Talk:Crystal King

Merge to Crystal King article
Note: This discussion was moved here from the former "Crystal Bit" talk page.

MERGE TO Crystal King 0-9-2

This enemy is merely an extension of the Crystal King rather than individual enemies. This is outright stated by the Tattle information. Merging results in a more comprehensive article, as well as cutting down on division of information. Redstar 20:58, 15 December 2009 (EST)

{{scroll box|content=

Merge to Crystal King

 * 1) - Per proposal.
 * 2) -- Ughhh... As much as I don't want to merge this, I'll vote yes on this one. The tattle says explicitly that it's a piece of the King, so OK.
 * 3) I am Zero! It will make the Crystal King article look better because the crystal bits are in the picture and referenced also. Zero signing out.
 * 4) - Tattle description says they're pieces of the King. Settles it for me.
 * 5) User:Yoshionfire Basically they are only found with him nowhere else so they should have a section on the Crystal king page
 * 6) - Per Zero
 * 7) - Agreed with all of thee above. Can we start merging this yet, since it have no opposers and 7 supporters now?
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Leave un-merged

 * 1) - Per the reasons I have gave a zillion of times.
 * 2) Per Tucayo.

Comments
@Baby Mario Bloops: It's been five days since the proposal was put up. Give it two more to make a full week and allow for any opposition to come up, then I think enough time will have passed for me to go ahead and merge. Redstar 01:16, 21 December 2009 (EST)

The proposal has been up since December 16th of 2009 (8 days). SevenEight Nine votes in favor, one against. It appears to be a clear majority-rule in favor of merging, and with enough time passed I feel I could finish it up and complete the actual merge. With a sysop's assent, I'll go ahead and do so. Redstar 01:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)
 * Ok, according to the new rules you have to wait 2 weeks, even if there is a clear margin. -- 10:43, 24 December 2009 (EST)
 * What new rules? Bloc's proposal has one more day until the deadline, and this and many other proposals began quite awhile ago, some even before that proposal was created. It's a grandfather-clause, I should think. Redstar 14:44, 24 December 2009 (EST)
 * Well, then we wait until tomorrow, and then, you have to wait 2 weeks. -- 16:14, 24 December 2009 (EST)
 * @Tucayo: What reasons did you give a zillion of times?
 * Talk:Tubba_Blubba's_Heart -- 16:34, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Umm... I don't see any problem with extending the deadline two weeks... Still, it's a really long time. How about we extend the deadline until the 1st? It's only one week, and is much more preferable...

It's January 1st. Should I merge this now? }} 'The end of the discussion moved here from the former "Crystal Bit" talk page. Please do not edit or continue discussion.'