Editing Talk:Boom Boom
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 429: | Line 429: | ||
With the amount of ambiguity surrounding this subject, I think it's counterintuitive to try and separate the content into two different articles. [[User:Aokage|Aokage]] ([[User talk:Aokage|talk]]) 09:20, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | With the amount of ambiguity surrounding this subject, I think it's counterintuitive to try and separate the content into two different articles. [[User:Aokage|Aokage]] ([[User talk:Aokage|talk]]) 09:20, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | ||
:Agreed. For every little nugget that ''implies but doesn't state'' Boom Boom is/was a character (ie. ''SMB3'' NES manual [among other enemies], ''3D Land'' American site), there are contemporary existing versions of the same material that outright contradicts it (eg. ''SMB3'' guide/re-releases, ''3D Land'' European site). The situation with Boom Boom is certainly far from clear-cut, unlike every other set of articles split between a species and its character. Since it borderline infringes on [[MarioWiki:Once and | :Agreed. For every little nugget that ''implies but doesn't state'' Boom Boom is/was a character (ie. ''SMB3'' NES manual [among other enemies], ''3D Land'' American site), there are contemporary existing versions of the same material that outright contradicts it (eg. ''SMB3'' guide/re-releases, ''3D Land'' European site). The situation with Boom Boom is certainly far from clear-cut, unlike every other set of articles split between a species and its character. Since it borderline infringes on [[MarioWiki:Once and Only Once|this]], there's no good reason not to simply scoop up the pertinent information that's been scattered across three (counting Pom Pom) articles and conveniently condense it in one coherent section. On another note, opposers "Per Walkazo" should really clarify their own positions since she earlier more or less opted out of the ensuing discussion. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:07, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | ||
::So it's here we now come to the proposal rule #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.'' Since, some users don't come back here to read the comments, should I go to opposer's talk page to ask them to clarify their vote?--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}}ย 14:45, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | ::So it's here we now come to the proposal rule #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.'' Since, some users don't come back here to read the comments, should I go to opposer's talk page to ask them to clarify their vote?--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}}ย 14:45, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | ||
:::I've mentioned that elsewhere, but I didn't want to press it further. Basically, Walkazo expressed a fundamental dislike of my examination of her two-years+old writing but unfortunately couldn't bother reading the whole thing or refuting any points due to some current timing / TL;DR issues, though it doesn't sit right with me that approximately half the opposition inadvertently follows that example at the moment. Someone correct me if I'm incorrect since I don't really know the nuance or expectation of that rule, but votes stamped before the full breakdown ''may'' be safe even though they themselves rely heavily on the original argument that went mostly unchallenged. On the other hand, I've felt the need to notify others through their talk pages whenever significant developments occurred in my own proposals at least once in the past. It might be fine if you do that as a courtesy, but I'm personally wary of citing Rule 5 to question or withdraw votes just ''yet'' unless others confirm that this case would be an appropriate use of it. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | :::I've mentioned that elsewhere, but I didn't want to press it further. Basically, Walkazo expressed a fundamental dislike of my examination of her two-years+old writing but unfortunately couldn't bother reading the whole thing or refuting any points due to some current timing / TL;DR issues, though it doesn't sit right with me that approximately half the opposition inadvertently follows that example at the moment. Someone correct me if I'm incorrect since I don't really know the nuance or expectation of that rule, but votes stamped before the full breakdown ''may'' be safe even though they themselves rely heavily on the original argument that went mostly unchallenged. On the other hand, I've felt the need to notify others through their talk pages whenever significant developments occurred in my own proposals at least once in the past. It might be fine if you do that as a courtesy, but I'm personally wary of citing Rule 5 to question or withdraw votes just ''yet'' unless others confirm that this case would be an appropriate use of it. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | ||
