Talk:Nitpicker

Split the toy from the article

Template:SettledTPP Template:ProposalOutcome This proposal is meant for consistency with the other toy versions of enemies being split from their main counterparts, such as Shy Guy, Snifit, Pokey, Monchee, etc. While they aren't outwardly shown as such in the original game, the Nitpicker is depicted as having metallic wing joints in Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis and Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!. The Mario vs. Donkey Kong appearance is a bit hard to make out, but it appears to be the same design used in future games. Additionally, the toy enemy is, to my knowledge, not referred to as a Nitpicker.

Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk)
Deadline: February 4, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) As explained.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per proposal.
3. Obsessive Mario Fan (talk) Per all.

Comments

Crap, I hadn't noticed this, if I had, I'd have definitely supported... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:36, February 5, 2020 (EST)

Regarding the above

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.

So, seeing that there are only 3 voters, it means we should wait 4 weeks to reopen the thing, right? -- FanOfYoshi 02:38, February 6, 2020 (EST)

To be honest, I don't think there will be be any problems if we just go ahead with the proposed change anyway - there was no opposition and it's only consistent with similar Mario vs. Donkey Kong series pages so I don't imagine it'd be controversial at all. You can always say that Doc's vote was in spirit. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:43, February 6, 2020 (EST)

Yeah, but the rules say that you should restart a proposal at least 4 weeks after the initial thing. -- FanOfYoshi 12:05, February 7, 2020 (EST)

"Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion." TheDarkStar 12:06, February 7, 2020 (EST)

As I understand it, "no quorum" only means that there is no formal motion to go forward with the proposed change or not, effectively nullifying the proposal. It's not the same result as opposition winning, and as we can see, there was/is no opposition: it was pushing 4-0, and it follows an established precedent. This proposal might not have even been necessary in the first place given how clear-cut it is. Yes, there is the option of making another proposal as specified in the rules, but technically, I'm fairly certain it's treated as if a proposal didn't happen so much as a discussion to gauge support, which I think made it fulfill its purpose. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:00, February 8, 2020 (EST)