 'what not to do' guide. The bottom line here is that server space is not the issue here. --


 * Edo: yea we always have slowdowns and stuff lol. I was just saying what st00by basically just said.

Concerning the "IT DOESN'T ADVANCE US" argument, how does this page advance the goal of the mother of all wiki, or this and this? If the sticklers at Wikpedia have dozen of pages on the most ridiculous things, I don't see why we can't have one page.

I also like how you imply opposer to your proposal "don't give a damn about the community," and that it's "common sense" to vote for your side. Mature, real mature. --Glowsquid 06:49, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Bah, stop bein' a flipping baby Yoshario. I can't recall the person at the moment, but I agree with their argument that MarioWiki is a community, not a ramrod straight ONLY FORMAL WIKI. Because the impression I'm getting right now is that you're trying to tell us that you're the only perfect person here.

@Glowsquid Meh, more mature than "yoshario iz evil lol" or "anything yoshario likes I hate". And I am part-right. Katana, ML, and TehDman aren't even active here. And it is common sense to vote for my side because BJAODN does not benefit the wiki and does not fit into the wiki's goal. Oh, and when you compared it to Wikipedia's BJAODN, I'd like to say that that's gone, and they moved it to an external wiki. : | @Electrobomber: I'm not perfect, when did I imply that? It seems that you aren't taking the goal of the wiki that seriously. The wiki is a community, and non-wiki things can be discussed in #mariowiki.

"Common sense" is stuff no one with a certifiably working brain can disagree with. Claiming no one with common sense can disagree with you makes you look petulant (Especially since at least two other administrators are disagreing with you(. Also, you didn't respond to what I said about The 'Shroom. Surely, reading about (fake) news about characters that don't exist shurely fits the site goal.

The Wikipedia BJAODN may have been moved, but the "Best Of" and many individual articles are still kept, which is quite a lot. Not to mention a lot of alternative language (French, and I assume German) Wikipedia still have it as an active project. --Glowsquid 19:17, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

To everybody that has mentioned the 'Shroom, look at the proopsal name, it has nothing to do with the 'Shroom, so dont even get it into this deleting stuff. Thank you

This is getting ridiculous, so everyone SHUT UP AND STOP ARGUING! A strong community is a happy community, and a happy community is not one that argues. Back on topic, we should get rid of any non-Mario (not even partially) stuff that is in the BJAODN, because even if it is funny, it didn't even belong here in the first place. Note: It may sound like it, but I'm not taking credit for the idea. Someone put it somewhere above...

Yoshario:

''"Katana, ML, and TehDman aren't even active here." -- Yoshario''

Well, for starters, being inactive =/= not caring about the wiki. If Steve just randomly decided to nuke the MarioWiki, do you not think they would care? I've been inactive a lot lately, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the wiki.

''"And it is common sense to vote for my side because BJAODN does not benefit the wiki and does not fit into the wiki's goal." -- Yoshario''

If that were the case, the chatroom would never have been created, and all the boards (except for the Admin boards) on the forum would never have existed. They may not benefit the encyclopedic aspect of the wiki, but they do benefit the communicative part of it. Besides, it's not like it's doing any harm. If it were actually posing a threat to the site, then it would be smart to get rid of it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Now, I will agree that the Yoshario-hate in this proposal is outlandish. (Although, most of it seems to be gone now.) He made a proposal you don't like; get over it. Not everyone has to have the same point of view to get along.

Tucayo: We weren't saying that The 'Shroom is a waste of space; we were using it as an example of why BJAODN should stay. (Or at least, I was.) --

@Stooben Rooben: The chatroom and forum were created as an alternative to the wiki where you can talk about whatever you want. For example, we don't talk about Mario on Talk:Mario, we talk about the article, and direct Mario-related discussion to the forum.

"Well, for starters, being inactive =/= not caring about the wiki. If Steve just randomly decided to nuke the MarioWiki, do you not think they would care? I've been inactive a lot lately, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the wiki."

