Talk:The Mole Train: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
7feetunder (talk | contribs) m (7feetunder moved page Talk:Mole Train to Talk:The Mole Train: the stage name has a "the") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
This seems very strange. The Mole Train is a train and Mole Miner Max is a character. What's the relation between a train and a mole? | This seems very strange. The Mole Train is a train and Mole Miner Max is a character. What's the relation between a train and a mole? | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | ||
| Line 29: | Line 27: | ||
:Look [[User talk:DKPetey99#Max|here, Walkazo]]. He states my TPP is useless. {{User:DKPetey99/sig}} 12:04, 6 July 2011 (EDT) | :Look [[User talk:DKPetey99#Max|here, Walkazo]]. He states my TPP is useless. {{User:DKPetey99/sig}} 12:04, 6 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
::Well, it ''is''. There's no reason to vote on an issue that's already been decided: all this TPP has done is force us to wait two weeks to split a page that should have been split as soon as the fact that it feel between the cracks was brought to light. He's being blunt, not antagonistic; by all means, fault him for not splitting the pages himself when his proposal passed in March, but getting hung up about how he chose to inform you about why you should have cancelled ''this'' proposal and simply made the split yourself isn't helpful. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 14:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT) | ::Well, it ''is''. There's no reason to vote on an issue that's already been decided: all this TPP has done is force us to wait two weeks to split a page that should have been split as soon as the fact that it feel between the cracks was brought to light. He's being blunt, not antagonistic; by all means, fault him for not splitting the pages himself when his proposal passed in March, but getting hung up about how he chose to inform you about why you should have cancelled ''this'' proposal and simply made the split yourself isn't helpful. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 14:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:49, August 10, 2018
Split Mole Train from Mole Miner Max[edit]
SPLIT 5-0
This seems very strange. The Mole Train is a train and Mole Miner Max is a character. What's the relation between a train and a mole?
Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk)
Deadline: July 9, 2011, 23:59
Split Mole Train from Mole Miner Max[edit]
- DKPetey99 (talk) I'm just confused how no one else noticed this. A train is a way of transportation and is a piece of metal. A mole is an animal, in this case a character, that has no relation to a train.
- Arend (talk) - There was a proposal about splitting DKCR enemies and bosses, but since it was accepted, no-one took further notice or something. Time to set that back.
- Reddragon19k (talk) Per both!
- Nicke8 (talk) Per all!
- Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
Keep[edit]
Comments[edit]
This is useless. The proposal to split this has already passed, but nobody took action. Making another proposal is just stupid and timewasting. Time that could be spent splitting the articles. --Reversinator 10:24, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
- I don't appreciate you two calling my proposal stupid.
DKPetey99TCE 21:13, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
- Reversinator is right he made the proposal here [1] however DKPetey did not vote on said proposal and might not have even seen it so don't insult him when you never took the time to make the articles he wanted split like rule 12 says Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
- This proposal should be deleted because it has already passed, no need to propose it again. SWFlash
- This proposal should be deleted because it has already passed, no need to propose it again. SWFlash
- Reversinator is right he made the proposal here [1] however DKPetey did not vote on said proposal and might not have even seen it so don't insult him when you never took the time to make the articles he wanted split like rule 12 says Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
- We're not insulting it, we're stating the facts: if a proposal passed, it should be enacted, not re-proposed. Maybe DKPetey99 didn't know about the original proposal originally, but once he was told about it, he should have stopped this TPP and just split the page: that's why we made those comments. Not to insult, but to inform. (It's not too late to ask an admin to delete the proposal, btw.) - Walkazo 11:58, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
- Look here, Walkazo. He states my TPP is useless. DKPetey99TCE 12:04, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
- Well, it is. There's no reason to vote on an issue that's already been decided: all this TPP has done is force us to wait two weeks to split a page that should have been split as soon as the fact that it feel between the cracks was brought to light. He's being blunt, not antagonistic; by all means, fault him for not splitting the pages himself when his proposal passed in March, but getting hung up about how he chose to inform you about why you should have cancelled this proposal and simply made the split yourself isn't helpful. - Walkazo 14:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
