Editing Talk:Boom Boom
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 444: | Line 444: | ||
*"the official guide [of SMB3] say mostly all enemies at the singular form (one Goomba, one Koopa and one Boom Boom)" I've gone through the guide, and I don't see that anywhere. I have the guide right here, and the enemies in the giant list of enemies, like the Goomba and the Koopa Troopa you decided to use as examples, are clearly pluralized. Heck, Boom Boom is explicitly referred to as "This Koopa boss", further solidifying its individuality. So, that's one of the best examples to use. | *"the official guide [of SMB3] say mostly all enemies at the singular form (one Goomba, one Koopa and one Boom Boom)" I've gone through the guide, and I don't see that anywhere. I have the guide right here, and the enemies in the giant list of enemies, like the Goomba and the Koopa Troopa you decided to use as examples, are clearly pluralized. Heck, Boom Boom is explicitly referred to as "This Koopa boss", further solidifying its individuality. So, that's one of the best examples to use. | ||
*"Boom Boom in 3D Land, the American version say that Boom Boom is a character, but other version say that Boom Boom is a species (if their is not only one Boom Boom) so, which one is good or not good is difficult to say and 3D World do the same thing." First, it's not the games themselves, or the manual or the guide (which also refers to Boom Boom as a character), but the websites, which is already a distant source. Secondly, the American version clearly refers to Boom Boom as a character; even if there are a couple of other sources that conflict with it, there's still clearly one that's referring to it as a character, and the conflicts just further support having separate articles. You can't cherrypick your sources and dismiss everything that doesn't fit with your image. Also, I haven't seen anyone mention 3D World here (heck, I've been browsing the official websites and I don't even see mention of Boom Boom), so I don't think citing that is appropriate. | *"Boom Boom in 3D Land, the American version say that Boom Boom is a character, but other version say that Boom Boom is a species (if their is not only one Boom Boom) so, which one is good or not good is difficult to say and 3D World do the same thing." First, it's not the games themselves, or the manual or the guide (which also refers to Boom Boom as a character), but the websites, which is already a distant source. Secondly, the American version clearly refers to Boom Boom as a character; even if there are a couple of other sources that conflict with it, there's still clearly one that's referring to it as a character, and the conflicts just further support having separate articles. You can't cherrypick your sources and dismiss everything that doesn't fit with your image. Also, I haven't seen anyone mention 3D World here (heck, I've been browsing the official websites and I don't even see mention of Boom Boom), so I don't think citing that is appropriate. | ||
*"By having two articles that say mostly the same thing and saying that Boom Boom is a character or not is really speculative. Having only one article and saying the ambiguity of Boom Boom is less speculative to me." Here's my biggest gripe: where's the speculation in our votes? Speculation is coming up with answers that have literally no backing, like saying that there's going to be a game based around Waluigi in the future: I don't have any sources and nothing official to provide as proof, it's just something I came up with off the top of my head. However, the opposers are absolutely ''not'' speculating, because, as many people have brought up, there are very clear sources that point to Boom Boom being an individual character. Our arguments aren't baseless, as you seem to be asserting, but entirely based around facts. This is the crux of every proposal: an ambiguous situation is brought up, with various sources that don't seem to agree with each other, so the users interpret what's given to them and come to a conclusion, which is exactly what we've done here, and our conclusion is that it's appropriate for there to be an article about the species and an article about the character. It's entirely acceptable for you to not like that conclusion, and that's fine, because we're not right, and neither are you. Proposals aren't about being right, they're about a community making a decision on what they believe in. Was it wrong for us to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | *"By having two articles that say mostly the same thing and saying that Boom Boom is a character or not is really speculative. Having only one article and saying the ambiguity of Boom Boom is less speculative to me." Here's my biggest gripe: where's the speculation in our votes? Speculation is coming up with answers that have literally no backing, like saying that there's going to be a game based around Waluigi in the future: I don't have any sources and nothing official to provide as proof, it's just something I came up with off the top of my head. However, the opposers are absolutely ''not'' speculating, because, as many people have brought up, there are very clear sources that point to Boom Boom being an individual character. Our arguments aren't baseless, as you seem to be asserting, but entirely based around facts. This is the crux of every proposal: an ambiguous situation is brought up, with various sources that don't seem to agree with each other, so the users interpret what's given to them and come to a conclusion, which is exactly what we've done here, and our conclusion is that it's appropriate for there to be an article about the species and an article about the character. It's entirely acceptable for you to not like that conclusion, and that's fine, because we're not right, and neither are you. Proposals aren't about being right, they're about a community making a decision on what they believe in. Was it wrong for us to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_42#Stop_Listing_Sub-Species_on_Generic_Real-World_Species_Pages|stop listing real world animals as subspecies]]? Who knows, but that was the decision that the community came to. Therefore, please don't refer to what we're arguing as speculation. | ||
:::Sorry, just had to get that off of my chest. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | :::Sorry, just had to get that off of my chest. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ||
::::Time Turner, did you look at LinkTheLefty's analysis that claim that various enemy appear at their singular form in the original guide? It's from their I take my argument.--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}}ย 20:57, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | ::::Time Turner, did you look at LinkTheLefty's analysis that claim that various enemy appear at their singular form in the original guide? It's from their I take my argument.--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}}ย 20:57, 5 August 2015 (EDT) | ||