Even so, it the ones who aren't active on the wiki vote something like "BJAODN is all I read on the wiki". He didn't say it were the articles were all he reads, and contributes to, he said BJAODN.

Yoshario: I read BJAODN because I can't contribute to Mariowiki. I don't have many Mario games, and there's already good articles on them. >_> I don't really care about the wiki a ton, but I'm allowed to have an opinion, right? My opinion is that we should keep BJAODN. Katana
 * I never said you weren't allowed to have an opinion. But the vote you are "per-ing" says :"No way! The BJAODN is too funny to delete! It's amazing what people will write!". The wiki is not meant to be funny, it is meant to be a free encyclopedia about Mario. Perhaps we could have a "What not to do" page, instead of BJAODN. It would serve the purpose of explaining "what not to do" better, and be more understandable.

Actually Yoshario, people are more likely to learn "what not to do" by examples, so BJAODN isn't all that bad. I also agree with Hyper Guy, on the statement that we are not the "Super Mario Dictionary" (or something like that.) And even though MarioWiki has social and humorous touches, you don't see the actual articles being crap, now do you?

Actually, the Manual of Style has better examples than BJAODN. "It's Halloween. Mario and friends are thinking it's going to it's a scary night.Until the mummy of Toadsworth's brother returns to haunt the Living. " is less helpful than an in-depth guide on how to start an article. For example, if a user wanted to know what should be bolded, BJAODN wouldn't be a good guide since words are randomly bolded there.
 * Primo, BJAODN is an archive of 'what not to do, comparing it with a page specifically meant to help out new users is sily. --Glowsquid 21:23, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

WILL YOU JUST SHUT UP AND LEAVE BJAODN ALONE!

I just removed some votes that lacked valid reasons. Also, stop being so immature, guys. Some of you are acting as if Yoshario was proposing to destroy the wiki. It's only about a single page that hasn't even been here for that long and the wiki worked perfectly before we had the page as well. You don't have to agree with him, but there's no need to shout at him or accusing him of "hating" us or BS like that.

I agree with Time Q. Yoshario hasn't proposed something so hideous and terrible that it's going to kills everyone if it gets proposed, so give him a break. Although I don't agree with it, Yoshario is entitled to his own opinion, and he doesn't deserve to get shot down by the opposers. So GIVE HIM A BREAK!

This discussion is a disgrace to our community... deplorable... -

I completely agree with the above three people. It's not like Yoshario is doing anything wrong. There's nothing I hate seeing more than the community getting completely irrational over different viewpoints. --

"I never said you weren't allowed to have an opinion. But the vote you are "per-ing" says :"No way! The BJAODN is too funny to delete! It's amazing what people will write!" Or, you're just making up crap to make it look like she's wrong. She never said those things; and I know she didn't imply them. I'm going to continie this because as a said before, "A strong community is a happy community, and a happy community is not one that argues."
 * Uh, dude. Look at the sixteenth vote. "Fawfulfury65 (Talk) No way! The BJAODN is too funny to delete! It's amazing what people will write!"
 * What? Is there something wrong with my vote?
 * "Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" From what I see, that vote isn't really strong. Our goal isn't to be funny, it's provide a complete Mario encyclopedia.

Who's to say we have to be humorless in achieving that goal? The page is not hurting anyone. It's a source of amusement. Even Wikipedia has it and no one will argue they're nothing if not stringent about their content. That said, do we really, absolutely have to have it? I don't think so, and I don't think not having it would be such a great a loss as some of you are making it out to be. It's a page, guys, you can get humor elsewhere, it is the internet. I still enjoy reading the page, however. Honestly though, I personally feel this discussion has gotten way out of hand and am appalled at how irrational some of you are being.

Sorry, but Yoshario is definitely out-numbered. :( Yes, he may have a point, but there are a few users who find things on the BJAODN articles funny.

