Category talk:Reptiles

From the Super Mario Wiki

Split Category:Reptiles and Amphibians to Category:Reptiles and Category:Amphibians[edit]

Settledproposal.svg 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.

No Split 4-14

Amphibians are completely different animals from reptiles. I suggest that we should split this category into two separate categories. And if you say the category is too minor to be warranted into separate categories, Squid has its own category.

Proposer:BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Deadline: 20, January 2011 23:59 (GMT)

Split[edit]

  1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) No really, they are completely different animals.
  2. Master Koopakid (talk) I agree, in Science we had this thing about Reptile and Anphibian DON'T LAY THERE EGGS IN COOL ENVIROMENTS AND REPTILES SOMETIMES HAVE GILLS! I think
  3. Brianne the Frank (talk) Well DUH. I mean if there were only like two each I'd get it but there's a ton! And yeah they're completely different. It's a nobrainer! Wait before I say that I guess I'd better read the opposition... Response to Walkazo: Frogs are amphibians and there are quite a few frogs... Yoshis are amphibians (apparently) and there are a ton of Yoshis... I am sorry but I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Response to Liamroche: They're different ENOUGH. I mean have you ever seen a frog with scales, or a snake with smooth slimy skin? Response to Bowser's luma... most of them I could tell the difference. Geesh. Not that hard.
  4. Magikrazy51 (talk) See my comment below. Slippy's only defense was that both him and Leon had long, stretchy tongues. So I'm on Leon's side. Team Star Wolf!

Leave it as it is[edit]

  1. Walkazo (talk) - Reptiles and Amphibians do actually get grouped together in science (i.e. Herpetologists study both), so this is not that bad. Plus, the resulting amphibian category would be too small, and on that note, Category:Squids should be deleted (it's just the Bloopers plus two extra things with "squid" as/in their names: its absence will not harm navigation). Splitting this would be too much work, not enough gain.
  2. Coincollector (talk) - There is no science in the marioverse, and many of the creatures's descriptions involved in this say reptile or amphibian-like but not specifically one or another.
  3. Marioguy1 (talk) - What is a reptile? Is there a specific Mario game that has reptiles noted as reptiles? Or are we just looking to put categories on pages? If it's the latter, this should be deleted, not split.
  4. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
  5. Ultramariologan (talk) Per all.
  6. Bowser's luma (talk) We would have to determine which was which, and that would be a waste of time. Per all.
  7. SWFlash (talk) I am Zero SWFlash! Failing this proposal to open kill proposal. SWFlash continues contributing.
  8. Rise Up Above It (talk) But there are six cute little sub-categories! Six! *puppy eyes* And soo many pages!!!! *moar puppy eyes*
  9. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Per all.
  10. WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135 (talk) Per Walkazo.
  11. Liamroche (talk) They are similar creatures.
  12. New Super Mario (talk) Per all. It doesn't much matter anyway.
  13. Volatile Dweevil (talk) Per Marioguy1.
  14. AnimalCrossingCool (talk) Per all.

Comments[edit]

Or just delete. Nothing will change. SWFlashSWFlash.svg

Yes, in my opinion deleting is the best course of action. There are no confirmed "reptiles and amphibians" - this category is completely useless and it is based on speculation. When this fails, I'm making a "kill this category" proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)
Why can't you just ask BLOF to delete this proposal and make a new one? The process will go by much faster. Mario Green.pngKaBoom! 16:34, 8 January 2011 (EST)

BTW, why can't we kill the human, bird, dinosaur, dragon, bat, fish, arachnid, etc. category either? What makes the other categories so special? Mario Green.pngKaBoom! 16:38, 8 January 2011 (EST)

Exactly how long will the amphibians page be? I've said this before, a detailed wiki is good, but one with excess pages about a similar subject is not. Mpeng (talk)

@Brianne the Frank: I know what a frog is, thank you, but even including all the frogs (and toads and Muddee if you count him as a salamander), there's still only 17 amphibians, and that's too small for categories like these (i.e. common sense categories meant to supplement the ones based on official stuff to make cross-game navigation easier, or at least, that's how I think of them). And Yoshi's aren't amphibians: that's a fan theory, and it's completely wrong; they're dinosaurs, which are reptiles. (On a side-note, they were originally designed as Koopas, which are also reptiles.) - Walkazo 00:00, 16 January 2011 (EST)

I, Magikrazy51 (talk) remember seeing an arguement like this in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Anyway, when Falco uses a codec on Wolf at Corneria, Leon Kowalski mentions how nice the water is. Slippy Toad mentions how his and Leon's class needs water to survive. Leon yells at Slippy for confusing their separate classes.

Split Category:Snakes[edit]

Settledproposal.svg 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.

split 9-0
Considering the sheer number of snakes in the Mario series, I don't see why there isn't a subcategory for them, especially considering that there's a subcategory for frogs.

For the record, the only reason I'm making a proposal for this is because Category:Snakes was deleted recently by an admin.

Proposer: Niiue (talk)
Deadline: August 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support[edit]

  1. Niiue (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Time Turner (talk) It's got more entries than Category:Hedgehogs and nearly as many as Category:Jellyfish. Per proposal.
  3. TheFlameChomp (talk) I don't see any problems with having this category. Per all.
  4. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.
  5. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
  6. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
  7. Skuchi037 (talk) Per all.
  8. Alex95 (talk) - Per all.
  9. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

It would help this proposal if you had a list of some of the snakes in the Mario universes. I don't want to vote until I agree that there are enough snakes for a category.
Ultimate Mr L sig.png Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 12:27, 15 August 2017 (EDT)

Alright, here's a quick list:

Niiue (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2017 (EDT)

Is this an all-inclusive list? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:12, 15 August 2017 (EDT)
It is, as far as I know. Note that there are multiple viable subcategories with less pages. Niiue (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2017 (EDT)
Snivy and Onix from Pokemon, which appear in Smash Bros., also qualify. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2017 (CT)
I know Onix is the "Rock Snake" Pokémon, but I think it would be a step too far to call it a literal snake just because of that. Arcanine isn't a Legendary Pokémon in the traditional sense just because it's titled the "Legendary Pokémon". Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:19, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Sure, it's a golem-creature with no scales, but it looks like a snake and is called a snake. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2017 (CT)
How many ducks are composed of individual boulders and quack by throwing more boulders? I know, weirdness is a moot point for the Mario franchise, but it's a step too far for my liking. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:26, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Combine the weirdness of the Mario franchise with the weirdness of the Pokemon franchise, which has ducks that have headache-induced psychic powers, many electric rodents (and similar small mammals), towns staffed with identical nurses and police officers, and my personal hero James. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2017 (CT)
At the very least, Psyduck vaguely looks like a real duck, with its duck bill and webbed feet. Would you say that Onix and Ekans look the same? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:46, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
No, but Ekans, Arbok, Seviper, and Serperior don't look any more similar, and they're all snakes. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2017 (CT)
Do you ever end up in a situation where you don't like something but you have no logical or rational explanation as to why you don't like it? I'll bow out now. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:56, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

Split Category:Reptiles and Category:Amphibians[edit]

Settledproposal.svg 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.

split 12-0
OK, this is completely ridiculous. Anyone who has even looked at a zoology textbook for 3 seconds knows that Reptiles and Amphibians are classified completely separately, and Birds are closer to Reptiles than Amphibians are. The loss of the last proposal regarding this seems to have been to a serious lack of understanding of taxonomy, and these need to be split. In science, they are never classified together, period, except for that they're both Vertebrates. The 5 main groups of Vertebrates are Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals, none of which are classified within each other. This needs reversed. It's just confusing. If this goes through, the two categories will be split, and each article and subcategory on the current "Reptiles and Amphibians" category will be moved to the respective category that they belong to. If it doesn't, this won't change, but I'll probably have my faith in this site damaged immensely.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 4, 2017, 23:59 (GMT)

Support[edit]

