MarioWiki talk:New articles

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.

Completely separate articles or not, I'm starting to see Memoryman3's points in his various talk page contributions. Yeah, I don't agree with his actions (he was handed a last warning yesterday for edit warring and putting through unsettled proposals), but it is looking like it's completely arbitrary the similar articles we have being merged or split. While the Daisy Blossom talk is very heavily fan worship, our new articles policy doesn't make a mention for every specific article. Everything with a different name should have its own page, though if it does the exact same thing as something else, it's merged. This makes sense for names like Star Thwomp and Super Thwomp, or Unagi and Maw-Ray, or all of the Special Shots in Mario Tennis Aces because they literally are the same subject. But by the standards we have given ourselves, Daisy Blossom, Azure Roller, etc. qualify both for separate pages as well as merged ones. By that point, Goombo should be merged with Goomba because they both wonder into Mario, take one stomp to defeat, and is a Goomba. We also have separate articles for very minor NPCs, which makes it seem like we give everything with a name it's own page, yet we recently cut back on our Smash Bros. content, merging every non-Mario special move with its character. There is also the once and only once policy, which means duplicated information should just be in one place.

Putting aside Memoryman3's reputation, what do you think about this? Should every little thing, whether it be merged or separated, be handled with (better put-together) proposals? If I made a proposal to split Daisy Blossom with this information, would I be denied the same as Memoryman3? 10:36, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

The problem was never about Memoryman or his reputation, we never voted against his proposal solely because it was him who proposed it. It was because we felt his reasons were invalid. I still would not vote for it because it is almost identical save for special effects. I would vote on a subsection in that article, but I would not vote to create a separate page. --MikhailMCraft (talk • contribs) 10:41, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

Same. I opposed his proposals because A. he was trying to pass through a personal opinion, B. they both seemed very reactive, and C. his reasons didn't make much sense otherwise - why else would I have deconstructed his first proposal Omega Tyrant style? TheDarkStar 10:46, October 21, 2019 (EDT)