Talk:Pauline's lost items

There is no way this is notable. HyperToad

There are collectible items which award points. Wario's Treasures are in the same league. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 January 2008 (EST)

True, but it still seems quite minor... HyperToad

It would fit best in the Donkey Kong (arcade game) article, but that doesn't have a Gameplay section currently, we'd have to wait for that, else it would hover in the air. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:07, 23 January 2008 (EST)

This affect gameplay, like cheese!-- Xpike the hedgehog 14:09, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Affecting gameplay isn't always get something an article, Francis' Camera effects gameplay, but it doesn't have an article. (I hope -_-) HyperToad

Me must definitely stop giving free tickets to everything which affects gameplay/if officially named. The screen with "Press Start" written on it would affect gameplay, too. We should start using common sense. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Not only does this "affect gameplay" as you say but this is actually an item Mario can collect and that it actually gives points to Mario... Paper Jorge

It's still better merged if it can't get over the current content. (a.k.a. stub) - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't Mario also pick up her hat, too?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrFurball (talk).

"I" or "i"?

Shouldn't "Items" be lower-case? "Pauline's Items" isn't a conjectural title anyway; and "umbrella" and "purse" aren't capitalized in the article or in Pauline. Shouldn't it be like Mario and Luigi's father, with "item" as a label, and not a name? - Walkazo 01:47, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Yes. -- Son of Suns (talk)

Split?

This talk page or section has a conflict or a question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

"Pauline's items" is a conjectural name. But the individual items have been properly named in the Donkey Kong (Game Boy) manual as Parasol, Hat and Bag. So should we split them to their official names for naming consistency? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 19:11, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Yep. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

You mean creating new articles? Supermariofan14

That's what spliting means... Hello, I'm Time Turner.

But wouldn't this cause a ton of stubs...--FREAK ~Game Freak~ OUT!

Not necessarily. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

If I recall correctly, they were originally separate pages, but then we merged them via a proposal because they were all stubs that basically said the same thing. That, or a split was already proposed and shot down. Whatever the case may be, I do know this page's existence has already been questioned and validated; if my computer could handle the archives, I'd find the discussion for you, but I'm afraid my hands are tied on this matter. - Walkazo 20:44, 16 January 2010 (EST)

In it's current state, I don't think we should split it. As far as I can tell, the items all serve the same function and award the same amount of points (except for the umbrella/parasol, but one minor appearance in a publication doesn't seem notable enough). Why is this page conjecture anyway? It's not that different from the "List of..." pages.--Knife (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2010 (EST)

It basically is a "List of Pauline's items" right now. If we can remove the conjecture template just like that, not splitting it would in fact be the better option. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 06:48, 17 January 2010 (EST)

"List of..." implies sub-sections dealing with the items being listed (as with all the other list pages), but the page is fine the way it is set up now, so I don't think we should change the title in an attempt to banish the conjecture label. Besides, it's not like the conjecture template is the end of the world: it's not our fault Nintendo is bad with names. I don't see a problem with simply leaving the page as is.- Walkazo 22:46, 19 January 2010 (EST)

Split Pauline's items into Parasol, Hat, and 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: Friday, May 3, 2024, 15:27 GMT

Per the reasons above.

Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Deadline: March 9 2010, 23:00

Split

1. KS3 (talk) Per proposal.

Don't Split

1. Walkazo (talk) - There's not enough information to warrant three pages, much less unique information: all we'd get from a split would be three nearly identical stubs. It's pointless.
2. Reversinator (talk) Too minor.
3. Mr bones (talk) Per Walkazo.They'll just become stubs.

Comments

@Revesinator Above you said to merge them and now you say not to merge them. KS3 (talk · contribute)

He can change his mind, you know. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)