Talk:Coin bag

The Mario Party Coin Bag and the Super Princess Peach Coin Bag have their major differences. Would it be better if they were split? 09:42, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

Split the Mario Party Coin Bag from the Super Princess Peach Coin Bag
I noticed Bazooka Mario posted a question above regarding this over a year ago, which never got answered, but brings up a good point. The Mario Party and Super Princess Peach Coin Bags are two different objects. One is small and acts as a collectible; the other is the opposite: a large, floating, interactable object, with the only thing in common being that they have coins inside them. It's for this reason I think they should be split.

That being said, however, I also think the Mario Party info should be merged with the Money Bag article. Unlike the Super Princess Peach Coin Bag, there isn't much difference to justify them being separate articles: both are bags of money that were designed to be worth more than a single coin, just with a different quantity in each game. Additionally, we don't even have a reference for the name "Money Bag"; the only official names we have are "Moneybag" and "Coin Bag" (all the more reason they should be merged).

In short, merge all of them, except for the Super Princess Peach one.

Proposer: Deadline: August 25, 2017, 23:59 GMT September, 1, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Split Mario Party and SPP info into separate articles

 * 1) Even if my preferred option doesn't gain the most support, it's essential that these two be split, per what I said above. (I'm also fine with this option if anyone argues the Wario Land: Shake It! one is different enough to have its own page.)
 * 2) I can't think of any other breaking similarities between the two, so yeah, let's split them.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) - Money Bag currently needs a citation, so I'm voting split for now.
 * 5) All 3 need to be all split or all merge. Preferably all split.
 * 6) per all
 * 7) Per all.

Merge Mario Party info with Money Bag

 * 1) Per my proposal. Should it pass, I also think that article should be renamed to, and this one (with the SPP info) to.
 * 2) This option, then. Per the proposal and the comments.
 * 3) The Money Bag article currently covers both Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins moneybags and Wario Land: Shake It! moneybags. Mario Party moneybags are basically the same as the ones from SML2, save for a different design and being worth a different coin amount. WL:SI moneybags function differently, being an object Wario shakes to make coins fly out. So as long as those don't have a separate article, neither should MP moneybags.

Comments
Are the "split SPP" and "merge MP with the other article" options mutually exclusive? I agree with doing both, but there doesn't seem to be an options to do both. 11:14, 11 August 2017 (EDT)
 * If the MP version is merged with Money Bag, the SPP version will be the only one left here. The only option that would result in the SPP variant not getting its own article is "merge all into one". 14:58, 11 August 2017 (EDT)

Shouldn't this proposal have been extended since it didn't pass by a margin of 3 votes?

So after going over all the rules and discussion this with TT I've come to the conclusion that this proposal did not meet the criteria to pass. Rule 10 says that any proposal with more then 10 votes must pass by a majority of 3 votes which this one did not because the outcome was 6-5-1 that's 12 total votes. Now you could say that this proposal falls under rule 9 but it doesn't pass under rule 9 either because rule 9 requires a single option to have a majority of the vote which no option has since one side has 50% of the votes and the other sides have 50% of the total vote. Now you could argue that because so many voters are under different options it should fall under this proposal https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_45#Change_rule_9_to_centre_on_voters_rather_than_votes but even if we apply that there are only 6 unique voters and they split 3-3. Under no criteria did this proposal pass and so it should be extended for another week.
 * Made a post on the forums on why I went ahead with it.
 * Also, going by the current rule 9, there are nine voters, and more than half of them (6) appear in the first option, so wouldn't it win 6-3? 22:09, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
 * If you go by the idea that you only factor in unique voters at the time the proposal deadline happened there were only 6 unique voters and they were split on two options 3-3 (niiue changed his vote after the deadline). If you go by rule 9 there were 12 total votes at the time it supposed to end they were split 6 on one side and 6 combined and rule 9 states specifically "if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options." so the first option did not have a majority based on the rules because it only had half the total vote not over half the total as specified by rule 9. Rule 9 and rule 10 don't go together they are separate rules and no matter how you try to look at rule 9 this proposal did not at the time of it ending pass by it.
 * Pardon, Jc, but I've looked on the forum and I can't seem to find your post. 22:48, 26 August 2017 (EDT)