| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
| |
|
| ==Split Banana Coin from Banana Bunch Coin== | | ==Split Banana Coin from Banana Bunch Coin== |
| {{Settled TPP}} | | {{TPP}} |
| {{Proposal outcome|canceled}}
| |
| I do not agree with this proposal, as the only difference between a Banana Bunch Coin and a Banana Coin is that the former has a picture of a banana bunch on it, the other has a single banana. They both share the same purpose within the DK games, giving them to the supporting Kong(s) to pay up for their offered service. | | I do not agree with this proposal, as the only difference between a Banana Bunch Coin and a Banana Coin is that the former has a picture of a banana bunch on it, the other has a single banana. They both share the same purpose within the DK games, giving them to the supporting Kong(s) to pay up for their offered service. |
|
| |
|
| '''Proposer''': {{User|A51_Trooper}}<br> | | '''Proposer''': {{User|A51_Trooper}}<br> |
| '''Deadline''': October 9, 2016 at 23:59 GMT | | '''Deadline''': October 2, 2016 at 23:59 GMT |
|
| |
|
| ====Support==== | | ====Support==== |
| Line 13: |
Line 12: |
| ====Oppose==== | | ====Oppose==== |
| #{{user|A51_Trooper}} Per my proposal. | | #{{user|A51_Trooper}} Per my proposal. |
| #{{user|YoshiKong}} – Per proposal. The function is the same, being the form of currency. Appearance alone shouldn't always justify a split. And I feel that it would make it more difficult to navigate between two articles, when the subject's appearance is so inconstant and continues to change from game to game.
| |
|
| |
|
| ====Comments==== | | ====Comments==== |
| Doesn't the first rule say that you need a strong argument? (rhetorical) Because this is a proposal for a split of the subjects (since they are already together) and there is no strong evidence for it, just a counterevidence. Or is the evidence somewhere else (in which case, the evidence needs to be linked to the article). {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 16:44, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| I'm actually really confused right now. They are currently merged, but this is a proposal to split them and your opposing your own proposal to split them? I don't mean to be rude or anything, but am I missing something here or did you just create a proposal on splitting them, only to oppose it? Again, I don't mean to be rude, I'm just confused. {{User:Tails777/sig}}16:53, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| I'm sorry if I'm confusing anyone right now. The "Split" template suggested that the two coins would be split from each other, which I opposed. Second, this is the first time I made a TPP proposal about a split, and I was confused about how to write the proposal properly. {{User:A51 Trooper/sig}} 17:13, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :I think I know what you're trying to say; you don't want Banana Coins and Banana Bunch Coins split, correct? If that's the case, we don't need a proposal; they're already merged as it is. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
| |
|
| |
| Yes, I want that. Should this entire proposal be removed then? I made this proposal because LinkTheLefty put the split template on this page and posted this in the summary for his edit he made back in January: "Might as well, given the apparent recent currency splits." {{User:A51 Trooper/sig}} 17:40, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
| |
| :Well if you don't want them split, then yeah you can cancel the proposal. They are currently merged anyway. {{User:Tails777/sig}}18:04, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| I've cancelled this proposal, as requested by A51 Trooper. But as I said on his talk page, an established consensus is a good thing to have, especially when someone had previously raised a concern about the subject being merged. A passed TPP is a good precedent to look back on in case somebody else wants to raise the suggestion of splitting the articles in future.
| |
|
| |
| {{User:YoshiKong/sig}} 20:07, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
| |
