Talk:Heart Panel: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→Oppose) |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per Tucayo and I think it will be better if we purposely expand it, making the explanations longer. Zero signing out. | #{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per Tucayo and I think it will be better if we purposely expand it, making the explanations longer. Zero signing out. | ||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all. | #{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all. | ||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - To speak frankly, I would love to see these merged. However, our policy dictates that when an object is named, it deserves its own article. I can't vote in favor of something that breaks consistency. It would do more harm than good. As long as we can't come up with a better and thorough (!) policy to handle these cases, these articles should remain separate. | |||
===Comments=== | ===Comments=== |
Revision as of 07:09, January 13, 2011
Merge Heart Panel (Super Princess Peach) with Vibe
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: Tuesday, November 19, 2024, 16:34 GMT
Well, first off, the page has only 2 lines of text on it. The information here could be put in the Vibe page, and it wouldn't be off-topic.
Proposer: Not Bugsy (talk)
Deadline: January 23rd, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Not Bugsy (talk) Per proposal.
- SWFlash (talk) Per notbugsy.
- Liamroche (talk) They share the same image.
- Koopalmier (talk) Heart Panels are, like, the extension of Vibe. And the article is very short and, while it can be expanded, it'll end up not being long either. We should make Heart Panel a sub-section of Vibe or something, IMO.
- Ultramariologan (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose
- Tucayo (talk) - Different subjects
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per Tucayo and I think it will be better if we purposely expand it, making the explanations longer. Zero signing out.
- MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
- Edofenrir (talk) - To speak frankly, I would love to see these merged. However, our policy dictates that when an object is named, it deserves its own article. I can't vote in favor of something that breaks consistency. It would do more harm than good. As long as we can't come up with a better and thorough (!) policy to handle these cases, these articles should remain separate.
Comments
@Koopayoshi: that is a terrible reason. --™ The 'Shroom 20:38, 9 January 2011 (EST)
Yes. New stubs aren't allowed, unless they can be added to, but there are still some articles needed, including this. MrConcreteDonkey 12:19, 10 January 2011 (EST)
@Liam: But they describe two different things *facepalm* --™ The 'Shroom 16:09, 11 January 2011 (EST)