Talk:Pauline's lost items

There is no way this is notable. HyperToad
 * There are collectible items which award points. Wario's Treasures are in the same league. - 14:02, 23 January 2008 (EST)
 * True, but it still seems quite minor... HyperToad
 * It would fit best in the Donkey Kong (arcade game) article, but that doesn't have a Gameplay section currently, we'd have to wait for that, else it would hover in the air. - 14:07, 23 January 2008 (EST)
 * This affect gameplay, like cheese!-- 14:09, 23 January 2008 (EST)
 * Affecting gameplay isn't always get something an article, Francis' Camera effects gameplay, but it doesn't have an article. (I hope -_-) HyperToad
 * Me must definitely stop giving free tickets to everything which affects gameplay/if officially named. The screen with "Press Start" written on it would affect gameplay, too. We should start using common sense. - 14:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)
 * Not only does this "affect gameplay" as you say but this is actually an item Mario can collect and that it actually gives points to Mario... [[Image:Paperjorgesp.png]] Paper Jorge [[Image:Paperjorgesp.png]]
 * It's still better merged if it can't get over the current content. (a.k.a. stub) - 12:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't Mario also pick up her hat, too?

"I" or "i"?
Shouldn't "Items" be lower-case? "Pauline's Items" isn't a conjectural title anyway; and "umbrella" and "purse" aren't capitalized in the article or in Pauline. Shouldn't it be like Mario and Luigi's father, with "item" as a label, and not a name? - 01:47, 7 December 2008 (EST)


 * Yes. --

Split?
"Pauline's items" is a conjectural name. But the individual items have been properly named in the Donkey Kong (Game Boy) manual as Parasol, Hat and Bag. So should we split them to their official names for naming consistency? - 19:11, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 * Yep.
 * You mean creating new articles?
 * That's what spliting means...
 * But wouldn't this cause a ton of stubs...--
 * Not necessarily.

If I recall correctly, they were originally separate pages, but then we merged them via a proposal because they were all stubs that basically said the same thing. That, or a split was already proposed and shot down. Whatever the case may be, I do know this page's existence has already been questioned and validated; if my computer could handle the archives, I'd find the discussion for you, but I'm afraid my hands are tied on this matter. - 20:44, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 * I think so that a split was proposed and shot down. (Look below. 1-7 already favoring not to split.) Blame it all on Nintendo.

In it's current state, I don't think we should split it. As far as I can tell, the items all serve the same function and award the same amount of points (except for the umbrella/parasol, but one minor appearance in a publication doesn't seem notable enough). Why is this page conjecture anyway? It's not that different from the "List of..." pages.-- 20:51, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 * It basically is a "List of Pauline's items" right now. If we can remove the conjecture template just like that, not splitting it would in fact be the better option. - 06:48, 17 January 2010 (EST)
 * "List of..." implies sub-sections dealing with the items being listed (as with all the other list pages), but the page is fine the way it is set up now, so I don't think we should change the title in an attempt to banish the conjecture label. Besides, it's not like the conjecture template is the end of the world: it's not our fault Nintendo is bad with names. I don't see a problem with simply leaving the page as is.- 22:46, 19 January 2010 (EST)

Split Pauline's items into Parasol, Hat, and Bag
Per the reasons above.

Proposer: Deadline: March 9 2010, 23:00

Split

 * 1) Per proposal.

Don't Split

 * 1) - There's not enough information to warrant three pages, much less unique information: all we'd get from a split would be three nearly identical stubs. It's pointless.
 * 2) Too minor.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.They'll just become stubs.
 * 4) I am Zero! There's too little information on each one to split them. Zero signing out.
 * 5) - Per all. There's practically no difference between these gameplay wise and they appear in the same game. Their different names and graphics are hardly enough to warrant splitting, especially since they're no more than optional bonus items.
 * 6) Per my reasons above.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - They are one set of items, so they should have one article.

Comments
@Revesinator Above you said to merge them and now you say not to merge them.
 * He can change his mind, you know.

Merge???
Shouldn't this be merged into Donkey Kong (arcade game), Donkey Kong (Game Boy) and 75M??
 * Why? First of all, it doesn't only appear in that game/level, so it'd be incorrect. Second, while the three items by themselves won't constitute an article, the three combined will. Third, shouldn't you give a reason why you want them to be merged?
 * They appeared throughout Donkey Kong (Game Boy), so a merge into the arcade game articles is definitely wrong. Did you actually read the article? - 12:14, 4 March 2010 (EST)
 * I see no reason for a merge. These are clearly items with their own unique appearance and effect, and thus have the right to stand as an article on their own. - 17:27, 5 March 2010 (EST)