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.
 * 6) This is a huge stub, this info could easily be a section in the Prof E Gadd article.
 * 7) Per Ghost Jam.

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.
 * 3) Doesn't matter how minor he is, this is the same deal as other older/younger counterparts. So per all.

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)

@Glitchy Bowser Jr.: This article isn't a stub 16:29, 4 December 2014 (EST)

What nobody is getting is how different Toadsworth the Younger and Young E. Gadd are. Let's see:

Toadsworth the Younger: Has official artwork, is seen with Toadsworth, is confirmed to be a separate character, has some pretty big differences from Toadsworth.

Young E. Gadd: Doesn't have official artwork, is never seen with older E. Gadd, is not confirmed to be a separate character, has very minor differences.

Comparing Toadsworth the Younger with Young E. Gadd is like comparing Dr. Mario and Dr. House. It seems reasonable, but in reality, you're ignoring some big differences. Madz the Penguin (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2014 (EST)

Let me throw a couple of points out there. According to the first point, if the two don't appear at the same time, the younger doesn't deserve an article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Baby Wario never appears alongside adult Wario. Adding to that, he's got one appearance and is only present for a few cutscenes and half a world which is just a single step up from Young E. Gadd's case. That being said, I feel the first point is irrelevant.

The second point; yes, a minor difference, yes it can be mentioned in E. Gadd's history, but I'm sure several other younger characters share more than close similarities. Again, Baby Wario was shown to be just as greedy as Wario. Young E. Gadd also stats that he gets really caught up in research, to the point where he didn't notice the Mario Bros. and Baby Bros. E. Gadd has never been shown to disregard human presence due to research. There is at least one thing that separates them.

Point three: I honestly think a conjectured name is the least of the problems (just a personal opinion really).

All in all, I believe that Young E. Gadd shouldn't be treated any differently than any other younger/baby counterparts just because of article size or how indifferent his personality may be.
 * Baby Wario has a much more major role than Younger Gadd, by being one of the few babies Yoshi can carry. Younger E. Gadd doesn't really... do much.
 * Young E. Gadd gets caught up in his research, but present E. Gadd also loves doing research like any stereotypical researcher, yes? Younger E. Gadd isn't much different, then. 20:49, 6 December 2014 (EST)
 * Okay, he's very minor and doesn't have many outstanding characteristics that differ him from his older counterpart, but is that really a reason to separate him from other older/younger counterparts? I still think he deserves his own article. I mean a large majority of NPCs are twice as minor, every Toad in Paper Mario practically has an article, it's not like we'll merge them all into List of Toads in Paper Mario or anything. Minor or not, he's got what it takes to be in his own article.
 * It's less about importance and more about proof. Standard inclusion practices are to have articles for every character that can be positively defined as an individual character, importance or role being secondary concerns. Part of being a positively defined character is having a concrete name, that is, a name provided by the source (Nintendo). Young Professor Elvin Gadd fails both of those criteria, as his only defining characteristic is being the same as Old Gadd, but young, and the naming issue. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 22:44, 6 December 2014 (EST)


 * Thanks, Ghost Jam! Baby Wario is pretty important, as you use him in Yoshi's Island (for the DS, if I can remember correctly). Using Toads is not a very good example, as most Toads do help Mario in some way. Young E. Gadd just...doesn't help Mario at all. He's pretty much as important as the appendix (aka "the organ known for doing almost nothing to help the body") Madz the Penguin (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2014 (EST)
 * Actually, he does have a purpose in the game. I'm pretty sure he was the inspiration for the Hydrogush 4000 and helped present E. Gadd take out the lava that would have caused some sort of mayhem. 00:50, 7 December 2014 (EST)