Talk:The Legend of Zelda x Mario Kart 8

Do We Need This?
I have no idea why we have this article, or the ACNL one either. Is it necessary?


 * It's a DLC pack. I know it's something that's like, a new concept to the Mario series, but DLC merits its own article. Like New Super Luigi U does.
 * NSLU may count as DLC, but it was still released as a disk independent of NSMBU. It's more like a separate game as opposed to these DLC packs.
 * The MK8 page is pretty lenghty, BTW. This article (along with the ther) helps to find informations about the DLCs as a whole instead of being scattred around thd article. I also reccomend to do "List of Mario Golf: World Tour DLCs", as, even if the infos ard not scattred much like MK8 (which DLCs comprise vehicles, characters and tracks), it is useful to find just them instead of looking for all the article, which sometimes is useful. I created them for this scope, and this is also the only place denoting the Blue Falcon. Got it? But if you come with greater opposes, I will understand.
 * Yes but I don't think length will be a problem in the article. Since the packs are so similar, I don't see a problem in keeping the content of the DLC in one section. Also, I don't see what you're getting at with the Blue Falcon thing. Lengthy articles are exactly why there is a table of contents there at the beginning. Readers can find where it is there, and they won't have to scroll all the way down. I'll propose this later to see what others think, anyway.

Merge with Mario Kart 8
Note: This also applies to Animal Crossing: New Leaf X Mario Kart 8 as well.

I'm a little unclear on why we have these pages. I don't know what policies we have on DLC (if any at all) but these are small add-ons to the game. Now I know we have New Super Luigi U, but it's really it's own game, but it doesn't affect New Super Mario Bros. U, plus it comes in a disk, which proves my point. These are simply DLC packs, or add-ons, to the regular game. So I'm proposing to merge both DLC articles to the main MK8 page.

Proposer: Deadline: September 30, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Merge

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) They should just have a section titled "Legend of Zelda DLC" or "Animal Crossing DLC"

Leave Separated

 * 1) The MarioWiki should adopt a policy wherein DLC packs merit their own article.
 * 2) - People might try to search for information about the DLC in particular. Plus, having DLC pages will keep the main articles from potentially getting cluttered if lots of packages end up being released. And looking at the two upcoming DLC examples, it looks like there's enough info to make decent-sized standalone pages for the content.
 * 3) Per Paper Jorge. This is an issue that should be definitively decided for this and future DLC, not just as a TPP for these two articles (or at least I assume that's his reasoning).
 * 4) Per all and per my comment before and after this.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Per Walkazo.

Comments
@Paper Jorge: Why do you think this though?

@'Shroom64 By the way, those DLCs aren't small. Confront them with World Tour DLC: that's likely why they didn't get an article, they have six mere stages (that are retooled) and 4 characters in total. These in total give 20 characters (counting color swaps), 16 tracks and 8 vehicles.
 * Well, the Yoshi and Shy Guy palette swaps aren't really part of either DLC, but only as a bonus for getting both. I don't count them as separate characters either. So those maybe can go to the MK8 article. Leave those out and you have 3 characters, 2 cups and 4 vehicles each.
 * Those are a lot contents, that are enough to deserve an article. Also, as other said, some people may look just for the DLC, to know the exact content of them, instead of maybe lost in the MK8 article. Yep, these articles are much clearer that MK8's, which is completely uderstandable due to the enormous contents in the game. I would suggest to even make a "List of Patches in the Mario series" and, when enough, "List of DLCs in the Mario series", but now is too early.
 * Lost in the MK8 article, maybe, but we have a section on DLC right in the article; it's not like it's a pain to look for the section either.

@Trainax Now you and Shroom are contraddicting each other? While he proposed to delete because the info can be found scattered in the article, while you proposed to merge everything about DLC to one section (worser idea). Try to at least decide a way to incorporate it into the article...
 * Uh, no, I never said scatter the info. What made you think that? And how is putting it into one section worse? I don't get it, you said the info scattered around is a bad idea, I think you're sort of contradicting yourself, if you think of this article as a section in and of itself.
 * (Gaaaaah! I have confusion!) I know you never said it was scattered, but moving every DLC content to one single section has pros and cons: yeah, it would make things easier to find, BUT some of the people will find natural have the infos of the respective sections, and not finding them (without accurate look, like most do) will get a large disappointment from a site like this. I oppose because the way they are formatted (these being main article, info scattred all around for quick look and a small DLC setion linking to the main pages) is the finest and better: if you want to merge, you will have to tell info TWICE both scattred and in one section. If you want, I am totally OK, but I dunno if that is allowed by policy. Gotcha?
 * Well, to my knowledge, no place in the MK8 article states which characters are DLC and is missing the Blue Falcon last I checked. It so far only will denote the character and vehicle stats, and nothing but the high number of "this section is about upcoming DLC" templates (which will be removed when it's not upcoming DLC) even imply DLC.
 * How about this, this, this, and this? Not counting all the templates. I think the article clearly tells about the DLC. Everything know but Blue Falcon.
 * The first only talks about the Yoshis and Shy Guys, the second and third naturally clarify which pack you need for the characters/cups, but that last one is exactly the section I was planning to move the info to anyway.
 * It is good the way it is. It offers all the basic infos that one needs. The main article, this and the other, approfonditely shows all the info that, in a way or another, is found all around the article (except Blue Falcon). If one is lazy and doesn't want to scroll all around the article, they can find all the info there. And (as Ghost Jam states) doesn't the policy technically say "more articles are better than less articles, if we can pull it off"? These 2 articles, even though seem useless at first, are good to tell info just about the DLC. One may not be informed about them and be bored to search all around the article. Again, did you got it?
 * Most of it, except as I keep pointing out there is a table of contents right at the top of the article to give one a direct link right to the section. You don't have to scroll down, or at least one or two clicks on the down button. Anyway, this proposal's obviously losing, but the more opinions, the better, even if they're all opposes, so I'm leaving it active.
 * Well, if you don't already know the contents in general of the DLC you will not click the links, BUT scroll down. (ran out of comments)
 * But that's the function of a table of contents - if you opened, say for example, a book on the history of the Mario series games. If you wanted to look at the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games, you shouldn't have to flip through the pages to get there, especially since there's inevitably hundreds upon hundreds of pages. The table of contents tells you what page to start at. Same applies here. If one accesses an article to find information of one particular thing in the game, that's why the table of contents is there. It won't tell you page numbers, obviously, but clicking the links will automatically take you to the section named in the line you just clicked.
 * I still tell you that if one doesn't know a c- about the DLC, they won't click on the contents randomly. But merging just because there is a table of content is a strange idea (no offense). And having everything in a page, as I said I-lost-da-count times, is better.
 * Uh, no, the table of contents isn't why I proposed this, this was because I wanted to see why we have these pages and whether or not to keep them. That point was to counter yours of people getting lost in the article. And YES, I get it. The flood of comments is because I keep countering your points.