Talk:Squarp Hole

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia

Merge Squarp Hole with Squirps[edit]

Settledproposal.svg This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

Squarp Hole is a stub to which little if any information can be added. I think that the information in that article would fit better as part of the Squirps article since Squirps mentions that he invented "squarping." Besides, the Squirps article mentions that Squirps is used as a gun for much of Chapter 4. The creation of Squarp Holes is another ability of his.

Proposer: Mario4Ever (talk)
Deadline: March 31, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Support[edit]

  1. Mario4Ever (talk) Per my proposal.
  2. Reddragon19k (talk) Per him! This is a good time to merge!

Oppose[edit]

  1. Reversinator (talk) They're completely different things! Yeah, he "invented" it, but that's no reason for the two to be merged. Also, just becaus it's a stub doesn't mean we have to merge it. We are supposed to expand it, not shout "Merge! Merge! Merge!" at stubs. No offense, but I find it annoying when people think like that.
  2. Phoenix (talk) Yeah, I don't think so, they're way too different. That'd be like merging F.L.U.D.D. with E. Gadd because he invented it...
  3. Bowser's luma (talk) Per both of them up there.
  4. Bop1996 (talk) Per my comment.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Per Phoenix
  6. SWFlash (talk) Per Bowser's luma.
  7. Mario jc (talk) Per all.
  8. FourPaperHeroes (talk) Per all.
  9. Yoshiwaker (talk) We could probably merge with Outer Space, but not with Squirps
  10. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) Per Reversinator
  11. New Super Mario (talk) They are totally different.
  12. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
  13. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
  14. Magikrazy51 (talk) Do you want to merge all of the microgames in WarioWare to WarioWare Inc., too? They invented those microgames.
  15. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  16. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per all.

Comments[edit]

Reversinator, this proposal wouldn't exist if I thought more information could be added to the article. Merging for me is always a last resort, and I think this is a better option than simply deleting the article, as the information within is relevant to the game. Mario4Ever (talk)

@Phoenix The difference between this and F.L.U.D.D. is that the latter plays a more prominent role in the games in which it is featured, allowing for a plethora of information to be included in its article, and is thus not a stub. Mario4Ever (talk)

So because Squarp Hole is minor, that's another reason it should be merged? And I haven't played SPM in a while, but couldn't more info be added by saying exactly where they are found, a brief description of it and where the squarp holes take you to? Reversinator (talk)
It should be merged not because it is minor, but because little to no information can be added, or at least not enough to unstubify it. It's already mentioned in the current article that they are found in chapters 4-1 and 4-3. I suppose information could be added pertaining to where the squarp holes take you, but these areas are minor, and the Squarp Hole pathways are convoluted. Back when I played it, it took me about thirty minutes to an hour to figure out where I was supposed to go, and if we were to add that information, we'd have to add walkthrough information for every level of SPM. Mario4Ever (talk)
@Mario4Ever: I'm pretty sure we could add more information about where they are found. Just off the top of my head, you could add information on how it might have been created, some information on how it is similar to something like warp pipes, and you could add more information about the environment it appears in without making it a walkthrough, because, after all, giving some examples of the use of an object seems to be a fairly common thing on this wiki. As far as I'm concerned, if I spent 30 minutes of a video game using something over and over again, I'd want to see everything I could about it, and I do. Also, as Reversinator said, the stub template is there until all the available information has been put on the page. To summarize, more information can be added without making it a walkthrough, so your argument is invalid. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 20:56, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

"Squarp Hole is a stub to which little if any information can be added". That doesn't make it a stub anymore if that is the case, since stubs lack sufficient information rather than having its current length. Much more information can be added in the article, though, so that is why it is a stub. BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C)

Exactly, I really did come up with the information up there off the top of my head (I did play SPM recently, so that might be part of it). I think it was Arend on the splitting DCK enemies and Reversinator here that said that people always think "merge, merge, merge" whenever they see a stub, instead of adding all the information there was. Bop1996 (Talk)
I hear that point brought up by people that oppose merges all the time. I realize that this proposal will most likely fail, but just out of curiosity, if there is so much information that can be added to the plethora of stubs on this site (thereby unstubifying them), why doesn't anyone ever include this information in the article to prevent such situations as the one at present? Take this article, for example. According to its editing history, it's been on the site since 2007. People have had ample time to play SPM and get the information necessary to increase this article's length, and Bop can come up with that info off the top of his head. (Before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I never found Squarp Holes important at all when I was playing SPM. They were a nuisance that made me hate Chapter 4. If this were not the case, I would have added the information myself, and this proposal would not be here) Are stubs just ignored by the users of this wiki at large? I understand that many people here are involved in ventures that are of more importance, but one would think that someone in the last four years would at least attempt to fix this thing. Mario4Ever (talk)
@Mario4Ever: That is beside the point, I'll add the information after this proposal fails, as far as why no one added this information before, I haven't been around that long, so I have no answer for that. I think, though, that it has to do with the user that made the article, and how many people find that topic interesting. Bop1996 (Talk)