Talk:Wart (character)

message: This article needs a picture. --RealWingus 04:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture?

message: Where the article states:
"As the game progresses, however, Mario and his friends see nothing of Wart until the final room. There, Wario challenges Mario — or Luigi or Toad or Peach — by moving back and forth on his small platform, occasionally stopping to spew forth bubbles that can cause damage."
Shouldn't Wario be Wart?
Glitch13 21:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Kidicarus222 23:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wario? 

message: I'd swear you can find tomatoes at some earlier point in the game...Thanos6 06:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Each level has its own signature big vegetable. One, three and five: big white turnips. Two and six: pumpkins. Four: carrots. Seven: more Asian-looking turnips (though I think they're onions). The tomatoes and one other random vegetable show up in the Wart room only. Kidicarus222 08:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pumpkins!  That was it.  I was getting the pumpkins confused with tomatoes.  Thanks. Thanos6 08:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomatoes? 

message: Um, who decided to change the name to King Wart? The character wears a crown, sure, but never has the character ever been popualrly known as "King Wart." "Wart" should do just fine, even if is has to be supplemented with "(Nintendo)" to differentiate it from the regular wart. Unless anyone objects, I'd like to change it back. Kidicarus222 05:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article was moved by user Zachkudrna18@yahoo.com without discussing it on the talk page first. Mushroom 09:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it back. It's now "Wart (Nintendo)", without any mention of that "King Wart" crap. Kidicarus222 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King" Wart? 

message: Does anybody else think this is way too long and detailed for an appearance in a web comic? I say cut the section down to a sentence explaining that Wart appears in the comic. Kidicarus222 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- DocSigma 19:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neglected Mario Characters" section

message: This part of the article should be deleted, i dont think the creator would want this on wikipedia. Isyou 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rise of the mushroom kingdom 

message: This is Wart's profile in the Doki Doki Panic manual. I don't read Japanese, but I'm pretty sure that his name is different than the one on Wikipedia; http://www.subphylumclothing.com/ebay/182/IMG_3879.jpg 208.101.136.230 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this say? 

