Talk:Mario's Shirt

This looks a bit usless but surprisingly it's bigger than the Mario's Overalls page! Useless? Paper Jorge

Yes it should. The information should be moved to the Mario article, however, do not delete this until this has been succesfully done.

Yeah it should be merged with Mario's Page.--Nintendorules 11:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Aggred, per Paper Jorge. --Yowuza 13:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

why should it be merged all his other clothes have their own page-t76ef

I say that all the clothes be merged into on article.

Decision on Mario's Shirt and Other Articles
I believe we need a decision on this and related articles. I shall give a few possible options, and one will, hopefully, be chosen.

Proposer: Deadline: 20:00, 9 January 2009

Delete This Article: Mario's Shirt

 * 1) -- It's an article about a thing that has almost no purpose in any game. It does not affect gameplay, unlike Mario's Overalls or Mario's Hat (see the events in Luigi's Mansion).
 * Per Bloc Partier.
 * 1) - No merge for me! (Per Bloc's comments below)
 * 2) Not important at all.
 * 3) - The article itself even states that the shirt serves no particular purpose. Per all.

Comments
I was actually waiting until some of my other merges were going to be settled, then I was going to set one up here. I was going to propose all of Mario's clothes be merged into a single article (possibly "Mario's Clothing"), with the exception of his hat (and apparently overalls), due to them affecting gameplay. Redstar 15:49, 26 December 2009 (EST)
 * I see what you mean, but I really don't see the point of having an article about his shirt. I mean, it's obviously there. We don't need to point out with an entire article the fact that Mario wears a shirt. By this logic, why don't we have, since they can be seen in the artwork of M&L:SS? It's just silly to have a page dedicated to something so obvious and unrelated to gameplay.
 * I don't feel an article on his clothing his necessarily necessary, but it is iconic and people created the articles for a reason, so it may be better to just salvage what information we can and put it all in one place.


 * Also, your proposal is stretched out farther than it should be. You really don't need a Part 2, especially since the article would undoubtedly be deleted upon merging. You might as well just have one section, with three options "Delete, without merging", "merge", and "Leave alone". As it is now, it can be a bit confusing. Redstar 17:01, 26 December 2009 (EST)
 * Eh, I thought about a bit too logically. I'll change it. Also, I don't really think that they made it for any reason other than that they were bored or as a joke. Even so, I think it's quite unnecessary for the wiki.


 * @Time Q: I changed the header; since you agreed with me, I figured you would be OK with the change and I left your vote there. But I just thought I'd warn you anyhow.
 * Yeah, that's fine. 17:09, 26 December 2009 (EST)