Talk:Whacka

Character or Species?

I've come to think that Whacka is more of a character instead of a different whacka every time. He calls himself 'Whacka,' not 'A whacka,' and has wound up in the PM games about twice. --King Piranha Plant 20:30, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Read the Mario Party 6 part. User:Knife/sig1

Oh, alright. Thanks for pointing that out.--King Piranha Plant 21:00, 3 February 2007 (EST)

This game was made by a different developer, though. I do have a feeling Whacka might have been supposed to be one of a kind. Wonky is the most obvious proof of this, but also note that in all 3 the Paper Mario games Whacka's dialogue is more or less the same. However, even though Intelligent Systems created Whacka, it seems they don't have any more say in Whacka's background than Hudson Soft. What's a Wiki to do? General Guy 17:37, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

...Do we have any proof those moles in Mario Party 6 were Whackas? They do look similar but, they look more like just moles. Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back!

Someone show us a picture of the MP6 Whacka or the information will be removed.Knife (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Here's an proof taken by me from a video. It really looks like a Whacka don't you think? Hello!! My username is Spongyoshi but you can also call me Spongy, Spongette or whatever you may see fit as long as it's nice-sounding!
I'm a huge fan of Mario Party and anything Wario!
I'm not the most active in here, usually only contributing in small things like trivia about Mario Party minigames and the likes, but I try to get better at it!
Have a nice browsing on here and have a wonderful day!!
Check my current contributions there!! 11:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? Its ingame. Boo der dash

Number of whacks?

How many times can he be whacked in each game until he is defeated? - J-Yoshi64 6:33 PM, June 9^th, 2011

You get 10 whacks. Then he is defeated and drops coins. He doesn't come back after that. GG445 "...?" 15:42, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Merge Whacka with Monty Mole

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

don't merge 1-20

I think that Whacka should be merged with Monty Mole as they seem to be the same type of creature, just with a couple of physical differences.

Proposer: M&L (talk)
Deadline: February 18, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. M&L (talk) per proposal

Oppose

1. Raven Effect (talk) Different name, Different appearance, different role in the game no reason to merge.
2. Bop1996 (talk) This is based off speculation since the characteristics shared between the two are merely those shared by many ground-dwelling mammals.
3. Walkazo (talk) - These completely different species should keep their completely separate pages.
4. Lord Grammaticus (talk) - Per all. I'm flabbergasted as to how this is even a thing.
5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
6. {{User|Smasher}
7. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
8. YoshiGo99 (talk) You can just see they are different by their looks.
9. Tails777 (talk) They look nothing alike and act totally different. Per all.
10. FourPaperHeroes (talk) Well this is just silly, no offense. Per all.
11. M&SG (talk) - They're not the same species, so they should stay separate.
12. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all. There's no consistent reason to merge them.
13. New Super Yoshi (talk) Is a Whacka even related to a Monty Mole. Per All.
14. Bowser's luma (talk) An obvious no from me, they are not even related. Per all.
15. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Monty Moles and Whacka both appear in Paper Mario...theyre nothing alike. Their just both moles. Just because toads and goombas are mushrooms, should we merge them too?
16. Grapes (talk) - Are you blind? The term different species pretty much sum up my point.
17. Danimario9 (talk) Per Raven Effect and Bowser's luma.
18. Not Bugsy (talk) - They're both moles, but that's it. Compared side-by-side in Paper Mario, they barely even look similar. It's not like we would merge Lumas and Stars because they're similar, would we?
19. Commander Code-8 (talk) 'because they seem the same' This is a terrible reason to merge the articles.
20. Good Magikrazy (talk) Suppose we were Bulbapedia. Here are two Pokemon that fall under the mole category, Dugtrio and Excadrill. Would there be any sense in splitting these two? No. That being said, per all.

Comments

yoshiyoshiyoshi, there is proof given that Whacka and Monty Moles are both moles; there is nonee given that both Goombas and Toads are mushrooms (although Toads definately are). Maybe merging Rocky Wrench and Monty Mole would be better, because both of them are identical except for their habitat, which constantly changes for the MontyMoles anyway, and their methods of attack, although they both start attacking the same way (both pop out of the ground first).M&L (talk)

Being the same species of animal =/= sufficient reason for a merge. Plus, the merge you suggested was already proposed, and then opposed. Lord Grammaticus 19:30, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Sorry! I don't know everything, OK? Go bug someone else on another talk page and just LEAVE ME ALONE!M&L+No Moar Picklez=Wurld War III 19:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

I never assumed you did. Plus, you realize that proposals are more or less free for people to comment on. When you make any sort of proposal, you should be prepared to handle any and all statements, especially those containing dissenting opinions. Lord Grammaticus 19:44, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Yes, okay, but you're making a dissenting opinion WHILE NOT VOTING. This place is for helping the vote and seeing the proposal through or stopping it. If you don't get some of the opposing comments or don't understand the proposal, you post here. What you are posting isn't helping, so go bye-bye, okay?M&L+No Moar Picklez=Wurld War III=[[Image:SMG YellowLuma.jpg|45px]]| 20:34, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Voting is not obligatory, and the comments section is for anything relating to the proposal, not just clarifications. Mario4Ever (talk)

I KNOW! I just can't stand that stuck up Lord Dumbaticus any more! He's worse than Raven Effect! At least Raven Effect is nice and uses common sense!M&L+No Moar Picklez=Wurld War III=[[Image:SMG YellowLuma.jpg|45px]]| 20:54, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Don't flame Raven Effect (talk)

WHAT?! I wasn't flaming! That was a compliment to you, man. Like, chill out. Seriously.M&L+No Moar Picklez=Wurld War III=[[Image:SMG YellowLuma.jpg|45px]]| 21:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)

"Yes, okay, but you're making a dissenting opinion WHILE NOT VOTING."

>implying I didn't already vote.

There's this thing called actually checking the vote. It's a part of the whole common sense package you were talking about - you should try it sometime. Lord Grammaticus 22:22, 10 February 2012 (EST)

The same Whacka?

The Whackas in Paper Mario, PMTTYD and Super Paper Mario are all named Whacka. Do you think they are the same Whacka? (BTW, there is only one Toad named Toad, so I think there is only one Whacka named Whacka.) Another gossip-loving Toad (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Missing information

Whackas can also disappear after only 2-3 whacks. It happened to me on my first playthrough, and I was disappointed because this article claims you could hit him 8 times. (Btw, I'm referring to Super Paper Mario here.) ☆Scarlet Pairo☆ talk 11:37, October 19, 2021 (EDT)

Categorize as Mole

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

canceled by proposer
A recent revision puts Whacka in Category:Moles, but I'm not sure that's the right move. When looking through everything else in the category, there's no question that they belong there; they are clearly based on real-life moles and all share visual similarities with one another. I don't see that same common thread with Whackas; they're blue, don't look like a mole, and really don't share anything in common with moles other than that they pop out of the ground from a burrow. If the only criterion is that they come out of the ground, wouldn't that make a Fire Piranha Plant a mole as well since it also comes out of the ground? Obviously the answer is no, but you get the point. It makes me think of how it would be incorrect to categorize Charlieton or Wonky as a human. I think there are enough dissimilarities to affirm they are not humans, just as there are enough dissimilarities between Whackas and everything else classified as moles to not consider Whacka to be a mole.

On the pro side, their name is obviously derived from Whack-a-Mole and their primary function is to be whacked, like the moles in that game. Both options have valid points, so rather than getting into an edit war, I think a proposal would be helpful.

Proposer: DrBaskerville (talk)
Deadline: June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: classify as Moles

1. Arend (talk) Unlike the relation between Grifty and Little Mousers, it's pretty obvious that Whackas are based on the Whac-A-Mole game, with the name being derived from it, the shape being similar to that of the game's targets, and the fact that you hit both with a hammer. Of similar note, Whacka shares its body shape with that of Diglett, which has always been classified as a Mole Pokémon and shares similar origins to the Whac-A-Mole game. I think that's enough to classify it as a mole, despite it being more similar to the mole targets from that game than a more traditional mole like Monty Mole or the Mole Miners.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) I'm surprised a proposal was even raised. It is clearly based on Whac-A-Mole, and doesn't look any different from a true mole as Monty Mole does.
3. Sparks (talk) It's in the ground and can be whacked. Per all.
4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Blatant, why would this need discussed? Whac-a-Mole is huge in Japan (plus it originated there)
5. ExoRosalina (talk) - Per all, so I would count as a mole.
6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Why not? Per all.
7. DrippingYellow (talk) The line between species that are "actually" moles and those that are merely "based on" moles is incredibly blurry, and in my eyes not a particularly useful distinction to make for the wiki's categories. We have the similar Gummits in the Moles category as well; the only thing separating Whacka and the Gummits in terms of mole-arity is that the Japanese name for Gummits actually incorporates the word for mole.
8. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per Whack-all
9. Camwoodstock (talk) We've extended our animal categories to obviously fantastical versions of animals before; see the Chain Chomp category being a subcategory to the Canine category. We don't exactly see why Whacka should be an exception when he sure has more in common with his species than a literal, actual Stapler has in common with a dog.
10. Tails777 (talk) Per all.

