Editing Talk:Dolly
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 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Create page for Peach Doll (the one from Super Mario RPG) == | == Create page for Peach Doll (the one from Super Mario RPG) == | ||
{{ | {{TPP}} | ||
The [[Mario doll]] and [[Bowser doll]] from ''[[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|Super Mario RPG]]'' have their own articles. I see no reason for the [[Peach Doll]] from the same game to not have its own article, too. Additionally, this doll and [[Dolly]] are clearly different dolls with different owners so I will not be including a support option for merging the two dolls. | The [[Mario doll]] and [[Bowser doll]] from ''[[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|Super Mario RPG]]'' have their own articles. I see no reason for the [[Peach Doll]] from the same game to not have its own article, too. Additionally, this doll and [[Dolly]] are clearly different dolls with different owners so I will not be including a support option for merging the two dolls. | ||
Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
#{{User|Hewer}} Sure. | #{{User|Hewer}} Sure. | ||
#{{User|Shoey}} Per. | #{{User|Shoey}} Per. | ||
===Oppose=== | ===Oppose=== | ||
#{{User|Shadow2}} I say we nuke the Bowser doll page instead. | #{{User|Shadow2}} I say we nuke the Bowser doll page instead. | ||
Line 39: | Line 36: | ||
{{@|Hewer}} You should make a proposal for it. Though, I'd specify whether you're referring to axing both rules 4 & 5 or just rule 5. If you're referring to just axing rule 5, I'd agree it could be used to bully others into not voting or having votes removed and should be removed for being too subjective and speculative. That said, I believe rule 4 has some merit since tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips being used as reasoning is in inherently bad faith and if you can prove the vote is such, then the removal of the vote would be valid. Though, I can see that rule could also be seen as speculative and subjective too since most votes don't provide enough evidence of bad faith for removing them to be fair to the voter. I'd also recommend making a proposal about rewriting rule 15 to allow for proposals for creating articles without limitation since it's not easy to gauge if there is major enough disagreement against it. It also feels silly to not allow proposals for creations of articles when split proposals are basically proposals for creations of new articles.--{{User:Pizza Master/sig}} 17:20, September 30, 2024 (EDT) | {{@|Hewer}} You should make a proposal for it. Though, I'd specify whether you're referring to axing both rules 4 & 5 or just rule 5. If you're referring to just axing rule 5, I'd agree it could be used to bully others into not voting or having votes removed and should be removed for being too subjective and speculative. That said, I believe rule 4 has some merit since tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips being used as reasoning is in inherently bad faith and if you can prove the vote is such, then the removal of the vote would be valid. Though, I can see that rule could also be seen as speculative and subjective too since most votes don't provide enough evidence of bad faith for removing them to be fair to the voter. I'd also recommend making a proposal about rewriting rule 15 to allow for proposals for creating articles without limitation since it's not easy to gauge if there is major enough disagreement against it. It also feels silly to not allow proposals for creations of articles when split proposals are basically proposals for creations of new articles.--{{User:Pizza Master/sig}} 17:20, September 30, 2024 (EDT) | ||