Talk:Whispy Woods

Merge Whispy Woods to Green Greens and Dream Land
Ever since the proposal of merging Ultimate Chimera, I thought about how Whispy Woods has its own article. So me and Reversinator decided it needed to be merged.

Proposer: Deadline: March 29, 2011 23:59 GMT Delayed Extension (see below): May 11, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal and this.
 * 2) I am Zero! Again, leave it to the WiKirby and/or Smash Wiki. Zero signing out.
 * 3) Per all! I like this proposal!
 * 4) Per all. Whispy Woods is a Kirby thing, not Mario.
 * 5) I think merge. This wiki is about Mario not Kirby.
 * 6) Per proposer.
 * 7) I opposed the merger of Ulitmate Chimera, and would therefore also oppose this, I wish to keep everything consistant. I'd rather be right than president.
 * 8) Per all. The Ultimate Chimera was merged to New Pork City because it was a stage hazard. The Wispy Wood is also a stage hazard therefore should be merged.
 * 9) This is a Mario website, so the Kirby locations would be good as 1 article
 * 10) Per Luigi is OSAM
 * 11) I'm supporting the Kraid merge, so it's only fair that I do the same here. Besides, the mention in Mario im Wunderland can probably be incorporated into one of the stage articles, since Whispy is an anthropomorphic stage hazard and thus can be addressed by name.

Oppose

 * 1) - If it was just an environmental hazard, I'd support merging it, like I supported the Ultimate Chimera merge, but it's also a character (with lines and everything) in Super Mario: Mario im Wunderland, and for that reason, it has to stay.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo.
 * 4) I didn't know it had lines. (I don't know why I didn't check the article) Per all.
 * 5) - Per Walkazo
 * 6) - Per Walkazo.
 * 7) It is not a simple stage hazard unlike others.
 * 8) per all
 * 9) Per Walkazo
 * 10) - Per Walkazo!

Comments
I don't think the article needs to be merged. The only portion that needs mentioning is the reference in the Club Nintendo comic. The rest can be deleted, as Whispy Woods is already mentioned as an environmental hazard in each of the stages in which he appears.
 * If that happened, Whispy Woods would become a stub. Better to just merge it.
 * You misunderstand me. I don't think that Whispy Woods should have an article, but there really isn't much information other than the Club Nintendo reference that is worth adding to the articles about Dream Land and Green Greens, so it's not really merging.
 * @Mario4Ever: The page will probably be deleted after the merge, the merge is just to move the information from one article to another.

Then why'd you support it, Bowser's Luma?
 * If the common wiki populace wants it to be merged in the situation of Ultimate Chimera, which did pass and was merged, therefore Whispy Woods should be merged also. Although I don't like the idea, if it's gonna go down the way it did with the Chimera, this should be the same. It's inconsistent and not good to have one article one way and another article with the same situation another.
 * Great! My first proposal and even those who opposed the Ultimate Chimera merge are supporting. Pretty good for a first proposal.
 * @Magikrazy: I think what BL is saying is that while he thinks the enemies from other series with appearances in SSB games should stay separate, he thinks that there needs to be one uniform standard on what gets an article in this case. Also, you should have some links so people know what you are talking about. I can do it for you, or you can do it yourself.

"The page will probably be deleted after the merge," - No, that's not how it works: even if all the links are updated, there's a good chance that people will still try to search for "Whispy Woods", and so it has to stay as a redirect, like how Ultimate Chimera is a redirect. - 19:38, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 * I agree with Walkazo. It doesn't say "delete", it says merge.

@Magikrazy51 it wouldnt make a stub if it had all the right info

OK
So how do I do this? I'm new at these proposal things.

Well, this is unprecedented...
The proposal was marked as settled, removed from the list on the proposals page, and left alone. I looked through the revision history and found that Nicke8 voted after the deadline, but the margin would have been 9-8, so it should have been extended. Should we just change the template and such so it's active again, and mark the deadline as if it had just started, and been extended for a week?
 * I just asked a sysop, but he's not currently online. When he or another sysop is online, I'm sure we'll have a solution. It certainly is a peculiar situation given the amount of time that has passed since this was archived.... 21:13, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Prolly i noticed that right after it happened but like i said i misinterpeted the rules but yeah it shouls either be nullified and than re opened or it should just be re opened with the articles split


 * We should reopen it, setting the deadline a week after this date, and the changes should be reverted (until the proposal passes legitimately, assuming that happens). Better late than never that we correct this mistake. - 21:25, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Sorry for being offline, but what Walkazo said. (and I see that already happened so...yeah...)

Sorry, guys. This was my first proposal. I thought that if it wasn't a tie, but only one or so votes off, it should only be extended after 10 or more votes. I thought that meant 10 votes on side.