Talk:Stop 'N' Swop

message: I follow the whole Stop 'N' Swop thing, but this article is so completely all-over-the-place that I can't even tell what's talking about. ShadowMan1od 04:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article also seems to be based almost entirely on speculation.  It shouldn't be too hard to find published sources documenting this phenomenon. Just64helpin 17:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now cleaned up the article and provided information for those unfamiliar with the article's subject. Just64helpin 20:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need this much information. It feels like a guide. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific? Just64helpin 17:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, it tells you the purpose of the items. This is certainly not necessary. And much of the content of the article is trivia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should avoid trivia sections. Also, the lead should stand on its own (see WP:LEAD). Just64helpin 19:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is almost incomprehensible

message: I copied the deleted article to here. I don't think I'm proactive enough to do it, so if anyone else feels like doing it, please, go ahead. --GUTTERTAHAH 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The contents of the deleted article do not belong in this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was listed as a possible option to do in the deletion debate, so I'm giving people the ability to do so if they wish. If it's a matter of citing sources, verifiability, etc etc, then they're out of luck, as I don't care about it that much. --GUTTERTAHAH 11:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone wants to merge Rare Witch Project into this article... 

message: What does this "Stop 'N' Swop" thing actually do? Or what was it supposed to do? --Candy-Panda 03:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it do? 

message: * http://rare-elite.com/SNS/
Not sure why the link got deleted but this site has a focus on Stop 'N' Swop and should be allowed on the external links section
:It continues to get removed on this and other pages because the site is non-notable and unreliable. Please discontinue inserting the link into this and any other Banjo-Kazooie page in the future. Remember, just because a webpage talks about something in an article, it doesn't mean the article should link to it unless it follows the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia's external links policy. Thank you. --pIrish 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop 'N' Swop theories 

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdjunctFaculty (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not add speculation that it's an April Fools joke. I read through the entire post, and nobody has any PROOF that its a fake (just wild guesses).  Believing its an April fools joke is based on perosnal opinion AKA original research. If anyone has any actual SOURCES (not message board posts with people thinking it might be a joke) with definitive facts to back up that this a joke, feel free to post them. DietLimeCola 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Seventh Egg 

message: Seriously, stop it. You wanted a consensus, and you got it. But strangely enough, most people wanting a merge doesn't count as a consensus to you guys. Three people voted keep, seven voted merge, redirect, or delete. To say it was no consensus on the AfD template is definitely incorrect - the result suggested merging, as did the majority of the people involved in that AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree with the afd decision, go to DRV. --- RockMFR 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion review? It should be the keepers asking for a DRV. The AfD decision basically said "merge dis". So it'd be more going to an RfC to get the "article fans" to stop reverting it. DRV isn't for people trying to get an AfD decision acted upon The decision was no consensus to delete, it never said "no consensus to merge". - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus is determined through weighing the points raised, not by counting votes. Just64helpin 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link, is that really necessary to do a poor job at redirecting, without even telling anyone or discussing about it after the no consensus discussion, and just because YOU feel like it?  Stop having a fit just because things aren't going your way, because this isn't the way Wikipedia works. DietLimeCola 05:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it did go my way. The result was "no consensus, merge possible", which is more or less similar to how "no consensus, keep" is - it is indeed a no consensus result, but the additional note is a part of the result. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although Stop 'N' Swop isn't really a glitch, and of course, there are no notable Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie glitches. It was a dropped feature that got many peoples attentions, and aparently they're still discovering new parts of this as of today (Stop N Swop was first introduced in 1998, and they're still figuring out stuff now, when it's March 2007, almost nine years later).  Another reason why I feel this needs it's own article is because it's technically linked to two different games.  If merged, we'd have the same information on two pages. Plus separate information on each page regarding each game Stop N Swop information, which could lead the reason towards confusion  (Since the article tends to go back and forth).  That's just why I feel this article needs to stay the way it is. DietLimeCola 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wanting duplicate content isn't a good reason. But that aside, why not merge to Banjo-Kazooie (series)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, merging Stop 'N' Swop seems like a particularly good idea, since the series article is notoriously small. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But why do you disagree with merging to the series article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually merging to the SERIES article (Which I didn't even know existed) might not be that bad of an idea. We'll just need to change the links that link to this article to that article . Also, it would be wise to not remove any of the information provided on this page while moving.  I'm all for it. DietLimeCola 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I never said I disagreed with merging. I only said that I agree with what DietLimeCola said. Please don't make assumptions. I think that, if a merge were to take place, it is imperative that it go to the series page and remain in its entirety. --pIrish 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging