View source for Talk:The Goodwill Ambassador

==Merge article into [[Cackletta]]==
{{SettledTPP}}
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">DON'T MERGE 1-7</span>

The Goodwill Ambassador doesn't appear as a separate character in the game, and there's no indication she even existed other than as an identity made by Cackletta. I suggest this be merged into the Cackletta article because of that.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Superchao}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 14, 2013, 23:59 GMT

===Support===
#{{User|Superchao}} Per proposal.

===Oppose===
#{{User|YoshiKong}} Per Marshal Dan Troop's comment [[Talk:Black Cat|here]].
#{{User|ThePremiumYoshi}} - Per Marshal Dan Troop's argument on the proposal YoshiKong mentioned; besides, if we were to merge this article with Cackletta, that page would have more cruft than it already has.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per YoshiKong.
#{{User|King Pikante}} Per YoshiKong.
#{{User|RandomYoshi}} &mdash; Per YoshiKong.
#{{User|Toad85}} Per Troop and YoshiKong.
#{{User|Sonic98}} Per YoshiKong.

===Comments===

== Merge to [[Cackletta]] ==
{{TPP}}
Yes I see the proposal directly above this one, but the way that one went was comparing a disguise to a transformation. While the Black Cat was Princess Shokora, the cat played a bigger and more important role in the game while this is just Cackletta in disguise as a part of a plan she came up with. I believe this should be merged cause The Goodwill Ambassador is just a disguise at will while the Black Cat is a transformation.

'''Proposer:''' {{User|Tails777}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' July 19, 2014, 23:59 GMT

===Support===
#{{User|Tails777}} Cackletta and the Goodwill Ambassador are more alike to Luigi and Cassanova Koopa rather than Shokora and the Black Cat.
#{{User|Ninelevendo}} A wilful disguise used for two seconds that's based on [[Lady Lima]] doesn't deserve an article. [[Mr. L]] was a forced disguise that was a different character. Gold Mario was merely a Powered-Up Mario, this article is merely a disguised character.
#{{User|Vommack}} Per both.
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Makes sense. Per Tails777.
#{{User|Tsunami}} ''The ambassator, '''who actually is Cackletta''' disguised as Lady Lima, [...]''. Merge at one condition: everything in this article should be in Cackletta article (sprites and text, the quote can be discarded).
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per Ninelevendo and Tails.

===Oppose===
#{{User|Sonic98}} The sentence had already been issued. They are two completely different characters. It makes no sense to return on a proposal already rejected in the past. Would make sense if we would have more news on that character (and for the same reason they are against the proposed Gold Mario).

===Comments===
Seeing as this relates to [[Gold Mario (character)]], in terms of what exactly we are talking about, I'm wondering if there's an actual standard for articles like this. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 17:42, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
:@Sonic98: This is defiantly the same character as Cackelleta: It's literally a disguise. Gold Mario was a little bit different; he is the same  character though. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 06:40, 6 July 2014 (EDT)
::Also, "because it's already been done" is a terrible argument in a proposal. Previous resolutions get changed all the time.--[[User:Vommack|Vommack]] ([[User talk:Vommack|talk]]) 09:09, 6 July 2014 (EDT)
:::(From the proposal page) ''No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.'' Because the old proposal was a year ago, we could make a new proposal to overturn the old one, as long there are 4 weeks of difference from the deadline(?) and the day of creation of the new proposal. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
::::Ok, it's not against the rules of the wii, but what is the point to redo an old proposal without new information? If some users were opposed to a year ago, I do not think that the same users will support this proposal.--[[User:Sonic98|Sonic98]] ([[User talk:Sonic98|talk]]) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (EDT)
:::::The userbase is irrelevant. Regardless of new facts, a new viewpoint has clearly been brought to the page, and it is clear most users agree with it. Proposals are challenged and re-proposed all the time, and I'm sorry, but if your best argument is "there's an old proposal", no one is going to take you seriously. You could at least bring up something that was used in the last proposal.--[[User:Vommack|Vommack]] ([[User talk:Vommack|talk]]) 14:49, 6 July 2014 (EDT)