Talk:Dark Spin

Is this officially named? If so, it should be capitalized as "Dark Spin", right? 13:24, 19 December 2009 (EST)
 * Somebody grab a Prima guide to verify.
 * It probably won't state it...--
 * It's worth a try. As of now though, let's just label it as made up. Actually, since it's an attack by Bowser, shouldn't it be merged into Bowser's article?
 * I dunno, but its similar to his shockwave attack from SM64 and SM64DS so if it should be merged, it should be merged with that atack because it's basically the same attack with a twist on it.--
 * I never got to Bowser since I got bored of it, so I don't know that attack. Feel free to create a merge proposal if you want.
 * I have a Prima guide, and it just stated Bowser's attacks, the author didn't "name" them. And I don't even think this article is relevant anyway (I agree with Knife's comment below this one).

Unofficially named attacks don't get articles because theoretically, someone could create an article on anything.-- 13:43, 25 December 2009 (EST)
 * So, should we delete the article?
 * Is it a bad idea to merge this with the Spin? 21:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In my oppinion, yes.

I'm Pesonally a fan of the name "Shadow Spin". Sounds Awesome Right? User:Mecha-Boss Unit
 * We're discussing whether or not to merge it, no to change its name. And Shadow Spin, to me, is just the same thing as Dark Spin. Dark and Shadow are synonyms.
 * No, Dark Spin is better because the attack is only used by Bowser in his Dark Matter Plant. Therefore it makes more sense to assume that he uses Dark Matter to power his new attack, hence "Dark Spin". The plant shuts down after Mario frees the Grand Star, so Bowser cannot make any more Dark Matter to power the attack, which is presumably why he uses a completely different attack (the boulder one). 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be merged with Bowser.

Actually, we are discussing whether to merge this or not as Reversinator stated. What we decide for the name won't matter if it is merged (which seems to be the direction it is taking). I'm surprised it hasn't been decided yet, especially since this article breaks the pattern of officially named moves. As I said above, articles about unofficially named moves should not be created because theoretically, an article about anything can be created (such as spitting out fireballs).-- 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be merged; Knife's above comment makes it clear, it is an officially unnamed attack used by a boss, so it should go on the boss' page, in this case, Bowser. I'll make the proposal, or someone else can, it doesn't really matter to me. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 18:24, 21 February 2011 (EST)

This should be combined with bowser, Or the Dark matter plant.Jacob9909 00:40, 24 February 2011 (EST)

we should keep it. It's a move so it should be separate.--Yoshidude99 13:14, 24 February 2011 (EST) I think
 * As I said above, Nintendo did not name the attack, so this is just a name someone thought up, it already gets valid mention in the Bowser page, and there is not a good enough reason to keep the page. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 13:55, 24 February 2011 (EST)

Merge Dark Spin with Bowser
This attack needs to be merged with Bowser, as it is an unofficially named attack, and we only name attacks when they are officially named. If this proposal passes, I think we should leave the page as a redirect.

Proposer: Deadline: March 11, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) This should be placed in the Powers and Abilities section.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) That's a great proposal! It's a per all on that!
 * 5) I can't see why not...per all!
 * 6) - All of the Smash Bros. moves are merged, and this is too short and barely notable. Per all.
 * 7) Yeah, this should've been done a while ago. Per all.
 * 8) Good idea.
 * 9) Per All
 * 10) Per  (I can change my mind anytime)
 * 11) Per  (Sorry for copying that SWFlash but I never knew that was possible!)
 * 12) - Per proposal.
 * 13) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 14)  Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 15) - Per all.
 * 16) Per proposal and MCD.
 * 17) Per all
 * 18) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) It is a separate attack so we should keep the article.
 * 2) Actually, it should be merged with Spin, not Bowser
 * 3) Per Magikrazy51.
 * Um, either merge with Spin, or merge with all of Bowser's moves. A 'List of Bowser's attacks' would actually be really neat. I'm sure he has some stubs out there, and such.
 * 1) I am Zero! Per Yd99. Zero signing out.

Comments
What if, spontaneously, this attack gets an official name? 21:19, 24 February 2011 (EST)
 * Then I look really bad and instead change the article's name to the official name. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 21:35, 24 February 2011 (EST)
 * Don't worry, the administrators can restore pages that have been deleted.
 * That's good, although I don't see Nintendo caring about a one-use attack from a game released four years ago getting an official name. I'm actually surprised this proposal has met with so little opposition so far, I was uncertain enough to ask a sysop if it should be merged. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 07:27, 25 February 2011 (EST)

Well, I'm not sure why this shouldn't be merged with Spin. Is merging it with Bowser better? 02:35, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 * I think it's because the spin attack is officially named, yet this is just a new attack/power for Bowser. I could be wrong. 10:11, 26 February 2011 (EST)
 * I thought that since the spin is currently an article on Mario's spin, and it is unnamed officially, and especially because it already gets some mention in Bowser's article, it would be easier and better to merge and make a better section in Bowser's Powers and Abilities section mentioning Bowser using the Grand Star's power to give himself the power to (insert attack information here). Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 19:46, 26 February 2011 (EST)

@Yoshidude99: Should we create an article for every single attack a Paper Mario boss uses? No.

Why leave this page as a redirect? Why not delete it instead?-- 16:44, 3 March 2011 (EST)
 * I thought that since there may be some links to it, leaving it as a redirect would be easier than tracking down all those links and changing them. I'll defer to your knowledge though, if you think it should be deleted, then I'll do that. 7:11, 4 March 2011 (EST)

Here are all the things that link here: Spin, Bowser's Dark Matter Plant, Proposals, User talk:Edofenrir, Talk:Dark Spin, Dark spin (redirect), Shadow Spin (redirect), Maintenance/Lists. It wouldn't take too long to remove them.
 * Alright then, I'll do that. I guess we should replace all the links except the one on Edofenrir's talk page, since I put it there when asking a question, and the one on the Mariowiki proposal page will be removed after the voting period is over. Is the talk page going to be left as an article? Is it supposed to be left?
 * Not sure. Sometimes we delete the talk, sometimes we keep it. Example of keeping: Talk:Mario's Shirt.
 * I think if there is a TPP, the passed TPP section we saw on the Mario's Shirt page should be left here with discussion, etc. But if, say a mainspace proposal is passed, deleting an article, the talk page doesn't have a reason for existence anymore.

@Zero: The reason for merging them is that this is unofficially named, so if we have an article for this, we could create an article on anything ever done in the Mario series, whether Nintendo has officially named it or not. This article should be merged into the powers and abilities section in Bowser's article.

@Any sysop or knowledgeable user who sees this: Does the new policy on redirects change what Reversinator and I agreed should be done in the comments above?