OK Yoshario I'm supporting now. I've thought this over and I really don't know why everyone thinks this is a dumb proposal! }}

User Game Reviews
NO USER GAME REVIEWS 0-12

Ahem, this is my first proposal so please go easy on me if I do something wrongI had an idea that users could review Mario games which they had played and recommend to other people. The link for them might be eg. "Super Mario 64/Review". I know we have a review corner in The Shroom but it's a nightmare looking through the archives to find the game you're looking for. The users could also use ratings such as "out-of-five-stars" or percentages. Of course the sysops could remove pointless negative reviews such as "this game sucked and I disliked it for no apparent reason".

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Yoshi Koshi Moshi}} Deadline: October 27th, 2009 17:00 pm

No User Reviews

 * We're an encyclopedia based on objective Mario information, thus we can't put game reviews in the mainspace. However, there certainly is a way to improve The 'Shroom section if it has any flaws (I don't really read The 'Shroom, so I don't know).
 * 1) - As Time Q said, we're an encyclopedia, and as such we shall not have to endure subjective or biased material.
 * 2) - Per TimeQ, you can suggest something so they can be found easier.
 * 3) – Per Time Q
 * 4) - Per Time Q.
 * 5) - This wiki does not allow the use of "you" in an article (there's a template for it, ), why would we be aloud to make reviews for users? It just seems a bit unfair, baby steps. Per TQ.
 * 6) I am Zero! I don't really care of the pain of waitting for the next 'Shroom to see the next review, since most of them are complete opposites of actual reviews. And we are a Marioverse based encyclopedia not IGN. Zero signing out.
 * 7) This is a wiki for information, not a site for reviewing games!!
 * 8) Per Time Q and all, this should be an informational wiki, and should generally stay that way.
 * 9) - Per Mr. Q.
 * 10) - Per Time Q.
 * 11) - There are sites for that.This isn't one of them

Comments
}}

Quote Box
NO QUOTE BOXES 1-16

Alright, as my first proposal, I want a quote box to be in articles. I feel that people should get a users feel on a person or item when a viewer is reading through the page. An example would be (Imagine me putting this on Chief Chilly's page)

"He was a worthy foe, powerful indeed, but he succumbed to his own strength, and was easily defeated" -Runeon12

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Runeon12}} Deadline: October 29, 2009, 17:00

For Quote Boxes

 * 1) User:Runeon12

Against Quote Boxes

 * Same as for the above proposal. We're an encyclopedia, thus we don't need POV in our articles.
 * 1) - Per Time Q... again.
 * 2) - Per
 * 3) Per Time Q.
 * 4) - Per Time Q.
 * 5) - This will be just another excuse to bring in fan point of views. When I read an article, I don't want to read. "ZOMG! Luigi PWNS!" or "LOL! Wario is a fat man! XD" or "Dry Bones SUCKS!" It just seems kinda ridiculous.
 * Per Time Q.
 * 1) - We are not a fansite, those comments should go on a site with a comment box as that is what a comment box is for. Per the top guy.
 * 2) Per Gamefreak75- although Dry Bones does not suck!
 * 3) - Per Time Q and Gamefreak75.
 * 4) - It's not really necessary to have opinions on the actual articles, but its perfectly fine if you want to do that on your own page.
 * 5) Definitely per Gamefreak75. When I'm reading an article, I don't want to see "OMRG!!! BABY LUIGI TEH SUX0RZ!!! Oioiosdofjsadjsadj blah" or "Walligis gonna beat Marop up!" and so on and so on.
 * 6) Per Gamefreak75
 * 7) No POV in encyclopedic articles
 * 8) Per all, especially Marwikedor.
 * 9) I don't even know how to make a Quote Box.

Comments
Although I must say that I enjoy it to have in-game-quotes on articles (say f.e. a character in a Mario game says something about Warp Pipes and that quote could be put on the Warp Pipe article.). But of course, no fan-made content. -

Actually guys, new idea. First of all, I would like to thank Edofenrir for the idea, let us go with having a quote of what another character said to the character being searched. For example, if Mario called Luigi an "insolent fool!" then that would show up as the quote in Luigi, instead of our fan quotes.

