Talk:Elvin Gadd (past)

No medical experience? Should this be moved to Young Elvin Gadd then? 19:39, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
 * One, I don't see where it says that in the article, and two, you don't need medical experience to be a professor. --Reversinator 14:27, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Merge with normal E. Gadd
Should this page just be inserted into the normal E. Gadd's page? I don't really see the need in making up a really short page for a past version of a character. --Cevan
 * Yeah, I agree. His appearance is short and minor, he doesn't coexist with his modern self (unlike the babies) and literally the only difference is hair colour. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
 * Hm, what do you think of Toadsworth the Younger? 20:53, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
 * Toadsworth the Younger at least coexists with the older guy. This guy doesn't.

Merge Young Professor E. Gadd with Professor E. Gadd
Disagreement may come to the table here, but I have some logical reasoning why these should be merged. Listen very carefully.

1. The babies or young counterparts appeared along side their older counterparts. Young E. Gadd didn't.

2. The only notable difference is the hair. Yes, the hair. Toadsworth the Younger had some personality differences, like caring less about Peach or not having to hold a cane. The babies were more playful than their older counterparts for obvious reasons. Young E. Gadd just has slightly different studies and his fabulous hair, but we could easily put that in the history section of E. Gadd's article.

3. This guy doesn't have a real name. I mean, we could say that about Dr. Toad, but at least he's different than Toad or Dr. Toadley. This guy is just...Young E. Gadd. Yeah, not a different character or anything. Just E. Gadd with good hair that may bring all the girls to the cave.

4. This article is short. It's not a stub, but most babies or young character articles have at least a couple of paragraphs or so. The last sentence admits how needless this article is just to say, "Hey, I'm short, so let me say how worthless this article is in my final sentence". It's so short, even a Bowseritis article could be longer than this article (Just a FYI, nobody should make a Bowseritis article here).

Now that you have read my four points, say your opinion on the subject. Choose whatever choice you like; just remember to think carefully before making your final choice.

Proposer: Deadline: December 13, 2014, 29:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per points 1 & 3.
 * 3) Per all. Also, most of the information is already in Professor E. Gadd's page.
 * 4) No evidence of official naming by Nintendo, fails our standard inclusion policy. Arguments of article bloat aren't compelling as both articles currently contain nearly identical information, bloat resulting from merging will be hashed out as a matter of standard editing practices. Not against revisiting should further evidence arise.
 * 5) very weak support I'd say this is a separate character, but the only thing separate from him and the present E. Gadd is simply by time. Maybe it's a faulty analogy, but we don't have an articles of other (extremely) minor characters in their past selves. The most compelling evidence is that this article is a duplicate of the E. Gadd article, but again, it could be from article writing rather than something as a hard fact.

Oppose

 * 1) They are different characters. The page length is not a valid reason.
 * 2) They are as different as Baby Mario and Mario are. We have articles for younger variants, like Toadsworth the younger and Toadsworth, and the babies.

Comments
Well, I don't think the naming is a problem... Yes, he has no official name, but adding "young" in front of the name is just about as good as throwing "Baby" before Mario, Luigi, Peach, Daisy etc. for those babies, and we can't really do anything much about the name.
 * As pointed out by others, it's a matter of official naming. "Baby" characters are called that officially, not because we chose to. The same can't be said for this "Young" article. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 15:52, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Your last point is by far the weakest. Short articles are far better than padded long articles, and it's far better to have an article dedicated to one subject than a compiled list of everything. 16:17, 30 November 2014 (EST)
 * Wouldn't be a concern in this situation. This articles could easily and concisely being summarized in a few sentences without weighing down the other article. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 15:52, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I think this is more of a discussion on significance. Is Young Professor E. Gadd notable or...? 16:29, 30 November 2014 (EST)

Did Professor E. Gadd and his younger self ever meet each other like Toadsworth the Younger? Was he in two or more parts of the game?

You guys aren't really getting this. Toadsworth the Younger and the babies have different personalities and some pretty notable differences. E. Gadd's younger self doesn't. It's like comparing SS Fawful and BIS Fawful, except with fewer differences. Madz the Penguin (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2014 (EST)
 * But Superstar Saga Fawful and Bowser's Inside Story Fawful don't appear in the same game. I'm kinda mixed on this; this E. Gadd doesn't even have a name. But is that reason enough to merge him? 16:59, 30 November 2014 (EST)
 * Yeah, again, I don't think naming is such a big issue, and like Baby Luigi said, length isn't that much of a problem, but then the first point is right, E. Gadd's the only one character (Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have Partners in Time) who doesn't meet his/her past self. I'm also unsure about the exact validity of the aesthetic difference point, especially since pretty much the same can be said for Baby Rosalina as she only ever appeared in a karting game so far.


 * But Baby Rosalina was confirmed to be a separate character. E. Gadd's younger self wasn't. Madz the Penguin (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2014 (EST)