Talk:Super Blooper (boss)

Are you sure the Super Blooper is a she?(Super F22 Pilot 02:31, 17 December 2007 (EST))

It gave birth to mini-Blooper's, didn't it? That proves it is a female. My Bloody Valentine

Male Seahorses can also give birth. So in a fictional universe, everything can be possible. (Could be asexual as well) Be careful with assumptions. I'd just call it "it". - Cobold (talk · contribs) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

You both have good points. But since nothing has been confirmed, the Super Blooper really should be "it". I'll fix the article to match this. ~DarkZero 17:11, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Male Yoshis can lay Eggs Koopa-Troopa

Does anyone think that Super Blooper is a stub? User:Dry Paratroopa/sig

Title

Shouldn't the title be "Super Blooper (Paper Mario)"? Another gossip-loving Toad (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (EDT)

According to our naming policy, under "shared titles", "If an identifier is needed, the text in parenthesis is determined by: What type of thing it is (e.g. level, course, game, character)." Super Blooper is a boss in Paper Mario, but also the name of the kart in Mario Kart Wii, so the (boss) part is more descriptive, and therefore, preferred. In cases where the game title is in parentheses, however, the subject's element has to be shared across multiple games (e.g. different bosses named "Super Blooper" across several titles). Just an FYI kind of thing! I hope this helps! It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:06, 21 October 2014 (EDT)

I see. By the way, if an editor types [[Super Blooper, can there be a pop-up menu indicating the identifiers that exist? This way, identifiers needn't have too much uniformity, nor need editors make guesses or check them manually. Another gossip-loving Toad (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2014 (EDT)

Merge to Big Blooper

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: Wednesday, November 27, 2024, 01:43 GMT

Considering our merge of Chomp Shark to Big Chain Chomp as well as Anti Guy to Black Shy Guy in the semi-recent past, it makes sense to go ahead and merge this to Big Blooper, since it too has no distinguishing characteristics aside from spawning flunkies (a common RPG boss trait). The lang-of-orig name here is simply "Big Blooper;" contrast the SPM "Big Blooper" boss whose naming situation is more similar to King Bob-omb being originally localized as "the Big Bob-omb," its lang-of-origin name calls it a "king." Also contrast the "Big" bosses from the Yoshi games, who have characteristics separate from their respective "big" enemies (and "Big Piranha Plant" and "Big Piranha Plant" were explicitly listed separately by the Smash Bros. list).

...yes, that came out kind of as a stream-of-conscious. But I stand by it (and I just got up).

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. Blinker (talk) Per proposal, especially the consistency with the Chomps.
3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal. Design-wise, it is literally just a big Blooper with no other special attributes (compare regular Bloopers to the Super Blooper sprite). To be fair, the Electro Blooper also looks the same, but it has electrical properties to distinguish itself.
4. PrincessPeachFan (talk) Per all and out of spite towards TTYD Blooper being split despite nothing special about it.

Oppose

1. Technetium (talk) I was honestly on the fence about this despite my TTYD Blooper proposal, but as I've been going through Super Mario-kun I can now confirm that Super Blooper is a character there (it has to be Super Blooper specifically because it is portrayed with no elemental abilities and as a mother with two Blooper babies (like the two the boss summons, albeit I think one is a husband in this adaptation for humor - still much smaller like the Blooper baby and inspired by it). I will be uploading the photo of it shortly, but yeah, I think the fact the same boss appears elsewhere as a character is a reason why its page should remain split.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Technetium. A character appearing in multiple pieces of media, remakes aside, gives it a little more credence for having its own article, even if it's a generic species representative (and that's more debatable in this case).

Comments

@PPF No need to be spiteful... (though I do want to use this as a springboard to re-merge that). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:19, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

I will say that TTYD Blooper has more basis to stay split now that it's been discovered to appear in Super Mario-kun. Technetium (talk) 21:32, September 1, 2024 (EDT)

So? Wiggler appeared as a singular character in the SMW arc of -kun. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:03, September 1, 2024 (EDT)

These appearances are very clearly based on the specific bosses rather than a random member of a species. Technetium (talk) 15:04, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

To add on to this, if both the Super Blooper and TTYD Blooper are merged back into the Big Blooper page, then we would be covering these two very different Bloopers (as seen in -kun) in not only the same page, but the same section, making things confusing. Technetium (talk) 15:14, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

There's plenty of other instances of "-kun" using random species bosses as characters in specific arcs. Graphic adaptations should not be the decider on what is and isn't split when dealing with predominantly game-based subjects. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:04, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

Do you have any specific examples along with how they are covered on the wiki? Technetium (talk) 16:17, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

In many cases, all their appearances have not been yet added to the wiki. But for example, Petey Piranha is portrayed as a female (or at least effeminate) "mother" figure in the PiT adaptation. Similarly, Magikoopa was a singular character as far back as the SMW arc before the modern idea of "Kamek" was introduced. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:07, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

Petey Piranha is already a distinct character to begin with though - not really what I'm talking about here. Technetium (talk) 17:11, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

I can't recall any specific examples as I am not intimately familiar with -kun, but I know I've seen them and this principle is hardly unique to -kun anyways. Saying this can't be Big Blooper because a second-party manga adaptation gave it big lips is honestly a really silly argument. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:17, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

Maybe you're right, this argument is shaky at best. I guess I'm just trying to find anything to explain why I think this should stay split, something more than just "it feels right" / I got overly excited over finding this out earlier and rushed right over here. (I do stand by the -kun coverage getting confusing if TTYD Blooper is merged back in though, but that's irrelevant for right now, and I'll have my arguments for TTYD Blooper if another proposal happens). I guess it 1. Ultimately feels a bit odd to do this merge when it was one of the reasons for TTYD Blooper getting split (key word: one) and 2. why was it split to begin with? Was it the name being unique in English? If that is the case, I'd like to check if "English name but not Japanese name is unique so the page should be split" applies currently elsewhere on the wiki, as I'd like there to be consistency one way or another. Technetium (talk) 17:36, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

It was split to begin with because we didn't have a "Big Blooper" general article until early 2020 - many years after this article was made in the wiki's stone age. It still being a separate article is merely a relic of that period. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:38, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

I more so mean the proposal from 2022 on the Big Blooper page, which decided to only merge TTYD Blooper. Reading through that, though, it brings up the interesting point about Blooper Nannies, hmm... spawning babies is still a unique feature for a Big Blooper to have that others don't, RPG mechanics aside. Either way, I do think Waluigi Time's vote better puts into words what I was trying to say. Technetium (talk) 17:44, September 4, 2024 (EDT)