5,258
edits
MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Goombas and Goombos were established as different species when they were mentioned in ''Nintendo Power''; if this had been untrue, a correction would have been made. Again, I point to the Beanbean Kingdom from ''Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga'' for an established case of regional variants, particularly the [[Beanerang Bro]] - who, prior to the game's remake, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Beanerang_Bro&diff=2295639&oldid=2295635 was covered in a separate article from the Boomerang Bro] for a significant amount of time, despite sharing its name. | :Goombas and Goombos were established as different species when they were mentioned in ''Nintendo Power''; if this had been untrue, a correction would have been made. Again, I point to the Beanbean Kingdom from ''Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga'' for an established case of regional variants, particularly the [[Beanerang Bro]] - who, prior to the game's remake, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Beanerang_Bro&diff=2295639&oldid=2295635 was covered in a separate article from the Boomerang Bro] for a significant amount of time, despite sharing its name and many aspects of its design. | ||
:You've also backpedaled to the "Daisy Blossom isn't being split because of bias!!!" argument, when not only have you failed to prove the existence of said bias's influence in any decisions related to the move's coverage, this entire proposal and the Talk Page discussion that spawned it clearly display a lack of forethought and basic research on your part in trying to push through a change you see as desirable, despite it being rightfully contested even before the proposal was made not less than 48 hours later - in other words, trying to enact your own bias via policy change while using the correction of a supposed pre-existing bias as plausible deniability, as was pointed out and made apparent earlier. The evidence of your bias is easily visible in your actions, priorities and responses, while the evidence that the bias you keep citing had any significant influence on the coverage of Daisy Blossom (or indeed, ''any'' influence at all) is visibly ''lacking''. | :You've also backpedaled to the "Daisy Blossom isn't being split because of bias!!!" argument, when not only have you failed to prove the existence of said bias's influence in any decisions related to the move's coverage, this entire proposal and the Talk Page discussion that spawned it clearly display a lack of forethought and basic research on your part in trying to push through a change you see as desirable, despite it being rightfully contested even before the proposal was made not less than 48 hours later - in other words, trying to enact your own bias via policy change while using the correction of a supposed pre-existing bias as plausible deniability, as was pointed out and made apparent earlier. The evidence of your bias is easily visible in your actions, priorities and responses, while the evidence that the bias you keep citing had any significant influence on the coverage of Daisy Blossom (or indeed, ''any'' influence at all) is visibly ''lacking''. | ||