Talk:Double Dash!!

Merge to Rocket Start
The Double Dash!! is indeed a type of Rocket Start so in this proposal, we're going to find out, should this be merged, or not? The article is short but, we want to merge it.

Proposer: Extended: May 20, 2011 23:59 GMT

Merge to Rocket Start

 * 1) Per my Proposal!
 * 2) Per the 19000 Red Dragons.
 * 3) A Double Dash is basically the same as a Rocket Start only faster. No point keeping the 2 separate.
 * 4) They are so same, except for the fact that both players should do it instead of one.
 * 5) I guess it's not too much to ask for it to have its own section.
 * 6) Just because a Double Dash cannot be performed without another person does not mean it is not a Rocket Start. Per above.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) per all
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) The article is relatively small, and is practically the same thing as Rocket Start.

Leave un-merged

 * 1) But there different functions since this one can only be done in co-op mode while the other can be done in any mode
 * 2) Per the guy above me.
 * No, they are completely different things. A Double-Dash can only be found in Mario Kart Double Dash and looks significantly different with different sound effects while a Rocket Start is found everywhere else. You cannot execute a Double Dash when playing by yourself, but you can execute either a Rocket Start or a Double Dash when you are with two players. I think we should leave it like this.
 * 1) Per BLOF.
 * 2) Should we merge Mushroom and Super Shroom? They only look different, Super Shroom heals more HP and costs more! (Sarcasm meter:10/10) Oh, and per all.
 * 3) Per Yoshiwaker's analogy. Although I can see this merged, I also can see this left unmerged. I think it should be left unmerged. Double Dash!! has a bigger difference with Rocket Start compared to Mushroom and Super Mushroom.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) - I haven't played Double Dash before, but from what I see, the Rocket Start and the Double Dash are two totally different concepts; the only thing that is similar is that they both speed you up. I don't think that's enough similarities to claim that these two are the same thing (which, essentially, is what merging claims automatically). Aside from that, I really hope nobody is supporting this because the articles are "stubs".
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
I was going to oppose but I need to hear more because there is a big difference between the two, but I'm pulled by the fact that we can just have a section on it.
 * @Zero That's great! Having a section is awesome but, I think I'm going to agree with you on this one!

@Kaptain K Rool Because one requires only one player the other requires two

@Zero: I don't think the Rocket Start article needs the Double Dash info on it, that wouldn't work too well... Even if it would, I'd rather use and just give it a passing mention on the Rocket Start article. 12:05, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
 * But really I don't see the problem of just putting it as a section in the in the Rocket Start article since it doesn't have that much of a difference and information.
 * If that's the case, I'd rather say something like, "There is a special version of the Rocket Start that appears in Mario Kart: Double Dash! It requires two players to execute, and it gives a much faster boost than a normal Rocket Start." and then use the main template up there to link here... 07:23, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Well I don't see the point of that since you basically explained everything in a more simplified form.
 * I don't think it's very good logic to say well a double dash is a type of Rocket start and thats why it should be merged cause using that logic Beach Koopas should be merged with Koopa Troopas since a Beach Koopas is just a Koopa Troopa with out a shell
 * Your use of logic is fallacious. It is perfectly sound logic to assert that one thing is a type of another, as merges are done on the basis of two or more things being alike. Beach Koopas aren't merged with Koopa Troopas because the length of the former makes it impractical to merge it with the latter. If there is something that cannot be explained efficiently within the confines of a given article, that content gets its own article.
 * But that fails to keep up with consistency and by saying that it is a type of one thing you are implying that it is not the same thing there Reddragon19k presents no argument to support a merge other than that the two are a type of each other and im saying tha if you want to play the consistency game which everybody likes to claim they play you would have to merge every other sub-species into the main article other wise you create an exception which isn't based on previous standards presented in this proposal