Talk:List of Mario Power Tennis pre-release and unused content: Difference between revisions
PowerKamek (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary Tag: Mobile edit |
Time Turner (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
([[User talk:PowerKamek|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/PowerKamek|contribs]]) | ([[User talk:PowerKamek|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/PowerKamek|contribs]]) | ||
<span style="color:red;font-family:monospace">Kamek Power!</span> 19:58, 17 July 2015 (EDT) | <span style="color:red;font-family:monospace">Kamek Power!</span> 19:58, 17 July 2015 (EDT) | ||
::So ''discuss it''. Why was your reaction to start a proposal that allows for only two options with no wiggle room and a two-week deadline to be resolved? I mean, we can still have the discussion in the comments, I guess, but you had a perfectly good header right above. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} |
Revision as of 20:07, July 17, 2015
This talk page or section has a conflict or a question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment. |
Is this article needed? Even if is is actual unused content, is this really enough for its own page? The Empty Section policy would just make this page redundant. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:57, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
What I think is that it should either get more information on it or it should be deleted.
Actually I think we should put a rewrite-expand template on it for a week and see how that works. Do you think?
(talk|contribs)
Kamek Power! 19:17, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
Decide if this page should be deleted or expanded
I don't think this page should be deleted because we have a "pre release and unused content" for every page for a Mario game. Considering this page is about a Mario game, I think this page should just be expanded. I think all we need to do is put a rewrite-expand template first and see how that goes. If not, then I think I'll expand it, or I'll try.
Proposer: PowerKamek (talk)
Deadline: July 31, 2015 23:59 EST
Support
- PowerKamek (talk) Per my proposal stated above.
Oppose
Comments
We don't need a proposal for every decision, especially when we already had a discussion expediting the process. If there's enough information to expand it, it can have an article; if not, there's not enough to substantiate it and it'll be merged. It's not like we're willingly withholding info here, which the proposal is seemingly implying. Hello, I'm Time Turner.
- It says above that it isn't needed because it has an empty section and all it needs is a little expanding. I see no reason for it to be deleted, especially because that reason is minor.
(talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 19:58, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
- So discuss it. Why was your reaction to start a proposal that allows for only two options with no wiggle room and a two-week deadline to be resolved? I mean, we can still have the discussion in the comments, I guess, but you had a perfectly good header right above. Hello, I'm Time Turner.