| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 82: |
Line 82: |
|
| |
|
| ==Categorize as Mole== | | ==Categorize as Mole== |
| {{Settled TPP}} | | {{TPP}} |
| {{Proposal outcome|cancelled}}
| |
| 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. | | 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. |
|
| |
|
| Line 93: |
Line 92: |
| ===Support: classify as Moles=== | | ===Support: classify as Moles=== |
| #{{User|Arend}} Unlike the relation between Grifty and Little Mousers, it's pretty obvious that Whackas are based on the {{wp|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 [[bulbapedia:Diglett (Pokémon)|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 Miner]]s. | | #{{User|Arend}} Unlike the relation between Grifty and Little Mousers, it's pretty obvious that Whackas are based on the {{wp|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 [[bulbapedia:Diglett (Pokémon)|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 Miner]]s. |
| #{{User|Nintendo101}} 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.
| |
| #{{User|Sparks}} It's in the ground and can be whacked. Per all.
| |
| #[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Blatant, why would this need discussed? Whac-a-Mole is huge in Japan (plus it originated there)
| |
| #[[User:ExoRosalina|ExoRosalina]] ([[User talk:ExoRosalina|talk]]) - Per all, so I would count as a mole.
| |
| #{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Why ''not''? Per all.
| |
| #{{User|DrippingYellow}} 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 [[Gummit]]s 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.
| |
| #{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per Whack-all
| |
| #{{User|Camwoodstock}} We've extended our animal categories to obviously fantastical versions of animals before; see [[:Category:Chain Chomps|the Chain Chomp category]] being a subcategory to [[:Category:Canines|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 [[Stapler (boss)|a literal, actual Stapler has in common with a dog]].
| |
| #{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Oppose: Whackas are not Moles=== | | ===Oppose: Whackas are not Moles=== |
| Line 108: |
Line 98: |
| ===Comments=== | | ===Comments=== |
| Just for transparency's sake, I started a similar proposal on [[Talk:Grifty|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. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 19:22, June 10, 2024 (EDT) | | Just for transparency's sake, I started a similar proposal on [[Talk:Grifty|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. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 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 [[Rabbid]]s aren't [[rabbit]]s, even though they clearly are based on rabbits the same way. {{User:Arend/sig}} 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. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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 [[:Category:Little Mousers|Little Mousers]], [[:Category:Koopas|Koopas]], or [[:Category:Piranha Plants|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 [[:Category:Moles|moles]], [[:Category:Snakes|snakes]], [[:Category:Primates|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 [[Koopa Troopa|bipedal turtle-like being that wears its shell like an article of clothing]] really could belong to a {{wp|Testudines|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. [https://a-z-animals.com/media/2022/01/shutterstock_1099552085.jpg True moles do not]. But that's tangential.) - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 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. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:46, June 12, 2024 (EDT)
| |
