Talk:Mr. Pipe

Merge with Mario

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Friday, July 5, 2024, 13:33 GMT

It's kind of like this proposal. See, Mr. Pipe is just Mario in disguise trying to be helpful, therefore the same character. Maybe it's different from the other situation, I don't know.

Proposer: Koopakoolklub (talk)
Deadline: July 21st, 2014 at 23:59GMT

Merge

1. Koopakoolklub (talk) Because Mr. Pipe is Mario in a pipe.
2. Ninelevendo (talk) We need to propose a set standard to pages like this, or otherwise we will get millions of proposals everywhere like this. My reasoning is that this is simply Mario in a pipe, he undergoes no actual transformation or personality changes whatsoever, unlike Mr. L. Mr. Pipe is similar to the role of Mr. L, (And somewhat like Rookie) a disguised character that doesn't get revealed until later in the game. However, Mr. Pipe has nothing different from that of Mario. It's Mario in a pipe.

Keep Separate

1. Baby Luigi (talk) Mr. Pipe isn't shown to be explicitly Mario until the end of the game. Even then, it's akin to a power-up of Mario: it's a perfect disguise for Mario and it enables him to spawn super-power-ups for Yoshi. We don't merge Rookie (Bowser) with Bowser even though they're technically the same character. What makes Mr. Pipe special is that he also received a unique name, and he was specifically intended to akin to a separate character. That is reasons alone I strongly believe that it is better to keep this article separate from Mario's article. Marshall Dan Troop's argument sums up perfectly what I think of this proposal

Comments

@Ninelevendo: Is that really such a bad thing? If not through proposals, how would we establish a set standard on them? Right now, I think a case-by-case basis might be the best solution.--Vommack (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

The problem with that is that different proposals can have different outcomes depending on the time, the quality of the article and character favouritism. This causes an un-even standard to come, and heavily disorganises the wiki. I think that by one proposal, these different factors will be avoided, and we can finally set the standard to the wiki. - 17:48, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Keep in mind that TPP tend to be lower traffic affairs. Less people see them on average than those seen on the formal proposals page. You'll need to make your case pretty clear (use previous TPP as examples) or this'll fall on it's face. -- Ghost Jam 20:49, 7 July 2014 (EDT)