message: Is this really all that notable? He only appeared is one game. Even Tatanga is more notable then Wart! Daffy Duck 555 (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. No; read the article, I guess. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Notability, on Wikipedia, is significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. The article is in pretty bad shape, but the reception does have a number of third party sources. However, it could also be argued that the sources don't provide significant coverage, but rather just some trivial passing mentions. Anyways, if you want to pursue deletion, see how to do so at WP:AFD. I feel like it could go either way. Sergecross73 msg me  17:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has access to older Super Mario Bros. 2 reviews, I expect that the section could be fleshed out. Reception seems fine to me as it is, though, as the bits there are consist of actual opinions on Wart rather than just mentions that he exists. Tezero (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that's why I've never nominated it myself, because the sources are probably out there. I don't think its sufficient now, but if anyone did some searching, it could be. Sadly, I "cleaned up" the article like 3 years ago and very little has been done to improve it since... Sergecross73 msg me  17:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I went through and cleaned it up a bit last week, and now there's even less of substance. While I was uncertain about deletion, I forgot it had such an obvious merge target. It'd be easy to pare down what little is here into a list entry... Sergecross73 msg me  21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the in-universe might be merged into the list and the reception can be moved to the legacy section of SMB2(?) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with that, or having a source or two of the reception in the character list, kind of like a closing comment on him or something. Either way. Sergecross73 msg me  02:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any final objections to a merge along the lines of what GY suggested? czar ♔ 13:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Still support it. This article has had years to get better, and never seems to see any progress besides me trimming the garbage back out... Sergecross73 msg me  14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the merge as well. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if you are stil discussing it but I support it too. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't understand what you guys are even talking about, sorry. :)  It seems to be just another aimless pastime, a deletionist ultimatum.  Some kind of anxiety that nobody else is writing somebody's pet article for them (ha), or that it didn't write itself yet?  What did I miss, in terms of links to how policy directs this course of action?   just said he is aware of the fact that this already-substantial and clearly notable subject probably has a further potential of available sources that simply haven't been located and tapped yet. He definitively answered the original lazy question of WP:N; so how would deletionism not just be a declaration of the failure of the task force? So I don't know if I missed something but I just don't see how that results in any new facts.  What exactly is the problem; what consequence is the clock supposedly ticking down to; why does this article's potential need to be euthenized; and what exactly is the proposed content for merging? As in, someone needs to write it first, while factually proving why they wasted the time doing that rather than improving this. It would be nice to also clearly delineate where the blatant deletionism stops.  Why not hold ultimatums over any number of others? How about if each further post requires the finding and posting of another source about Wart? ;-) lol Ha ha, only serious. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wouldn't call it "deletionist" anything, most everyone is calling for a "Merge" here. And I think that's what you may be missing - sometimes, if there's something that may be notable, but there's not very much as far as sources/content go, it's allowable to merge it. I wouldn't complain about time restraints either, this discussion started 9 months ago, and I'm pretty sure I cleaned up the article 2-3 years ago, and no one's done much to improve it in the way of adding content since either events. (We've cleaned it up, but haven't really added anything.) As I said last April, I could go either way. On one hand, there's probably more sources out there, so I haven't personally merged it yet (Just as I treat most SNES/Sega Genesis game articles that haven't seen a release since the 90s - its hard to find soures.) On the other hand, its looked like garbage for years, and will likely continue to until more sources are found, which has been a slow process. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to differ, sir, but you have repeatedly said in this thread that you want to gratuitously delete a lot of its content and delete the article (that's what a merge does), while repeatedly simultaneously saying that you don't.  Most of the wikitext would be gone. And not only for literally no reason, but also contrary to encyclopedic goals like WP:N. That's called deletionism, by definition.  I'm just speaking logically here. And thus, it's called a self-defeating prophecy—an officially declared task force failure (which is like dividing by zero).  This is not how people are to be communicated with, organized, or motivated. Furthermore, the article doesn't in any way whatsoever look like garbage anymore, thanks to us for having fixed it.  It looks great for a class C, already with art and a history, and all the budding limbs of new potential branches (TV shows, comics, etc); and more than the approximately three reliable sources needed in order to have justified the creation of a new article from scratch.  Even if it did still look bad after you and I cleaned it up, nobody has ever actually defined what that means.  Other than finite time, knowledge, and volunteerism, there is literally is no problem.  Hooray!  Congratulations, us! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about a 6K byte article here - it's barely beyond stub class. If you actually read the content, the article's "History" says very little beyond saying "He's from this game, he was the bad guy, and here's some other places he had very minor cameos" - and that's largely unsourced. Then there's the reception section - a few passing comments about him that say little more than "trippy", "hungry" and "obscure". It's barely worthwhile commentary, let alone significant coverage. There's very little to be lost here in its current state, and honestly not much would even have to be trimmed were he to be merged to the Mario character list. Sergecross73 msg me 04:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see! So that particular glass is half empty. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering there was pretty much a consensus to merge it 9 months ago, but no one's done it, seems more like a "half full glass" type scenario - as in, it's amazing its still here at all. Either that or there's some serious apathy about it. You've been the only person to voice any sort of support in keeping it. You don't have to worry about me personally merging it, though I certainly wouldn't/couldn't blame anyone else for doing it. The consensus is there and the content/sourcing is weak. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: , do you suppose you have an idea of where to look for sources?  Let's make a list here.  Thanks for your hard work, and I do believe cutting the junk out of this article is where you and I first collaborated!  :-D Heck, I explosively expanded  this other thing probably enough to fill its own C article that it obviously innately deserves, and I have more ideas for it still. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tezero could be on to something with his comment above - perhaps old SMB2 previews/reviews would provide more coverage? Sometimes fansites have scans of old magazine articles? I can try to look around tomorrow and see if I can uncover anything... Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My results...weren't great. Any luck? Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure not gonna keep it a secret for long.  I may have found some, I bought a book, and I'm still looking. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources