User talk:MeritC/Archive 8

Let it stay
Oh come on, it's her reappearance. You're not giving strong reasons for it, I saw some articles that contain info like that before. -- 17:23, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

Retire
Why did you?

Re: Recent anon
They've got a pair of month-long prior blocks for edits similar to what we just undid. Think a permablock might be in order? Lord Grammaticus (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (EST)

Mini Peach
I don't think the difference is discernible at all, and besides, the game itself is pretty modern so I don't think it's noteworthy to note the differences anyway. It's like saying Mario's design in that game is Mario's modern design. 13:23, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Hello
I see you're here. wanna start Talk 6? 20:24, 20 February 2014 (EST)

Sonic pages
Yeah, I realized as I was updating the latest appearances that perhaps "crossover installments" is the better way to go for that.

-Toa 95 (talk)

Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour Trivia
Hi MetricC, in regards to your edit on Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, it goes directly against the trivia policy, which states that trivia information should be strictly relevant to the article it's on. For a video game itself, such as Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, this should only include information about sales, advertising, and other information that has no other place on any other articles to go. Trivia should be kept as a last resort, essentially. Information about a specific character's clothing like Peach and Daisy's sports outfits has no need to be on the Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour article, as it isn't important to the game itself. It is, however, important information about the characters dressing and should be on their (Peach and Daisy's) articles' where the information is relevant. It's better to keep most information about a specific subject in one spot, rather than cluttering other pages with irrelevant information. In short, there is no need for this information to be on Toadstool Tour's trivia page as it already has an article that it's relevant to. Could you please keep this in mind for next time?

To quote the trivia policy, it states an example similar to this: "For example, miscellaneous information about a character's appearance in a game would best belong on that character's respective page - not the game's page." If you have a problem with this, it's basically going against policy, so if you disagree I would recommend starting a conversation with a mod or such to resolve this issue. - 08:00, 30 August 2017 (EDT)
 * To further comment, there was another user yesterday who continued to edit war and readd this information to the irrelevant article. He was ultimately blocked due to his unwillingness to listen to directions. Points about the characters should go on that character's page itself, and I made sure that they already are yesterday. 11:38, 30 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Yes, GameCube games are when many characters had their look solidified. But the information of when their current appearance was set, be it Luigi's Mansion, Mario Party 4, or Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, is more relevant to the characters themselves, not to the game. 11:49, 30 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Princess_Peach
 * Princess_Daisy
 * The information is where it should be. 12:03, 30 August 2017 (EDT)
 * @MeritC While it is important information regarding their clothing designs, just because it debuts in a game does not mean that the information to important enough to be placed in the trivia section, especially with something as minor as clothing. If we listed when Peach or Daisy get a new dress, we would also have to mention that it was also the first game that Bowser Jr. got his bandana design, the first time that Diddy Kong appeared in a Mario game, etc, which, while useful, isn't important enough to be on the game page. If we did so, the trivia sections would be overly long, and that's obviously something that we want to try and avoid. If the information doesn't have anywhere else to go, that's when you put it on trivia. In the case of Peach and Daisy's dresses and such, they have a spot to go on their respective pages, in the appearance section. Therefore, that information doesn't need to be anywhere else. - 08:07, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Yeah that's exactly right, the idea is to keep the trivia sections as small as possible and keep information strictly relevant to the article that it's on. So for future edits, please try to keep that type of information off of trivia sections. Otherwise though, keep up the great work. ;) - 01:46, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

Yo
Didn't you like the Daisy reading gif? I figured a princess fan of all people would like seeing some more personality from Daisy? UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

Toadette run
Hello! In regards to the image of Toadette, I cannot find where I got it online or on my computer. I remember getting it from an official Nintendo article of some sort online a few months back. I got it from  and Tried to touch up the back of her head myself. In retrospect, I probably should have saved the actual source itself. &#34;TheVixter&#34; (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2017 (EST)

RE:Princess Daisy Image
While the image of Daisy herself is reused, it's still a separate image, so I don't see why it wouldn't be a part of the gallery. 11:48, 5 January 2018 (EST)

Re:Recent edits related to a proposal
The referenced proposal specifically involves removing bolded text of page names from image captions. I'm also getting in some other maintenance work, such as removing "|right" from image parameters (redundant) and removing periods at the end of image captions that don't form a complete sentence. 10:48, 13 February 2018 (EST)
 * Yes, I did. Like I said, I did some other maintenance and minor edits while I was implementing the proposal. 11:24, 13 February 2018 (EST)

RE:Another revert on the Princess Daisy article...
Yes, I can see the usefulness. However, according to Once and only once: "you shouldn't duplicate any information". Having the information in just one section (that already goes over her outfits, by the way) is enough times to cover the information. Repetitive information can feel like bad writing. 11:19, 27 March 2018 (EDT)

Re:Baby revision
I also know where you're coming from, but considering I had also added information on Baby Mario and Baby Luigi's articles some time ago, I do think that a small one-off mention should be applicable at least in some part of the article. As in the policy, it is exhaustive and it does acknowledge that other baby variations are available, just not in the same "character" distinction that is very clear when it comes to them. I think that's the best compromise. 16:13, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

RE: Peach secondary promo picture for Mario Tennis Aces
Hello! Extremely sorry for the late response. About that Peach artwork, I was digging through the website's source code and that's where I found the bigger version of the Peach artwork. Didn't really find anything else that was already found though, I think. --DohIMissed (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

Mario Tennis Aces artwork or models?
I added the images of Rosalina and Toadette from Mario Tennis Aces to their respective galleries based on Gallery:Mario Tennis Aces, where those are placed under the artwork section. Do you suggest we change them on that page as well? MarioComix (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

Recent revert on the Peach article (NSO info wise)
Yes? Your removal of the information is not grounded in anything policy-wise. --Glowsquid (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2018 (EDT)