Editing Talk:Dorrie
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 48: | Line 48: | ||
:That's exactly what I thought too. If only we still had the Super Mario 64 game guide. {{User:BabyLuigiOnFire/sig}} 23:33, 2 April 2013 (EDT) | :That's exactly what I thought too. If only we still had the Super Mario 64 game guide. {{User:BabyLuigiOnFire/sig}} 23:33, 2 April 2013 (EDT) | ||
::Well the game itself refers to Dorrie as he and the game usually takes precedent over game guides. {{User|Marshal Dan Troop}} | ::Well the game itself refers to Dorrie as he and the game usually takes precedent over game guides. {{User|Marshal Dan Troop}} | ||
== Dorries (species?) == | == Dorries (species?) == | ||
{{talk}} | |||
There's multiple dorries, they're all on this page, so should we make all the dorries into their own page and this one separate, or make all the dorries this page collectively? [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 14:58, 28 October 2017 (EDT) | There's multiple dorries, they're all on this page, so should we make all the dorries into their own page and this one separate, or make all the dorries this page collectively? [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 14:58, 28 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I know there are multiple Dorries in ''Super Mario Odyssey'', but do other games have multiple Dorries, too, like ''Mario Party''? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 15:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT) | :I know there are multiple Dorries in ''Super Mario Odyssey'', but do other games have multiple Dorries, too, like ''Mario Party''? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 15:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
| Line 73: | Line 71: | ||
:::Bowser's size changed because he was powered up when revived by the cauldron, not to mention multiple Dorries did appear across different bodies of water in the same level. Point is, saying that these are all appearances of the character Dorrie is playing it far too loose. Additionally, why even have a character article if the ''Mario Party Advance'' Dorrie will be arbitrarily split from that as well? It will literally just be ''Super Mario 64'', minus the ''Mario Party Advance'' appearance which is actually a character depiction (even getting its own cast roll ending and all), plus an overlapping guessing game for basically everything else that this article already covers adequately. It's really unneeded for something that realistically only amounts to a minor writing inconsistency. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 01:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | :::Bowser's size changed because he was powered up when revived by the cauldron, not to mention multiple Dorries did appear across different bodies of water in the same level. Point is, saying that these are all appearances of the character Dorrie is playing it far too loose. Additionally, why even have a character article if the ''Mario Party Advance'' Dorrie will be arbitrarily split from that as well? It will literally just be ''Super Mario 64'', minus the ''Mario Party Advance'' appearance which is actually a character depiction (even getting its own cast roll ending and all), plus an overlapping guessing game for basically everything else that this article already covers adequately. It's really unneeded for something that realistically only amounts to a minor writing inconsistency. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 01:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
::::Soooo....what is your position on how it should be handled then? Keep them merged? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:07, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ::::Soooo....what is your position on how it should be handled then? Keep them merged? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:07, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
Besides the generic appearance there's the fact that the ones I think should be on the page Dorrie (Character) are in most cases referred to simply as "Dorrie" rather than "A Dorrie". There's also the fact that they're blue but that might just be a common colour for the species, similar to how green is a common colour for Yoshis or Red is a common colour for Toads. [[User:Seandwalsh|Seandwalsh]] ([[User talk:Seandwalsh|talk]]) 00:54, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | Besides the generic appearance there's the fact that the ones I think should be on the page Dorrie (Character) are in most cases referred to simply as "Dorrie" rather than "A Dorrie". There's also the fact that they're blue but that might just be a common colour for the species, similar to how green is a common colour for Yoshis or Red is a common colour for Toads. [[User:Seandwalsh|Seandwalsh]] ([[User talk:Seandwalsh|talk]]) 00:54, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I think as small amount of appearances as are here, that may not be necessary, especially with the ambiguity of some. I may propose that the MPA articles be re-merged, as they're relatively short with information in what can be easily put in the articles, and from a very obscure game to boot. There's been talk to re-merge [[Mouser (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)]], after all, and [[Klump (character)]] probably should as well, as manuals treat the species as one individual typically. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:16, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | :I think as small amount of appearances as are here, that may not be necessary, especially with the ambiguity of some. I may propose that the MPA articles be re-merged, as they're relatively short with information in what can be easily put in the articles, and from a very obscure game to boot. There's been talk to re-merge [[Mouser (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)]], after all, and [[Klump (character)]] probably should as well, as manuals treat the species as one individual typically. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:16, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
| Line 80: | Line 77: | ||
::::First of all, that doesn't respond to anything that I said. Second, something being inidiviualized is not, in and of itself, enough for something to receive a separate article. It involves the character's role in the story and gameplay (especially in comparison to other characters). This is why we're fine with giving articles to subjects that have no official name. All of that's a moot pint anyways, since their generic names are very much used as proper names for them, and a single name shouldn't be the single element that causes a subject to not get articles. If you tell me that [[Goombob]] deserves an article and [[Goomba (character)|Goomba]] doesn't deserve an article solely because of their names, then I'll call that ridiculous. Third, what if I put forth that somebody of the examples you linked to ''should'' receive separate articles? What then? Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do anything. Fourth, your examples are kinda hard to fully appreciate if you're only willing to give a vague and sarcastic comment about them. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:35, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ::::First of all, that doesn't respond to anything that I said. Second, something being inidiviualized is not, in and of itself, enough for something to receive a separate article. It involves the character's role in the story and gameplay (especially in comparison to other characters). This is why we're fine with giving articles to subjects that have no official name. All of that's a moot pint anyways, since their generic names are very much used as proper names for them, and a single name shouldn't be the single element that causes a subject to not get articles. If you tell me that [[Goombob]] deserves an article and [[Goomba (character)|Goomba]] doesn't deserve an article solely because of their names, then I'll call that ridiculous. Third, what if I put forth that somebody of the examples you linked to ''should'' receive separate articles? What then? Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do anything. Fourth, your examples are kinda hard to fully appreciate if you're only willing to give a vague and sarcastic comment about them. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:35, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
:::::I wouldn't call it ridiculous. More depth to my statement? I don't see why the individual [[Lakitu|LaKEEtu]] in Super Show needs no more article than [[Blooper (character)|some random squid thing]] and is instead lumped with the LAKihtus. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | :::::I wouldn't call it ridiculous. More depth to my statement? I don't see why the individual [[Lakitu|LaKEEtu]] in Super Show needs no more article than [[Blooper (character)|some random squid thing]] and is instead lumped with the LAKihtus. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
::::::Can you elaborate on why it isn't ridiculous, especially when you're again not | ::::::Can you elaborate on why it isn't ridiculous, especially when you're again not respond to the majority of my points? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:40, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
We should just alter this page to make it for all dorries collectively [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 01:42, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | We should just alter this page to make it for all dorries collectively [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 01:42, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
