Talk:Mario & Luigi: Dream Team bestiary

The page is unnecesarry because filling of all enemies's stats in their respective page is better.So when all enemy page is over.This page should be deleted.


 * Can't say that I agree with you, Teknikaldo1, because some people actually prefer to see a complete listing of enemy stats if they don't have a guide or can't be bothered to look at the separate enemy articles. --Zootalo (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2013 (EDT)

Giant Bosses
Should we put some giant boss stats?--Mariobro101 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2013 (EDT)


 * Originally, I planned to under the assumption they'd have enemy stats like those in Bowser's Inside Story, but it's not the case here for Dream Team. Seeing as how Luigi's and the bosses' attacks deal the same amount of damage regardless of Luigi's current level, and how the Prima's guide does not even list their stats -- aside from coins, gear and items dropped -- I decided to leave them out. It's already mentioned in the main article anyway. --Zootalo (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

Rename List of enemy stats in Mario & Luigi: Dream Team to
RENAME 8-0

The other three RPG games have an article called a "bestiary". This is the only one that breaks the consistency of it. I say we should rename this article to "Mario & Luigi: Dream Team bestiary" to make the article names much more consistent. Besides, it's much less wordy than "List of enemy stats in Mario & Luigi: Dream Team". Being precise is the key, and if we can achieve the same meaning with fewer words, then we should go for it.

Proposer: Deadline: November 15, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Rename

 * 1) Per Baby Luigi. It should be like that for the other Stat pages as well.
 * 2) Simpler.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Using one word to describe four words is usually better.
 * 5) Per all, and the BIS page should be renamed as such, too.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per consistency.
 * 1) Per consistency.

Comments
Wait, there's also "List of enemy stats in Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story" as well? -_-; 13:32, 1 November 2013 (EDT)
 * That's why I undid my vote, I needed more time to think.-- 14:17, 1 November 2013 (EDT)

tbh, I don't think such a minor and uncontroversial rename needs to go through the TPP process, especially since renaming it would be consistent with most existing pages anyway. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2013 (EDT)
 * I suspected it would be controversial, that's why I made it 22:08, 2 November 2013 (EDT)