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per proposal
  2. Chester Alan Arthur (talk) Per proposal.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) It always confused me that this category broadly groups together reptiles and amphibians based on herpetology (a field of science on cold-blooded vertebrates excepting fish) rather than taxonomy (scientific classification of biological organisms, which I imagine that categories should adhere to if anything). Per proposal.
  4. Baby Luigi (talk) Oh, this proposal being reenacted from my failed one 6 years ago. Personally, for the same reasons stated in this proposal, I was never completely comfortable with haphazardly lumping two completely separate taxonomical groups of animals together like this. I think having two types of animals grouped as one messes up navigation, as now everything related to snakes, lizards, dinosaurs, frogs, toads, salamanders, etc are now mixed in this one giant category and thus making just browsing for a type of animal difficult to find. Doc von Schmeltwick worded my thoughts far better than I ever could 6 years ago, so mostly per him.
  5. Time Turner (talk) Per all.
  6. Niiue (talk) Per all.
  7. Alex95 (talk) - Per all.
  8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  9. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.
  10. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
  11. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all. At the end of the day they are completely different types of animals, I reckon the only reason they were lumped together is because some of them look similar and there were a couple of cases where no-one could tell which one it was.
  12. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Difference is enough to split something, so per all!

Oppose[edit]

Time Turner (talk) Still waiting on that list. Since it's been brought up in the comments, I'll also ask about what are your plans for the resulting amphibian category and its subcategories.

Comments[edit]

Considering that Walkazo (the first opposer of the original proposer) was literally studying to be an ornithologist and reptiles and amphibians are grouped together to this day under herpetology and searching for "study of amphibians" and "study of reptiles" both entirely display results relating to herpetology, saying that the other users have a "serious lack of understanding of taxonomy" is rather insulting. Separately, I would like to see a list of each of the categories; it won't be much help if one of them has very few entries. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 09:24, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

My view on that was that Walkazo had a lapse in judgement, as normally I trust and support Walkazo's opinions. But this is different, no textbook I have ever read has ever grouped them together except as vertebrates, period. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2017 (CT)
Again, herpetology is a real thing studied by real people (out of curiosity, how many textbooks have you read?). Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
Plenty of Biology textbooks throughout my years, I'd say at least 5 or 6, most of which have been released since 2005, all of which always pointed Herpetology as primarily being the study of Reptiles, and often specifically snakes. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2017 (CT)
The "Study of" terms here are irrelevant. We are referring solely to Class when we refer to how things are split taxonomically on this level, with smaller clades added in as subcategories as needed. The main classes of vertebrates are Fish (Cartilaginous and Bony), Amphibians, Reptiles, Mammals, and Birds. This wiki template ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chordata ) shows how Chordates are currently classified, and with it, it shows that both Mammals and Birds are actually closer to Reptiles than Amphibians are. Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I'm sure it can be found in other places. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2017 (CT)
You clearly know more about the subject than me, so I'll defer to your judgment. Still, I'd like to see separate lists of the reptiles and amphibians. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 21:09, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) I think you misunderstood what Walkazo was saying. She said that the categories had to be grouped in order not to create too many categories with few elements that are then of little use for navigation, she also added that grouping said categories wasn't as anti-scientific as it sounds, as there are indeed people who study both amphibians and reptiles named herpetologists, said name coming from the herpetile class which is now not in use anymore because of the differences between these classes that you mentioned but also because there's plenty of amphibians and reptiles discovered. Is it the same case here?--Mister Wu (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

Honestly, I think that the "Amphibians" category should just be renamed from the "Frogs" category, with the addition of the salamander Muddee and any other salamanders I don't know about. That would also solve the problem of whether tadpoles should go under the same category as frogs, since it would just be Category:Amphibians. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2017 (CT)
Personally, I think the mixing of two different types of animals worsens navigation far more than two separate, smaller categories. BabyLuigiFire.png(T|C) 23:01, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

@Time Turner I already said, we would just rename the Frogs category and add Muddee and any other Salamanders to it, which would also solve any uneasiness about tadpoles. Ergo:

Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2017 (CT)

Before I vote, I want to know if any of the points mentioned in the previous proposal, specifically Walkazo's, are still valid to take into account. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 23:41, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

Not really, I've subdivided the category enough that the amount of pages that would need changing the tags is currently at 52, which isn't a particularly massive feat. So the "too much work for too little gain" argument is no longer valid. As for her other arguments, I've already explained above. And there's certainly enough entries if we do it the way I suggested. EDIT: OK, there's more than 52, everything mentioned above as well due to renaming the Frogs category. Give or take 1 or 2 due to overlap in my counting. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2017 (CT)