Talk:Dolly

Shouldn't this be moved to Dolly considering that's the in-game name? Binarystep (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2015 (EDT)

You're right. It's also the Dolly in the Nintendo Player's Guide, so I'm not sure what happened. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2015 (EDT)

Create page for Peach Doll (the one from Super Mario RPG)

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

Create Peach Doll page 4-1
The Mario doll and Bowser doll from 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.

Proposer: Pizza Master (talk)
Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Pizza Master (talk) Per.
2. Hewer (talk) Sure.
3. Shoey (talk) Per.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Why the SMRPG doll is merged to this article with exactly 1 sentence and 0 images is beyond us.

Oppose

1. Shadow2 (talk) I say we nuke the Bowser doll page instead.

Comments

While there are other Mario dolls in the game and Geno has obvious plot importance, I'm unsure if the Bowser doll really needs a distinct page either. At most, a single page for "Gaz's toys" might be OK, but even that might be much. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:08, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

...does the current article even cover the SMRPG Peach doll? All it says on the matter is that "A similar doll previously appeared in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars," indicating that the article already doesn't see the doll as the same entity. It doesn't go further into detail, when Bowser doll does, even though there's a bit of significance given how Booster wants to use the Peach doll to practice his wedding with. Furthermore, "Dolly" isn't featured on the {{SMRPG}} nav template (which isn't included on this article either), and no SMRPG article links to here either. Only thing I could find is that Peach Doll redirects to here, that's it. rend (talk) (edits) 01:12, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I forgot Booster had a Peach Doll as well... I guess this is kind of trying to stem this turning into a case like the helmet thing that only recently got split, or even worse back when Jammyfish was included on the Preying Mantas page because a "there's a similar jellyfish enemy in this game" morphed into full coverage. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:20, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

The proposal is now more accurate. -- Pizza Master 01:35, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Shadow2 Your reasoning for voting to oppose is irrelevant to the actual proposal. Whether or not you believe the Bowser doll article should be deleted is not relevant to the discussion regarding the Peach Doll. As such, I recommend you change your reason for opposing or I will have your vote removed by an administrator for lacking relevance.-- Pizza Master 03:21, September 22, 2024 (EDT)

How is Bowser doll not relevant to the discussion? You even used it as an argument yourself in the proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:58, September 23, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer I suppose you're correct. That said, I believe Shadow2's reasoning is rather insensible and lacks merit. The argument that they believe the Bowser doll article should be deleted and doesn't explain why they think so being used as "evidence" that an article for the Peach Doll from Super Mario RPG shouldn't be created is a very weak and flimsy reason to oppose.-- Pizza Master 21:31, September 23, 2024 (EDT)

@Mario jc, @Nightwicked Bowser, @Porplemontage, @RHG1951, @Shokora, ↑ shows the reasoning for why I believe Shadow2's vote should be removed from this proposal. Feel free to disagree and let the vote stay up if you so choose.-- Pizza Master 13:59, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

I think it's kinda valid. It's to say that they don't find the Peach doll important enough to deserve its own article, and in fact don't even find the Bowser doll important enough to deserve one either, as it has a similar level of importance to the plot of Super Mario RPG. I believe this is the case because of the use of "instead" in their oppose vote; otherwise, the reasoning would sound a bit too irrelevant to the Peach doll case. rend (talk) (edits) 07:15, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer I suppose if they meant it like that, then you're correct once again. That said, I think you'd agree with me that their vote on my "Switching Rooms" proposal lacks sufficiency for the reason I state in the comments of said proposal.-- Pizza Master 16:15, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

To be completely honest, I think the rule about votes needing sufficient reasoning or they could be removed should be axed entirely. It's inherently subjective and rarely comes up. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:17, 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.-- Pizza Master 17:20, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

Not sure if it's something I feel strongly enough about to bother making a proposal for it myself (especially since it comes up so rarely), but I think those rules about votes needing "strong, sensible reason" (which is also a bit vague and subjective) and especially about removing other people's votes kinda go against the "assume good faith" principal. I think rule 15 is a bit more lenient than your interpretation though, it's more just saying you don't need to make a proposal for something obvious that no one would reasonably object to, e.g. making new pages for subjects in a game that just came out. Anyway, we've gone way off topic, apologies. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:19, September 30, 2024 (EDT)