Talk:Heart Panel

Merge Heart Panel (Super Princess Peach) with Vibe
OPPOSE 7-11

Well, first off, the page has only 2 lines of text on it. The information here could be put in the Vibe page, and it wouldn't be off-topic.

Proposer: Deadline: January 23rd, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) We don't need stubs, duh.
 * 3) Per notbugsy and koopayoshi.
 * 4) They share the same image.
 * 5) Heart Panels are, like, the extension of Vibe. And the article is very short and, while it can be expanded, it'll end up not being long either. We should make Heart Panel a sub-section of Vibe or something, IMO.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Although I see Edo's point about the policy, the Heart Panels article is a stub, and if merged with the Vibe article, will reduce a stub and make an article more reasonable to include what the Heart Panels contribute to.

Oppose

 * 1) - Different subjects
 * 2) I am Zero! Per Tucayo and I think it will be better if we purposely expand it, making the explanations longer. Zero signing out.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - To speak frankly, I would love to see these merged. However, our policy dictates that when an object is named, it deserves its own article. I can't vote in favor of something that breaks consistency. It would do more harm than good. As long as we can't come up with a better and thorough (!) policy to handle these cases, these articles should remain separate.
 * 5) Them being stubs is definitely a terrible reason. They are two different things. A vibe is some kind of emotion (something like that I know, but I'm not too sure because I haven't player SPP in a while), and a Heart Panel are the things that let Peach use different vibes.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) PER POLICY (so Edo, the walking policy) :)
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
@Koopayoshi: that is a terrible reason. -- 20:38, 9 January 2011 (EST)
 * Hey tucayo, stop deleting someone's supports/opposes just because the author didn't say what he want.

Yes. New stubs aren't allowed, unless they can be added to, but there are still some articles needed, including this. 12:19, 10 January 2011 (EST)

@Liam: But they describe two different things *facepalm* -- 16:09, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Guys, don't support because it's a stub, especially since they can be expanded. Tucayo was right in removing that vote because it is a terrible reason. I mean, why don't we just merge every stub here while we're at it? It will get rid of all our stubs, won't it? Of course that would be a bad idea, because most of the stubs are different things.