Talk:Johnson (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)

I know he haves a name and all... but don't 'ya thinks he's perhap a bit too minor to have an article? All he do is get mentioned by Lord Crump at the beggining of PM: TTYD. He doesn't have any characteristic that separate him from the average X-Naut, no plot involvement and you don't fight him in battle. All the above also applies to Johnson (Koopa). --Blitzwing 18:10, 14 February 2008 (EST)
 * I agree. He doesn't even say ANYTHING.
 * Yeah, he's so minor that he was even added to The List of Implied Charactersat one point. --Blitzwing 18:27, 14 February 2008 (EST)


 * But he's not implied. He has an official name and all so he deserves his own article, for now. Paper Jorge ( Talk&middot;Contributions)&middot;


 * While he's one of the genric X-Nauts, we don't really get to see him. Red is much more important, distinct and revalant to the game he appeared in. But he doesn't have his own article. --Blitzwing 20:14, 14 February 2008 (EST)
 * I say move to List of Implied. Johnson is never actually singled out from the several-hundred X-Nauts surrounding Lord Crump in the Prologue. 02:20, 25 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Not everything officially named should have an article. Some are just too minor. I support a merge. 03:16, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * For both Johnsons?


 * The Koopa Johnson is not implied, since we can directly tell who he is. The X-Naut Johnson is implied because even though we know he looks like an ordinary X-Naut, we can never really tell which X-Naut he is. He is never separated from the other enemy X-Nauts. The only implied characters that stay as articles are ones that have high story/sub-story significance, like King Croacus (sp?) or the Chestnut King. 18:50, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Well the true. Ambidextria

I don't support a merge. He is an officially named character. Plus this is simply a cool article. --
 * The majority here supported a merge though. Isn't this the way talk page discussions are solved? Just like proposals are? 00:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * Per St00by. Nobody even commented right now, so we should have a thorough discussion about why or why not we should merge.

If no one objects to the action, it can be done. But I obviously object. You can however call a vote and after a week, depending on the results, actions can be taken. But there has to be an actual vote, not just discussion points. --
 * Then maybe we should have a poll. 00:19, 20 January 2009 (EST)