Oppose: Whackas are not Moles

1. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal

Comments

Just for transparency's sake, I started a similar proposal on Grifty discussion page that debates whether he should be considered a Little Mouser based on visual similarities to other Little Mousers. The consensus seems to be no, that there are more differences than similarities, so I propose the same standard be applied to Whacka for consistency. There's a difference between categorizing a specific character's race and categorizing a species as related to another species, though. The debate on Talk:Spike Top#Consider_Spike_Top_derived_from_both_Buzzy_Beetles_and_Spinies is currently working its way through that argument. Dr. Baskerville 19:22, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

I feel that's a false equivalence. Grifty and Little Mousers are both in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, so that makes it fair to point out the differences between the two. Not only that, but your other proposal is about classifying Grifty as specifically a Little Mouser, as opposed to a mouse/rat/rodent; it's undeniable that Grifty is a rodent of some kind, but it's questionable to say that he's specifically a Little Mouser, a fictional rodent subspecies. Likewise, it's undeniable that Whacka is a Whac-a-Mole mole, which are obviously supposed to be based on moles. Saying that Whacka isn't a mole because it lacks certain mole qualities is like saying Nabbit or the Rabbids aren't rabbits, even though they clearly are based on rabbits the same way. rend (talk) (edits) 20:14, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

As I said in the above comment, I can see the difference between Grifty and this situation. Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of the categories. Are categories for pages that are "based on" or actually are, i.e. derived from / inspired by vs. actually being the thing. I agree that its clear Whackas are based on moles, but are they moles themselves? Personally, I just don't see it. It feels like I'm making the same argument you are about Grifty, though maybe that's because I'm applying character =/= species to species =/= IRL equivalent. That might be the wrong way for me to think about categories. If categories are for things based on rather than things that are, then I'd agree with the categorization of Whacka as a mole.

Also, just for clarity's sake, there are "moles" in Paper Mario as both Whackas and Monty Mole (Flower Fields) appear in that game. Dr. Baskerville 20:43, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Moles are a diverse group in real life too, so that's not too important. And that's not even getting into the various "false" moles like tenrecs. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:00, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

@DrBaskerville I think this is a fair question to ask. For species, taxonomic families, people, and communities that emerged within the Super Mario franchise like Little Mousers, Koopas, or Piranha Plants, the articles nestled within those categories must be members of those literal groups. Because they are fictional, we as users have all the tools necessary to organize them.

I think the categories based on real-world subjects are a little different. Because these are fictional creatures created by artistic humans, not organisms brought about by natural selection, they: A.) often exhibit traits that inherently would exclude these enemies from their real-life sources of inspiration; B.) lack an enormous amount of details necessary for a real researcher to classify animals, including skull shape, occlusal formula, skeletons, genomes, evolutionary history, metabolic details, reproductive details, biogeographic details, etc.

Additionally, for these real-world type of categories like moles, snakes, primates, etc. there is inherent artistic, cultural, and biophilic value in understanding what animals, plants, etc. are the basis of inspiration for Super Mario characters, or at least there is to me. That's something concrete and meaningful. Combing through each of these enemies, and scrutinizing whether a bipedal turtle-like being that wears its shell like an article of clothing really could belong to a group of real-world reptiles best defined by the fact that they have a shell made out of their vertebrae and ribcages feels like a trivial exercise that would empty all of these categories, and would dilute the benefit of even having them. We know Whackas are based on moles, because they are little mammalian mole-like critters clearly based on Whac-A-Mole. That's all it needs to be in the moles category, I think. (I would even argue Whackas look more like real moles than Monty Moles: only rodents and lagomorphs have buck teeth like Monty's. True moles do not. But that's tangential.) - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:31, June 12, 2024 (EDT)

I really appreciate your thoughtful response. That definitely helps me to understand the categorization, and I'd change my vote to support if that wouldn't make the proposal moot. Rather than canceling the proposal, would it be best to leave it up for posterity so it can be referenced if a similar debate occurs on a related subject? I don't know how long ago the debate was that @Camwoodstock referenced in his vote, but it appears this is far from the first time a similar question has been raised. I don't know if referencing back to this could ever be useful, especially if there's other cases just like it. Dr. Baskerville 04:59, June 12, 2024 (EDT)

You can still reference it if it gets cancelled. Cancelling a proposal doesn't delete it from the record, it just makes it end earlier. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:46, June 12, 2024 (EDT)