Talk:Dorrie: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Time Turner (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
::::First of all, that doesn't respond to anything that I said. Second, something being inidiviualized is not, in and of itself, enough for something to receive a separate article. It involves the character's role in the story and gameplay (especially in comparison to other characters). This is why we're fine with giving articles to subjects that have no official name. All of that's a moot pint anyways, since their generic names are very much used as proper names for them, and a single name shouldn't be the single element that causes a subject to not get articles. If you tell me that [[Goombob]] deserves an article and [[Goomba (character)|Goomba]] doesn't deserve an article solely because of their names, then I'll call that ridiculous. Third, what if I put forth that somebody of the examples you linked to ''should'' receive separate articles? What then? Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do anything. Fourth, your examples are kinda hard to fully appreciate if you're only willing to give a vague and sarcastic comment about them. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:35, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ::::First of all, that doesn't respond to anything that I said. Second, something being inidiviualized is not, in and of itself, enough for something to receive a separate article. It involves the character's role in the story and gameplay (especially in comparison to other characters). This is why we're fine with giving articles to subjects that have no official name. All of that's a moot pint anyways, since their generic names are very much used as proper names for them, and a single name shouldn't be the single element that causes a subject to not get articles. If you tell me that [[Goombob]] deserves an article and [[Goomba (character)|Goomba]] doesn't deserve an article solely because of their names, then I'll call that ridiculous. Third, what if I put forth that somebody of the examples you linked to ''should'' receive separate articles? What then? Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do anything. Fourth, your examples are kinda hard to fully appreciate if you're only willing to give a vague and sarcastic comment about them. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:35, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
:::::I wouldn't call it ridiculous. More depth to my statement? I don't see why the individual [[Lakitu|LaKEEtu]] in Super Show needs no more article than [[Blooper (character)|some random squid thing]] and is instead lumped with the LAKihtus. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | :::::I wouldn't call it ridiculous. More depth to my statement? I don't see why the individual [[Lakitu|LaKEEtu]] in Super Show needs no more article than [[Blooper (character)|some random squid thing]] and is instead lumped with the LAKihtus. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
::::::Can you elaborate on why it isn't ridiculous, especially when you're again not respond to the majority of my points? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:40, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
We should just alter this page to make it for all dorries collectively [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 01:42, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | We should just alter this page to make it for all dorries collectively [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 01:42, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
