Editing Talk:Nitpicker
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Split the toy from the article== | ==Split the toy from the article== | ||
{{ | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
{{ | {{ProposalOutcome|no quorum|3-0}} | ||
This proposal is meant for consistency with the other toy versions of enemies being split from their main counterparts, such as Shy Guy, Snifit, Pokey, Monchee, etc. While they aren't outwardly shown as such in the original game, the Nitpicker is depicted as having metallic wing joints in ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis'' and ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!''. The ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' appearance is a bit hard to make out, but it appears to be the same design used in future games. Additionally, the toy enemy is, to my knowledge, not referred to as a Nitpicker. | This proposal is meant for consistency with the other toy versions of enemies being split from their main counterparts, such as Shy Guy, Snifit, Pokey, Monchee, etc. While they aren't outwardly shown as such in the original game, the Nitpicker is depicted as having metallic wing joints in ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis'' and ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!''. The ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' appearance is a bit hard to make out, but it appears to be the same design used in future games. Additionally, the toy enemy is, to my knowledge, not referred to as a Nitpicker. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
== Regarding the above == | == Regarding the above == | ||
{{talk}} | |||
So, seeing that there are only 3 voters, it means we should wait 4 weeks to reopen the thing, right? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 02:38, February 6, 2020 (EST) | So, seeing that there are only 3 voters, it means we should wait 4 weeks to reopen the thing, right? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 02:38, February 6, 2020 (EST) | ||
:To be honest, I don't think there will be be any problems if we just go ahead with the proposed change anyway - there was no opposition and it's only consistent with similar ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' series pages so I don't imagine it'd be controversial at all. You can always say that Doc's vote was in spirit. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:43, February 6, 2020 (EST) | :To be honest, I don't think there will be be any problems if we just go ahead with the proposed change anyway - there was no opposition and it's only consistent with similar ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' series pages so I don't imagine it'd be controversial at all. You can always say that Doc's vote was in spirit. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:43, February 6, 2020 (EST) | ||
| Line 23: | Line 24: | ||
:::"Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion." {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 12:06, February 7, 2020 (EST) | :::"Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion." {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 12:06, February 7, 2020 (EST) | ||
::::As I understand it, "''no quorum''" only means that there is no formal motion to go forward with the proposed change '''or ''not''''', effectively nullifying the proposal. It's not the same result as opposition winning, and as we can see, there was/is no opposition: it was [[#Comments|pushing]] 4-0, and it follows an established precedent. This proposal might not have even been necessary in the first place given how clear-cut it is. Yes, there is the option of making another proposal as specified in the rules, but technically, I'm fairly certain it's treated as if a proposal didn't happen so much as a discussion to gauge support, which I think made it fulfill its purpose. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:00, February 8, 2020 (EST) | ::::As I understand it, "''no quorum''" only means that there is no formal motion to go forward with the proposed change '''or ''not''''', effectively nullifying the proposal. It's not the same result as opposition winning, and as we can see, there was/is no opposition: it was [[#Comments|pushing]] 4-0, and it follows an established precedent. This proposal might not have even been necessary in the first place given how clear-cut it is. Yes, there is the option of making another proposal as specified in the rules, but technically, I'm fairly certain it's treated as if a proposal didn't happen so much as a discussion to gauge support, which I think made it fulfill its purpose. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:00, February 8, 2020 (EST) | ||
