Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
| |
|
| == A dissection of the state of the category == | | == A dissection of the state of the category == |
| | {{talk}} |
| We were asked so kindly, and so against our better judgement for our sanity's sake, here's a deep-dive on this category! We have good news and bad news--it's not as hard as the lookalikes category... but because it's one big category, it's only ''marginally'' shorter. Anyways! | | We were asked so kindly, and so against our better judgement for our sanity's sake, here's a deep-dive on this category! We have good news and bad news--it's not as hard as the lookalikes category... but because it's one big category, it's only ''marginally'' shorter. Anyways! |
|
| |
|
Line 142: |
Line 143: |
| ::I'll just take the opportunity to bring up [[Sackit]] again. It looks like a thief, it's name alludes to it being a thief, but it shouldn't be characterized as such because it doesn't steal things on screen? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 12:24, December 31, 2024 (EST) | | ::I'll just take the opportunity to bring up [[Sackit]] again. It looks like a thief, it's name alludes to it being a thief, but it shouldn't be characterized as such because it doesn't steal things on screen? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 12:24, December 31, 2024 (EST) |
| :::Honestly, after almost a year's worth of time, we dunno what exactly we were on about with Sackit and Crook. Just because they don't physically steal things doesn't make them fairly obvious inclusions, honestly. They're sticking around no matter what, unless someone else makes a proposal down the road to exclude them. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:41, December 31, 2024 (EST) | | :::Honestly, after almost a year's worth of time, we dunno what exactly we were on about with Sackit and Crook. Just because they don't physically steal things doesn't make them fairly obvious inclusions, honestly. They're sticking around no matter what, unless someone else makes a proposal down the road to exclude them. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:41, December 31, 2024 (EST) |
| ::::I must ask, how is Rouge an "edge case" if Sackit and Crook aren't? She's in the same boat of clearly being a thief despite not stealing anything on-screen. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:16, December 31, 2024 (EST)
| |
| :::::Mostly the degree of separation of being from another series, which given we're already pruning a few crossover characters (thanks, Smash redirects), we can imagine causing some confusion. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:53, December 31, 2024 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ==Tighten Category:Thieves==
| |
| {{settled TPP}}
| |
| {{proposal outcome|passed|1-8-0-1-0|Remove & add mentioned articles, add Rouge/Yangus, no individual Koopalings}}
| |
| Through rain, snow, tragedy, personal growth, identity revelations, and whatever else 2024 threw at us we forgot in the flotsam and jetsam, ''we are finally here to say:'' So, uh. What's up with the Thieves category, huh? It's kinda messy.
| |
|
| |
| To summarize a '''LONG, LONG''' conversation from just narrowly under a year ago, this category has been in a rather confusing state for a bit now. Namely, redirects from bygone days of Smash coverage, characters who only stole things one time and aren't thieves, kidnappers, and even characters that aren't actually thieves at all. All while excluding a few characters and even species who, for all intents and purposes, feel like natural shoe-ins for either being included overtly, or as subcategories.
| |
|
| |
| You can read all the reasons in the conversations above, but to give a quick recap of what we want to do here:
| |
| * Remove these articles from the category: [[Antasma]], [[Birdo]], [[Dr. Wily]], [[Fluffy]], [[Frog Pirate]], [[Fuzzy]], [[Itsunomanika Heihō]], [[King Dedede]], [[Marshadow]], [[Spooky (enemy)]], [[Wart]], [[Tac]]
| |
| * Add these as subcategories: [[:Category:Koopalings]], [[:Category:Bandits]], [[:Category:Little Mousers]]
| |
| * Add these articles to the category: [[Boo]], [[Big Boo (character)]], [[Collector (Rabbid)]], [[Ecks]], [[Red Boo]]
| |
|
| |
| There are two edge cases worth noting as well:
| |
| * Part of this proposal is to help de-clutter the category as a whole; thusly, since we're already adding the Koopalings as a sub-category thanks to ''SMB3'', is it necessary to retain the individual articles?
| |
| * [[Rouge]] and [[Yangus]] are thieves in their source material, but never steal anything in their ''Mario''-related appearances.
| |
|
| |
| We've included some options for how to handle these accordingly, and you can feel free to multi-vote on them as you deem fit. Or don't!
| |
|
| |
| '''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline''': January 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
| |
|
| |
| ===Remove & add mentioned articles, add Rouge/Yangus and individual Koopalings===
| |
| #{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option. While we personally could do without the individual koopalings, we acknowledge some people would want them in here.
| |
|
| |
| ===Remove & add mentioned articles, add Rouge/Yangus, no individual Koopalings===
| |
| #{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. We personally feel like Rouge and Yangus aren't hurting anyone, even if they're mostly thieves by proxy of their source material. And obviously, every other article, we've given our rationale for its inclusion/exclusion; koopalings would be a bit redundant.
| |
| #{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal. I think it's best to include Rouge and Yangus for consistency with the Sackit and Crook.
| |
| #{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Hewer}} Sure.
| |
| #{{User|Mario}} I would just limit the category to characters that are known for stealing such as bandits, pirates, ninjas, etc. which the proposal is on the right track for. Still not sure about the Koopalings since their theft feels like just an extension of their trouble-making rather than something that's character-defining (compare to Little Mousers), but I'm not really picky about this either.
| |
| #{{User|EvieMaybe}} this is my favorite type of proposal ever, by the way.
| |
| #{{User|LittleLum}} This is a good idea.
| |
| #{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Reading the above discussion stole more of my free time than it should. Oh, yeah, and per proposal.
| |
|
| |
| ===Remove & add mentioned articles, add individual Koopalings, no Rouge/Yangus===
| |
|
| |
| ===Remove & add mentioned articles, no Rouge/Yangus or individual Koopalings===
| |
| #{{User|Camwoodstock}} Tertiary option. We could just as easily understand someone wanting to omit Rouge and Yangus since we're omitting characters like Tac, but to us, it's no big deal. To be honest, though, we mostly just want ''any'' change from... The current state of things.
| |
|
| |
| ===Do Nothing===
| |
|
| |
| ===Comments===
| |
| {{@|Mario}} — I absolutely agree with your sentiment, but this proposal is still a good start. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 13:28, January 1, 2025 (EST)
| |