Talk:Metal Mario

This article is part of PipeProject Super Smash Bros., an attempt to improve upon the articles about the Super Smash Bros. Series on the Super Mario Wiki. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the PipeProject Super Smash Bros. page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Metal Mario is an enemy in Dr. Mario 64, at least that's what it says in the article. Paper Jorge ( Need to tell me something? Go to my talk page.·Contributions·) 20:03, 11 October 2006 (EDT)

Good call. I totally forgot about Dr. Mario 64. He is the final boss of the Wario storyline. Thanks. =) -- Son of Suns

how can i unlock him in MG64??™ I'm happy

Anyone Else Get the I still wanna kill myself thing on this page? It's weird! really! User:Mecha-Boss Unit

Is he unlockable in any other mario sports games? User:Gamer2.1

Doubt it, he's not exactly what I'd call famous Marioguy1 (talk)

Split into "Metal Mario" into two articles

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

This article currently covers two subjects. While related, they are distinct enough to merit individual articles and should therefore be split. These two subjects are the metal form resulting from power-ups, and the character of Metal Mario introduced in the Super Smash Bros. series and seen in other media since. The inclusion of the two on the same article is misleading, and may confuse readers into thinking the Metal Mario character is playable in games that he is not.

Due to this, I suggest we split the two subjects into two different articles. One would describe the general metal form and all characters that have used it, while the other article would only cover Metal Mario as a character that has appeared as a distinct character in multiple media. Redstar 15:27, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Split into separate "Metal Mario (form)" and "Metal Mario (character)" articles

1. Redstar (talk) - Per proposal.
2. Edofenrir (talk) - Makes sense. In addition it would be better to merge Metal Wario with Metal Form, instead of Metal Mario (provided the Proposal on Talk:Metal Wario passes, of course).
3. MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per All, I think that the two articles must be separated and have information of their respective games (Ex: Anyone can be Metal in SSBB <.<)

Leave un-split

1. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Leave it as is, what is metal form is going to say, it probably be a small artile. Zero signing out.
2. Reversinator (talk) All right, how much information can we put into an article about a form when the "character" article pretty mush mentions what the "form" article would mention?

Comments

I was actually probably going to revise this proposal. If the article was renamed "Metal Form", then all the other forms would have to be moved likewise (such as "Fire Form", "Frog Form", etc.) While that is beneficial because the alternate name tag is sort of an eye-sore, it serves its purpose and I'm not sure if anyone would support such a radical change. So, I was just going to try to merge Metal Wario here and add the alternate name tag, then try to split this off into "Metal Mario (character)". However, if you think the term "Form" would be more professional for these types of articles, feel free to say so and I can create a community proposal. Otherwise I'll just revise this proposal. Redstar 03:14, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Hm... It's definitelly an issue that needs to be talked about... However, this decision should not be something solely based on my opinion, so hopefully we will get some other comments here. - Gabumon^(talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

@Zero: Zero, please hold off on voting until we resolve the issue of merging Metal Wario here and whether we change the naming convention for such articles. In any case, the split-off article wouldn't be any shorter than any other form article. Redstar 01:10, 19 December 2009 (EST)

The proposal seemed to have been confusing, as well as rather bloated, so I re-wrote it to clarify what exactly the proposal is attempting to do. Anyone that has voted before, or is considering to vote, please re-read the initial proposal and re-consider your position if you so choose. Redstar 22:07, 22 December 2009 (EST)

@Reversinator: Not really. The information would literally just be split in half. Putting the same information on both pages would be both redundant and off-topic, since information relating to each subject isn't compatible. Redstar 22:35, 22 December 2009 (EST)