Template talk:Goombas: Difference between revisions
m (Eek, forgot to sign) |
|||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
To be honest, the goal of this proposal kind of sets a precedent for usage of the "Relatives" section going forward, in that if a species that is considered distinct enough from the parent species and doesn't have any explicit connection to it (i.e. has significant visual differences, but similar behavior and name, like with Beanie), then they could go under relatives. ''Technically'' the [[Template:Species infobox|species infobox template]] requires that the relatives field be used only for "an entity with a variant-type relationship with the subject in which it's not clear who is the variant of whom (if either), such as [[Spoing]]s and [[Sprangler]]s." (something that I didn't take into consideration when I made those edits to Galoomba and Goombrat). | To be honest, the goal of this proposal kind of sets a precedent for usage of the "Relatives" section going forward, in that if a species that is considered distinct enough from the parent species and doesn't have any explicit connection to it (i.e. has significant visual differences, but similar behavior and name, like with Beanie), then they could go under relatives. ''Technically'' the [[Template:Species infobox|species infobox template]] requires that the relatives field be used only for "an entity with a variant-type relationship with the subject in which it's not clear who is the variant of whom (if either), such as [[Spoing]]s and [[Sprangler]]s." (something that I didn't take into consideration when I made those edits to Galoomba and Goombrat). | ||
Personally, I'd support expanding the relatives section in this way (we already seem to be in the process of doing that, see [[Gamboo]]'s status as a mere "relative"), so I think we should maybe move this proposal to the Species infobox talk page and expand the scope. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 18:18, April 26, 2024 (EDT) | Personally, I'd support expanding the relatives section in this way (we already seem to be in the process of doing that, see [[Gamboo]]'s status as a mere "relative"), so I think we should maybe move this proposal to the Species infobox talk page and expand the scope. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 18:18, April 26, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:Actually... why not both? I'll start a proposal to add onto the template guidelines ''and'' we can decide how to handle Beanies and Octoombas (since I know the former is somewhat controversial). | :Actually... why not both? I'll start a proposal to add onto the template guidelines ''and'' we can decide how to handle Beanies and Octoombas (since I know the former is somewhat controversial). [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 18:43, April 26, 2024 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:43, April 26, 2024
Rather than lumping Galoombas together with the Goomba template's Characters and Species, why not make a third section specifically reserved for Galoombas (maybe with the note "*Originally considered Goombas")? That way, they reserve the distinction they've been getting recently. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2015 (EST)
Hi!
Can you add Outmaway, Hotcorn (corn like enemies), and Splunkin
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.149.133 (talk).
I personally would not consider these Goombas due to how different they look, but lets see what others think. Also, please remember to sign your comments - 
Donut | just helpin' when I can! 2:06, October 23, 2023 (CDT)
|
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: Wednesday, May 8, 2024, 21:52 GMT
As it currently stands, Beanies and Octoombas are treated as "actual" Goombas while Galoombas, Goombrats, Gooms, and Stus (all of which are much closer to Goombas physically and behaviorally) are merely considered "relatives" primarily due to official bios. I think those other two sections should also be included in the "relatives" section for consistency; I'm doing this via proposal because there was a proposal a while back while this system was still new to consider Beanies as proper Goombas.
Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
- Tails777 (talk) I've never actually seen either as actual Goombas, more like counterparts from the Beanbean Kingdom and outer space respectively. Per proposal.
- Delsait (talk) - Beanies and Octoombas don't feel or like that closely related to Goombas, like if you glance at them you can't say it's a goomba. Meanwhile Galoombas have the same colorscheme and same fangs, so they're instantly recognizable as a relative of the goomba.
- Arend (talk) ...so why are we considering a bean and a mushroomy cephalopod as closer related to the chestnutty mushroom than the chestnut that actually resembles the chestnutty mushroom?
- Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per all.
- Hewer (talk) Per all.
Oppose
Comments
Beanie is as close to Goomba as Sharpea is to Spiny. If this passes, should the latter two also be changed accordingly? May I ask where the line is drawn between variant and relative/derived? Because, to be honest, I think Goombrat and Galoomba could also be considered variants... They act like Goomba, they look like Goomba, they're named after Goomba. They're not literally Goombas, but Peepa isn't a Boo either. Blinker (talk) 15:45, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
- This is why I feel "subject origin" is helpful for non-real-life subjects, because there's clear derivation, but it's not quite a "subtype" so much as "inspired by" it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:10, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
To be honest, the goal of this proposal kind of sets a precedent for usage of the "Relatives" section going forward, in that if a species that is considered distinct enough from the parent species and doesn't have any explicit connection to it (i.e. has significant visual differences, but similar behavior and name, like with Beanie), then they could go under relatives. Technically the species infobox template requires that the relatives field be used only for "an entity with a variant-type relationship with the subject in which it's not clear who is the variant of whom (if either), such as Spoings and Spranglers." (something that I didn't take into consideration when I made those edits to Galoomba and Goombrat). Personally, I'd support expanding the relatives section in this way (we already seem to be in the process of doing that, see Gamboo's status as a mere "relative"), so I think we should maybe move this proposal to the Species infobox talk page and expand the scope. DrippingYellow (talk) 18:18, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
- Actually... why not both? I'll start a proposal to add onto the template guidelines and we can decide how to handle Beanies and Octoombas (since I know the former is somewhat controversial). DrippingYellow (talk) 18:43, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