}}

Change Goomba's Shoe to Kuribo's Shoe
NO RENAME 6-10

From SMB3, Kuribo's Shoe is my childhood remembrance of this super-special item so exclusive this world 5-3 and never seen again. I believe that it's name was part of what made it so unique. So make the title of the article "Kuribo's Shoe" for the sake of tradition. I'm not saying don't mention in the article Kuribo's shoe means Goomba's shoe in Japanese. But the main title should be it's original and more well-known name. So what if the GBA remake called it "Goomba's Shoe." It's the little things like the name Kuribo's Shoe and the fond memories it invokes that are like a big, juicy steak in our nostalgic minds. I implore, urge the Mario wiki users to vote YES. And lest you folks forget, it was refered to as the Shoe of Kuribo in Super Paper Mario.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Marwikedor}} Deadline: October 29th, 2009 17:00 pm

Change the title to "Kuribo's Shoe"

 * 1) – Per above.
 * 2) - Per first person
 * 3) - Per Marwikedor-It was first called Kuribo's Shoe, therefore it should stay that way.
 * 4) -yes it's original name
 * 5) Original name, first!
 * 6)  Kuribo's Shoe is the true name!

Leave it as is

 * 1) As per the policy. You can't make exceptions due to nostalgia or people will keep asking.
 * 2) - This is the more recent name.
 * 3) - It goes against policy, which will cause an inconsistency. Per all.
 * 4) - Next time, change Princess Peach to Princess Toadstool due to nostalgia? We have the policy to use the more recent name. We don't go by personal preferences. No inconsistencies, please.
 * 5) - Per our policy
 * 6) - The article always mentions the name of the object as of their most recent appearance unless that name is too long in which case it is abbreviated. Create a redirect.
 * 7) - Unfortunately, the policy states the name to be the same.
 * 8) - Although I love the term "Kuribo's Shoe", I also hate inconsistency. Exceptions are confusing and annoying, so: Nah!
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Most people don't know what 'Kuribo' is anyway.

Comments
Was it called Kuribo's Shoe in Super Mario Bros. 3? If so, then I support. -
 * It was, but they changed it to "Goomba's Shoe" in the remake. As per policy, we do use the most recent name of characters/items/whatever... -
 * Well, if the Policy dictates that, then I can't do anything about it. -

Fawfulfury65: To keep consistency, we'd have to move "Mario" to "Jumpman" then... -
 * Maybe this proposal should be turned into a proposal to change the policy.
 * Are you aware of the consequences of this? The Jumpman thing is only one example of renames we would have to make if the policy is changed (because if it gets changed, then it gets changed completely, with no exceptions!). You want to change the names of masses of articles to confusing aliasses just for nostalgia? I like Kuribo's Shoe more as well, but I won't sacrifice the structure of the whole Wiki for it. -


 * You people are wrong. Super Paper Mario is more recent than that GBA remake!  Remember the Sammer Guy referenced the true title!  In Bowser's Inside Story, a Sockop was name Kuribo, clearly referencing he looked like Kuribo's Shoe!  Both of those games are more recent than that GBA remake!  I don't even think in the GBA remake it was even mentioned in the game!  Was it just a guide or something?  The most recent name is Kuribo's Shoe.  Change your votes those who voted against it!  Per your own policy!-
 * Dude it was a Sammer Guy that was called "Shoe of Kuribo". The actual item didn't appear in the game. It was just a reference to the item. --
 * @Marwikedor: It wasn't a guide, the game itself called it Goomba's Shoe: Image. SPM and BIS only have references to the item. If the item itself would be renamed Kuribo's Shoe again in a new release, the article would be moved, of course. --Grandy02 06:36, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Also, the Name was just an untranslated version Kuribo is the Jaanese name for Goomba. If you want to be really consistnt you'd have to revertt all names to their first Japanese name. (Unless it's a word outside Mario. Changeing that would just be silly). It would confuse everyone and serve no purpose. Lego3400 02:53, 27 October 2009 (EDT)


 * As Edo stated, we'd have to change characters back to their original names like Peach to Toadstoal or Bowser to King Koopa.--
 * Just so you know, Bowser is the original English name. "King Koopa" was popularized with the cartoon series. --Grandy02 07:22, 28 October 2009 (EDT)


 * It is totally daft to compare it to those things. Her name still is Toadstool!  Princess Peach Toadstool!  Just because the item did not appear in these two more recent games does not mean it it not binding!  For example, if Professor Elvin Gadd's (E. Gadd)name was changed to Edward Gadd, you would have to say Edward Gadd formerly known as Elvin Gadd, even if E. Gadd did not appear in the game he was referenced in!  In accordance with the Wiki's policy, it must be Kuribo's Shoe!  This is indeed a special case and should not be compared to "Jumpman-Mario" ridiculous!  Per the wiki's policy, it is originally, and most lately, Kuribo!  That is my position if this fails to pass it is my right in four weeks to make sure the wrong is righted! --
 * If it is made clear that the character in question, Elvin (or Edward) Gadd, is meant, and that it is not just a parody or a slip of the tongue, then yes. But the term "Kuribo's Shoe" was not explicitly used in SPM and BIS. The names of a Sammer Guy (Shoe of Kuribo) and of a Sockop (simply Kuribo) are both clever references to the item, but there is no mention of the actual item, there are only the names of two characters. The translators could just have referenced a well-known mistranslation ("A winner is you!" appears in BIS, too). As long as it isn't explicitly stated that the item itself is renamed again, no matter whether it is actually seen or not (for example, if a character said "I used Kuribo's Shoe to hop across the spikes!", then it would count), the article should stay as Goomba's Shoe in my humble opinion. --
 * I don't consider it a "mistranslation", English speaking gamers could consider Kuribo to be the name of the Goomba who wore the boot... --Marwikedor
 * And Jugem is the name of the Lakitu who used Jugem's Cloud? --
 * As long as it redirects, it will be OK as is. -
 * Grandy02, the simple answer to your question is yes. Not all Lakitus are named Lakitu, there never has been and never will be one.  "Lakitu" refers to their species.  Jugem was the name of the Lakitu who owned the cloud.  When SMB3 came out approx. twenty years ago, Goombas were still called Goombas.  Therefore, Kuribo refered to the specific name of the Goomba who owned the boot.  And it was never changed in SMB3.  That's right, you heard me!  It was NOT changed.  Princess Peach was just saying, "Hey, Mario!  Use that goomba's shoe to help you save me!"  If you said IRL, "I'm gonna borrow that man's cell phone", does that mean the man's name is Man?  Certainly not!  In SMS, when that Pianta in Bianco Hills complained about that flying piranha plant making a muddy mess of things, does that mean you'd have to change Petey Piranha's name to Flying Piranha Plant (if, for argument's sake, the pianta had mentioned it after his name was mentioned, which he did, as his name was only mentioned in the Shine screen title.  Petey has appeared in several sports spin-offs since then).  The official title is still Kuribo's Shoe.  -
 * I believe you all missed my point. If we went with Kuribo's Shoe we would have to call Bowser "Koopa", the entire species of Koppa Nokonoko and so on. Kuribo is the Japanese name of all Goombas. The translators simply overlooked this when translating SMB3 and accidentally left it as Koribo's shoe instead of Goomba's Shoe and corrected their mistake when it was rereleased. Jugem's cloud also got overlooked and Jugem is the Japanese name for all Lakitu, not of the ones who ride on the cloud. Therefore, if you put the English name of the species that use these items in like they forgot to do and later fixed, the items would read Goonba's Shoe and Lakitu's Cloud. The point I'm trying to make here is, this is an English language wiki, therefore, the English name takes precedent over something that was left untranslated. Lego3400 01:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

It may be an official title, but it's outdated, according to our policy. The most recent official title – that has actually been used as the item's name, not just a reference to it – is "Goomba's Shoe". --

You know what I think? Move Goomba's Shoe to Goomba Shoe. It's absolutely ridiculous in spelling. If for example, it is not right to say Mario's Goomba's Shoe. Or is it, huh? }}