Talk:Gnat Attack

Fly Assault Game's Boss
It seems really unlikely that the comics would just refer to a boss as "Fly Assault Game's Boss". That's like saying that Mario's name is "Famous Nintendo Character".
 * Maybe the author of the manga didn't know Watinga's name. But that hardly counts as a name, one could also say that Watinga was unnamed in the manga. Anyway, I don't have the book, so I can't check it. --Grandy02 17:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Split Enemies from Gnat Attack
The enemies section of this article is not how a usual enemies section should look; it has all enemies within it. These enemies are unique enemies, they have their own quirks, their own methods of destruction, and there is even a boss character in there! All of the enemies in that enemies section should be split out into their own articles; as they are valid enemies, even if they had minor appearances.

I also have here a quote from the coverage policy:

"All content from games in [Mario-related spin-off] series is allowed on the wiki"

- MarioWiki:Coverage

These enemies are part of the game, they are content, they are allowed.

Proposer: Deadline: 24 April, 2011 23:59 GMT

Split

 * 1) - No matter how minor the enemies are, they are enemies nonetheless and therefore require articles as all enemies do.
 * 2) Per Marioguy1.
 * 3) - All enemies including minor enemies deserve their own seperate article. Per Marioguy1. Don't forget Watinga which is a major thing in the minigame with a ton of info.
 * 4) - Per proposal.
 * 5) Per Marioguy1!
 * 6) Can't argue a direct quote.
 * 7) At first I was going to say no, but if you can be a bit creative on the wording of these new articles, then you can pull it off.
 * 8) Per Mr. Roboto Mario.
 * 9) Too minor! Too minor! Per policy.

Comments
But wouldn't this create more stubs
 * Not exactly, a stub is an article in which all the information is not present, true it would create short articles, but the articles would have all information present and would therefore not be stubs.

The enemies were previously split before, though the proposal was on a talk page and that talk page has been deleted. Just thought I'd say that. --Reversinator 10:15, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Really? That's no good: the talk page should be restored asap. What's its title? - 13:10, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Random comment. - 13:21, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Could of sworn it got deleted.... --Reversinator 13:24, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
 * I don't blame you for not seeing it. It is in a pretty obscure and unintuitive location. Searching for "Dragonfly" takes you to a page about a vehicle used by Wario. I only found it over What Links Here. I'd even cast doubt onto the validity of that redirect page. I mean, which guest (with no idea about our naming policies) would search for "Dragonfly (Mario Paint)"? EDIT: I revoke that statement. Apparently that redirect does serve a purpose, since it appears underneath the search bar as long as your JavaScript is enabled. - 13:32, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
 * I type too fast to notice the search bar. --Reversinator 13:38, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
 * So do I, which is why I initially made that statement about the page being useless. I just discovered it per coincidence after already having finished my comment. It's perfectly possible to miss that search bar thing. - 14:04, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Well, obviously that first proposal was made with the mindset "all stubs must die, no matter the consequences". This proposal is going to right that wrong, and, hopefully, not make new stubs.