Talk:Paragaloomba

Split Super Mario World and Mario Clash enemies into separate articles

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: Thursday, December 26, 2024, 07:23 GMT

As if the Galoomba confusion wasn't enough, the "Winged Galoombas" in Mario Clash are not only referred to as "Para-Goombas" in the manual, but are given another name in the Japanese version, "Sharp Winged Galoomba". Since the growth of spikes on their head would also be an indication that they're really another sub-species of Galoomba, that should be reflected with a split. On the other hand, if they're instead deemed one and the same, then naming policy dictates both articles would be called "Para-Goomba" (since manuals trump most other potential sources).

Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk)
Deadline: January 22, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per proposal.
2. Chocolate Mario (talk) Per Walkazo in the comments.

Comments

Ideally, the resulting article should be "Para-Goomba (Mario Clash)" since that's the only known official English name, but if Winged Galoomba and Para-Galoomba are considered acceptable (I think based on this proposal), then perhaps it can be "Para-Galoomba (Mario Clash)". LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (EST)

If it weren't for the name stuff, I'd say just split it since it's clearly a different thing (I was already thinking of splitting it myself). Anyway, tbh, I kinda feel like the conjectural names would be better off not being used at all for any of these pages since it just adds another layer of confusion, and it's actually against policy: while "Winged Galoomba" and "Para-Galoomba" are extrapolated from plain "Galoomba", they're still conjectural, and shouldn't overrule the actual names. So then the pages would be "Winged Goomba (Super Mario World)", "Para-Goomba (Super Mario World)" and "Para-Goomba (Mario Clash)". After all, if we're using logic rather than canon for the names, the Mario Clash one would be something along the lines of "Sharp Winged Goomba" (like how a Spiky Parabuzzy is a Parabuzzy with a spike, but taking the Japanese name into account), and that's getting very conjectural and harder to defend beyond "but it makes sense". - Walkazo 13:10, 8 January 2015 (EST)

I was wondering why those articles were made with conjectural names, and I agree that they should be changed to Para-Goomba and Winged Goomba (does that require another proposal to override the one I pointed out, or should that go ahead and be fixed to comply with policy?). As far as Winged Goomba goes, though, I don't think actual Paragoombas were ever called that - I believe that's a leftover from when the Winged Goomba information was on that page, so an identifier probably isn't necessary. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (EST)

Think about it. If the two enemies have the same name in English, they must be the same thing. Admittedly, I've never played Mario Clash, so it's not my place to vote on this. Personally, I don't care about what the Japanese call it, and whether you do or not is up to you. Megamario15 - The REAL Mario (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2015 (EST)

Well, y'know...all one needs to do is take a glance at a Para-G(al)oomba and Winged G(al)oomba. I think most would reach the same conclusion, without looking at the names, that the Mario Clash enemy is most similar to the latter (namely the presence of wings rather than a parachute), and might notice the feature that makes them distinct from either (spikes). In addition, there are plenty of shared names in the Mario series - and yes, even the Japanese are guilty of this - but on the flip side, the reason Japanese in particular ought to have consideration when presented with contradicting localization is because the language of origin (for a majority of the series) is often the better indicator of the creators' vision. But I digress - if it's got observable traits that make it stand out, and it's supported with the original text giving it another name (usually suggesting a mistranslation), then it's evident that the subject in question belongs in its own article. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2015 (EST)