Editing Template talk:Goombas

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. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 13:52, 8 January 2015 (EST)

== Hi! ==

Can you add Outmaway, Hotcorn (corn like enemies), and Splunkin {{unsigned|82.76.149.133}}

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 {{User:BetterDonutGalaxy/sig}} 2:06, October 23, 2023 (CDT)

== Consider Beanies and Octoombas "related" rather than primarily Goombas ==

{{TPP}}
As it currently stands, [[Beanie]]s and [[Octoomba]]s are treated as "actual" Goombas while [[Galoomba]]s, [[Goombrat]]s, [[Wanderin' Goom|Goom]]s, and [[Strollin' Stu|Stu]]s (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''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

===Support===
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Tails777}} I've never actually seen either as actual Goombas, more like counterparts from the Beanbean Kingdom and outer space respectively. Per proposal.
#{{User|Delsait}}  - 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.
#{{User|Arend}} ...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?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Per all.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} If [[Shrooblet]] can be considered as such...

===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. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:10, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
::I'm not sure the distinction between "subtype" and "inspired by" is particularly useful, though. Hell, it's not even always consistent (just look at Snifit), or even particularly obvious (Shymore). [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 12:54, April 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::Well it's just plain awkward to say that [[Flitter]] is a subtype of [[Necky]]. It was definitely based on it behaviorally, though. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:01, April 27, 2024 (EDT)
::::Couldn't those use the "comparable" parameter? As in, they're not related, but have a similar role. After all, that's what is already done with GB Donkey Kong's graphic-swap enemies, like Rappy and Dotty. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 13:43, April 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Problem is it leaves no indication as to what came first. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:52, April 27, 2024 (EDT)
::::::True, but is that really necessary in the first place? I think it's more helpful for situations like Necky and Flitter to be treated differently from Goomba and Galoomba, than it is to know whether Necky or Flitter came first. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 08:35, April 28, 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 [[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)
: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)
::I'd prefer to leave the guidelines on these open to interpretation. Causes less headaches. The only reason I'm proposing this at all rather than just doing it is because there was a previous proposal. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:58, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::I feel like if the guidelines cause headaches, it's because they have a certain thing they overlook, hence why they get changed. And just because one person takes the guidelines less literally, that doesn't mean there won't be attempts made to follow "the rules" that result in an edit war or something. Either way, it wouldn't hurt to put in the guidelines, it would show that the "relatives" we're beginning to have now are an acceptable aspect of infoboxes to a newcomer. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:17, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 == Consider Beanies and Octoombas "related" rather than primarily Goombas ==
-{{Settled TPP}}
-{{Proposal outcome|passed|14-0|Consider as related}}
+{{TPP}}
 As it currently stands, [[Beanie]]s and [[Octoomba]]s are treated as "actual" Goombas while [[Galoomba]]s, [[Goombrat]]s, [[Wanderin' Goom|Goom]]s, and [[Strollin' Stu|Stu]]s (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.