32,740
edits
Talk:Gnat Attack: Difference between revisions
m
→Split Enemies from Gnat Attack: outcome change
m (→Comments) |
m (→Split Enemies from Gnat Attack: outcome change) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Fly Assault Game's Boss== | ==Fly Assault Game's Boss== | ||
It seems really unlikely that the comics would just refer to a boss as "Fly Assault Game's Boss". That's like saying that Mario's name is "Famous Nintendo Character". {{User:Reversinator/sig}} | It seems really unlikely that the comics would just refer to a boss as "Fly Assault Game's Boss". That's like saying that Mario's name is "Famous Nintendo Character". {{User:Reversinator/sig}} | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
==Split Enemies from Gnat Attack== | ==Split Enemies from Gnat Attack== | ||
{{ | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|split}} | |||
The enemies section of this article is not how a usual enemies section should look; it has all enemies within it. These enemies are unique enemies, they have their own quirks, their own methods of destruction, and there is even a boss character in there! All of the enemies in that enemies section should be split out into their own articles; as they are valid enemies, even if they had minor appearances. | The enemies section of this article is not how a usual enemies section should look; it has all enemies within it. These enemies are unique enemies, they have their own quirks, their own methods of destruction, and there is even a boss character in there! All of the enemies in that enemies section should be split out into their own articles; as they are valid enemies, even if they had minor appearances. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per proposal. | #{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per proposal. | ||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per Marioguy1! | #{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per Marioguy1! | ||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Can't argue a direct quote. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} At first I was going to say no, but if you can be a bit creative on the wording of these new articles, then you can pull it off. | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per Mr. Roboto Mario. | |||
#{{User|SWFlash}} <s>Too minor! Too minor!</s> Per policy. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. | |||
===Leave Merged=== | ===Leave Merged=== | ||
| Line 35: | Line 40: | ||
:::Could of sworn it got deleted.... --[[User:Reversinator|Reversinator]] 13:24, 11 April 2011 (EDT) | :::Could of sworn it got deleted.... --[[User:Reversinator|Reversinator]] 13:24, 11 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
::::I don't blame you for not seeing it. It is in a pretty obscure and unintuitive location. Searching for "Dragonfly" takes you to a page about a vehicle used by Wario. I only found it over What Links Here. <s>I'd even cast doubt onto the validity of that redirect page. I mean, which guest (with no idea about our naming policies) would search for "Dragonfly (Mario Paint)"?</s> EDIT: I revoke that statement. Apparently that redirect does serve a purpose, since it appears underneath the search bar as long as your JavaScript is enabled. - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 13:32, 11 April 2011 (EDT) | ::::I don't blame you for not seeing it. It is in a pretty obscure and unintuitive location. Searching for "Dragonfly" takes you to a page about a vehicle used by Wario. I only found it over What Links Here. <s>I'd even cast doubt onto the validity of that redirect page. I mean, which guest (with no idea about our naming policies) would search for "Dragonfly (Mario Paint)"?</s> EDIT: I revoke that statement. Apparently that redirect does serve a purpose, since it appears underneath the search bar as long as your JavaScript is enabled. - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 13:32, 11 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
:::::I type too fast to notice the search bar. --[[User:Reversinator|Reversinator]] 13:38, 11 April 2011 (EDT) | |||
::::::So do I, which is why I initially made that statement about the page being useless. I just discovered it per coincidence after already having finished my comment. It's perfectly possible to miss that search bar thing. - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 14:04, 11 April 2011 (EDT) | |||
Well, obviously that first proposal was made with the mindset "all stubs must die, no matter the consequences". This proposal is going to right that wrong, and, hopefully, not make new stubs. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||