Talk:Shine Block (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)

Split into Adult Shine Block and Small Shine Block
We have official names for and : We should split into official names instead of having. This also means we can move Shine Block (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) back to Shine Block. We could have Shine Block (disambiguation) to tie everything up neatly. All options below make room for the TTYD Shine Block move and create a disambiguation page with it in the title.
 * Adult Shine Block
 * Small Shine Block

Proposer: Deadline: December 1, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Split PiT Shine Blocks

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) They have different names and are found separately, so this is viable.
 * 3) They have different names, different looks and, most importantly, different functions. Frankly, I'm surprised these weren't split a long time ago, since they function so differently. Adult Shine Block activates the Small Shine Block and the Small Shine Block glows. They are quite different and should be split.
 * 4) Per all. I find this works best as there is enough to split them both.
 * 5) Different names, different appearances, different articles. Even if their functions are dependent on each other, we still have Dotted Line Block which is tied to Exclamation Mark Block, and Hidden Block tied to ? Block.
 * 6) After looking at the game, I do see a different effect for the two blocks. The only thing is, the game says that the Adult one is called just called Shrine Block. It refers only to that one. I will provide the in-game quote if you want me to. But I do emit that Adult Shrine Block does more to distinguish it from Baby Shrine Block. If this happens, I believe that this current page should be redirected to the Adult Shrine Block. As I have not played Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, I don't know if that should be moved to Shrine Block and a distinguishing in s should be created. The reason why it is in both is because of Super Mario Sunshine. They have different effects because they were made by different people. The second rule of the naming policy says, "If the same type of thing shares the same name across multiple games, use each game title as the identifiers." And the actual name is in both games, so I don't think a move from Shrine Block of The Thousand Year Door to Shrine Block (no s should not happen. That move is the only thing of the proposal I don't support.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) – Per proposal.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.

Move to Adult Shine Block but have Small Shine Block as a subsection (includes creating a redirect)

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) The Shine Blocks are two sides of the same coin; one can't be used without the other. If we were to move the article, I'd prefer this option, since using it allows access to the smaller block.
 * 3) If anything, I'd rather this one happen. They do have official names, but I still don't think there is enough info for either to give them a separate article.

Move to Small Shine Block but have Adult Shine Block as a subsection (includes creating a redirect)

 * 1) Per proposal.

Comments
Is there enough information about both so that they are not stubs or one liners? If they have enough information, how would they look? 00:16, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * I did think of the stubbiness of each article. That is why I have three options what to do with the move that addresses your concern. You can vote for more than one option. I put myself down for three options. The rules are still whichever option has the most votes is what gets done. -- 00:20, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * Good thing this is a two week proposal. I suggest that during this time, create on one of your sub-user-pages the information that will be on each article. I am not going to vote tonight. I will play the game tomorrow and decide then. It will be a while before I get to the one in Bowser's Castle since I am recording the dialect and actions. And while it is not necessary for me, if this Shrine Block article still has sufficient information after the split into two happens, it could stay. It all depends how much is taken away by the once and only once policy. That and Shrine Block of Thousand Year Door doesn't really need to be on the Shrine Block page. I think it is best to have Shrine Block as a page that only links to the article(s) passed by this proposal and the one in Thousand Year Door. You will need more users giving their ideas about it before doing either what I said or you said. 00:37, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how these objects work other than reading about it and looking at the sprites. All I know is that having the game in parentheses for the title and URL is cumbersome (all Shine Blocks have official names so it makes it completely unnecessary) and having Shine Block be a disambiguation page is unsatisfactory instead of reserving that for Shine Block (disambiguation).
 * Am I seriously forgetting to sign occasionally? *facepalm* -- 16:21, 17 November 2016 (EST)

This is a hard one for me, tbh. I don't think there is enough information for either to have their own article, yet they both have their own name AND they both do something different. I'm going to have to think on this one... 00:41, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * Updated the headers so redirects are possible. -- 01:46, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * Thing is, a Stub isn't a short article, as is commonly thought. A Stub is an article that doesn't have enough information. For example, the articles for the levels of Super Paper Mario were stubs (even though the template wasn't there, they definitely were) until I rewrote them (though there's still some left) because, for whatever fantastical reason, the level layout was one or two sentences. It told essentially nothing about the level. But with these, as long as we have all the needed information on them, it doesn't matter how short they are (though one sentence wouldn't be okay). At least, I think that's how it works. I could be wrong. Still, from what I can see, the only similar thing about these is their names and the fact that their both blocks. Pretty much everything else is different and I don't see why they are together. Having these two together is like merging Brick Block and ? Block because (use your imagination) there isn't enough info on them.\
 * 15:30, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * Probably doesn't help that Maintenance groups articles with missing information with articles that are shorter than 350 bytes (characters). Technically a short but every detail is included article is not stub article but the word stub in someone's mind could mean "stubby", meaning short. Ultimately, I think we should adopt Bulbapedia:Template:Incomplete (but to match the style of say ) and drop, , and . Makes a ton more sense so that way there is no confusion what is desired in an article. This is an entirely different story and should be talked about elsewhere. -- 16:18, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * You're absolutely correct, . It's a common misconception to think articles are short and therefore bad, but past wiki opinion has been that it's better to have many short articles than one longer article. Therefore, we lean on the splitting side for a lot of cases. It's why we have Badges separated (and further split) from a huge list that made up with zillions of redirects of anchors (not good for searches) into small articles dealing with each item individually. Of course, this isn't a blanket position, such as a past attempt to split all Mario & Luigi clothing, but the general rule is, if it has a name, a look, and a function, it's not a bad idea to give it its own page.


 * I think having an incomplete notice template would be redundant with . I also don't think it'll be enough to replace and  and  as the first typically deals with incredibly short articles that offer virtually no information while the rewrite family usually pertains to substantial articles that just is missing information in some areas. Grouping them all under one category via an umbrella template, incomplete, doesn't sound like a hot idea to me since it requires work for little, arguably worse, payoff.  00:02, 18 November 2016 (EST)