Talk:Pyramid

I think some of these informations aren't necessary. The Mario Party Advance, Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Galaxy are OK, but from the comics, cartoons, Mario Pinball Land, Pyramid Park and New Super Mario Bros., they're there but aren't important. So, I think those I said must be deleted. 13:27, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Delete this page
I don't see the particular benefit of pointing out "Hey, there's a pyramid in this game! And that game! And that game!" over and over. The pyramids are either background elements, in which case they definitely don't deserve articles, or they're structures that are present in levels, in which case the pyramid would be covered as a natural consequence of covering the levels, making this page wholly, truly redundant. There's no way around it: any attempts to expand this article would involve repeating information that's already and more obviously present in other articles. No, Mario's Picross is not enough to substantiate the entire article, as we don't make a point of lumping every generic jungle or lake into a single article, and personally, the Picross pyramid isn't particularly prominent. Any pyramid with an official name or substantial individualization already has its own article (see: Pyramid (Mario Party Advance)), or should have its own article (see: Pyramid Land). Maybe something can be said for giving the Picross pyramid its own article, but at the very least, the article in its current state has nothing to justify its place on the wiki.

For absolute clarification, this proposal will not prohibit any text from ever appearing on this page again. It can easily be made into a disambiguation page afterwards.

Proposer: Deadline: February 18, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) While I agree that this should be made a disambiguation page, I don't quite agree with Doc's oppose vote. Per all.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Per proposal.
 * 9) - Sort of support, sort of oppose? I'd say just make it a disambiguation page for the ones that matter.

Oppose
It should not be deleted, but made a disambiguation page. And not that just plain tragic thing that happened with. People aren't going to know the exact names of everything, so they'll search a generic term they can remember.

Comments
The proposal to delete Parrot passed, and it too was turned into a disambiguation page. This proposal will not forever restrict any kind of writing on this page. 21:26, 4 February 2018 (EST)
 * Still ought be made clear. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (EST)
 * Still a tad unsure about this, as some people seem to have a bad habit of removing all examples of things from disambiguation pages that aren't explicitly named the exact same thing as it, which for general subjects is bad... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2018 (EST)
 * That has nothing to do with this page, though. 22:01, 4 February 2018 (EST)
 * How does it not? This seems to be quite the similar situation. Only difference is we don't have a pyramids category, which could appear at any point.... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2018 (EST)
 * The potential issues with the future disambiguation page has nothing to do with whether or not this page should be kept. 12:02, 6 February 2018 (EST)
 * I fail to follow that line of thinking; from my perception, it has everything to do with the fate of this page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2018 (EST)
 * As I've explained, everything in this page is either covered in another page or is too generic to be covered in the first place. That's why it should be deleted. Disambiguation pages have nothing to do with this. 13:54, 6 February 2018 (EST)