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? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 09:42, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

Split the Mario Party Coin Bag from the Super Princess Peach Coin Bag

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 18:28 GMT

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: Mario jc (talk)
Deadline: August 25, 2017, 23:59 GMT September, 1, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Split Mario Party and SPP info into separate articles

1. Mario jc (talk) 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. Toadette the Achiever (talk) I can't think of any other breaking similarities between the two, so yeah, let's split them.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
4. Alex95 (talk) - Money Bag currently needs a citation, so I'm voting split for now.
5. Yoshi the SSM (talk) All 3 need to be all split or all merge. Preferably all split.
6. 3D Player 2010 (talk) per all

Merge Mario Party info with Money Bag

1. Mario jc (talk) Per my proposal. Should it pass, I also think that article should be renamed to Coin Bag, and this one (with the SPP info) to Coin Bag (Super Princess Peach).
2. Time Turner (talk) This option, then. Per the proposal and the comments.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
4. 7feetunder (talk) 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. I don't even remember the MP moneybags being officially named (Pyramid Scheme's rules text generically calls them "bags").
5. Niiue (talk) Per all.

Merge all into one

1. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Though they should be treated like any other coin, thus all three merged.

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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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? Chester Alan Arthur (talk) 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.