Talk:Trampoline Time

Stub
This article should be considered a stub.
 * It's not a stub.
 * It doesn't have much information.
 * A stub is an article that is lacking information. This doesn't appear to lack anything.
 * Actually, a stub is an article that lacks information or does not have enough information to be big enough to be considered an article. This does not have enough information to be an article, and since it doesn't lack information, nothing can be added. Now we either delete it or merge it. I suggest merging it in the Trampoline page, as it is even mentioned there.
 * Your wrong this article can't be a stub it's got all the info it can have no please stop telling the admin how to do his job
 * M&L, with your logic, every Micro game article would have to be merged.
 * No, we could create a section for each game and take these pages and place them there, thus leaving more space on the wiki.
 * Hey, who deleted all the links I added?
 * I did because they are only supposed to be linked once in the article and also there is no reason to merge this article it's fine the way it is
 * I agree. Now, let's stop this before it becomes an edit war.
 * Hey, he wasted my time. I spent 5 minutes adding those!
 * Yeah, but they were unneeded.
 * Okay, fine. I openly admit they were unneeded. But he could have told me instead of wasting my time! It's totally inconsiderate.
 * Oh, and GalacticPetey? It's too late to stop a war on this talk page, because someone already started one.


 * Whoever started it doesn't matter, you both need to stop fueling the flames.


 * And brotip, M 'n' L: this AND this both sound to me like they're pretty uncalled for, and may in fact start a whole 'nother fight. Even if they somehow aren't, the issue gets no closer to being resolved. So as much as it would seem to kill you, it'd be better if you dropped it. Lord Grammaticus 20:18, 17 January 2012 (EST)
 * Wiki policy makes it clear that this article is not a stub. And yes, Lord Grammaticus is correct that those comments were unnecessary. And M&L, please sign with just, not
 * I want to use my sig, okay? And you didn't talk about the article, so you should have left that last comment on my talk page. I already fixed things with Raven Effect and GalacticPetey, two of the three people involved in this. I am sorry and I appologize for starting this. I will fix things up with Mario4Ever (the last one involved in the arguement) and then drop it all together. Okay? Good. See ya!
 * I did mention the article, so that's not a problem. You are correct in taking the rest of the issues to user talk pages though.

Big Ape City

 * Shouldn't the information about it looking like Big Ape City be placed in the Trivia section?M&amp;L Beware my fury! 12:07, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * No, since if it can be incorporated into the main body of the articles, information should go there. Trivia sections are reserved for insightful, intriguing facts that can't fit in anywhere else.
 * Then the trivia section should be deleted, because we can fit the piece of trivia currently in there in the article somewhere.M&amp;L Beware my fury! 12:39, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * If you have no more comments opposing this, I will delete the trivia section and place it's contents somewhere else in the article.M&amp;L Beware my fury! 12:47, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * If you can incorporate into the main body of the article effectively, then trivia should be moved to the main body.
 * Uh, I'm sorry, but I don't understand that.M&amp;L  Beware my fury! 12:51, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * If you see trivia that fits better in the main body of the article, then move it there. See Manual of Style.
 * Oh. Thanks. I'll move it right away!M&amp;L Beware my fury! 12:55, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * There! I edited it and now there's more space on this wiki and yet there is still the same amount of information!M&amp;L Beware my fury! 12:58, 18 January 2012 (EST)

Too Short

 * Oh, I just realized something! Does deleting the section (even though the information it contained is still in the article) make this article seem too short?M&amp;L Beware my fury! 13:17, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * P.S. I am not trying to revive the "Stub" section arguement.M&amp;L Beware my fury! 13:17, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * No. An article's classification as a stub isn't based on length so much as it is how much of the available information is on the article. By moving the trivia, you improved the structure of the article, but didn't change the amount of information on the article.
 * Okay, thanks! By the way, on your first talk page (the one where you posted the rules but nobody started any conversations) I requested your help on this with a link to this talk page. Feel free to delete it if you want to, or start a conversation with it. Thanks for the info!M&amp;L Beware my fury! 13:25, 18 January 2012 (EST)