Talk:Boulder

Star Bits

You can break the boulders by spinning the red spot, but only the first three times you do this, you are given Star Bits. After that, nothing. Chomps in the games act similar, but their Star Bit supply gradually runs down from 6 about 5 times, to 1 about twice, then nothing. I am not trying to say Boulders and Chomps are related.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1870163 (talk).

Wario Land

Is there any official source that says the "boulders" in Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 are actually boulders? The non-spiked ones look to me like giant berries, and the spikes ones just seem to be spiked balls.

Split Ruby Rock from Boulder

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

failed to reach consensus 5-4
Different names in various languages including Japanese and Spanish, although both are rocks, one is treated as an obstacle while the other is mentioned as an enemy and acts as one by following certain paths and can be defeated, it also has its own large variant, and that's without having the physical differences, one being a normal boulder and the other one with an embedded ruby, finally, this article talks about the rocks with rubies from SMG and SMG2 exclusively, to avoid confusion.

Proposer: Sorbetti (talk)
Deadline: March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split(Support)

1. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) i don't like the name argument, but these have a very glaring, obvious, glowing-red difference from your average boulder, one that makes them highly distinctive and changes how you interact with it.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Evie. We don't particularly buy the naming distinction, but there's a big, bright, glowing, cherry red weakpoint on the idea that these should remain merged. There's an incredibly obvious gameplay difference there. ;P
4. Jdtendo (talk) The ruby part makes them distinct from regular boulders.
5. Kirby the Formling (talk) They look distinct, they act distinctly, they are named distinctly for other Boulders, why were they merged in the first place?

Keep Merged(Oppose)

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I'd honestly rather we see the "Rolling Boulder" (including the Ruby Rocks) split from "boulder" (as in, any generic big rocks). I stress this because the Japanese for Ruby Rocks is 「ゴロゴロ岩」(Gorogoro Iwa) more or less meaning "rolling rock." My impression is that the boulders from Super Mario Galaxy are supposed to be the same subject from Super Mario 64, and I would rather they share the same article. I think that would be a more accurate reflection of what the games are trying to do.
2. PrincessPeachFan (talk): They're the same thing and I don't like the Mario Portal anyways.
3. SComic (talk) The argument that they function differently is very flawed in my opinion. Every boulder acts different with a different role and slightly different physics in EVERY game. It's an umbrella term and I don't see why the Ruby Rocks fall out of that umbrella.
4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.

Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Nintendo101.

Comments

@PrincessPeachFan It is not exclusive to Mario Portal, the same Super Mario encyclopedia, although it should not be mentioned, lists them separately, as do other guides.Sorbetti (talk) 13:32, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

So? It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so it's a duck. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 09:01, March 18, 2025 (EDT)

This is how it works when we don't have official sources, regardless of whether they are similar or not, if Nintendo itself sees them as independent beings from a common Boulder we must separate them, it doesn't matter if they look alike, it doesn't matter if they act similarly, it matters how they are officially recognized and officially through various guides and web pages it is recognized as an enemy, also on the same Boulder page in the languages section it has its own section.Sorbetti (talk) 11:42, March 18, 2025 (EDT)

Only Nintendo of America refers to this subject by a unique name. As relayed in my vote, Nintendo Co., Ltd. - the publisher from Japan - refers to these boulders as "Rolling Rocks," the same name for the rolling rocks in Super Mario 64 and potentially other games. I think they are supposed to be the same thing. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:17, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

In Spanish it also has its own name, this being "Rocarrueda" something like Rollrock, which although it resembles rolling boulder is differentSorbetti (talk) 17:47, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

Yes, but the people who created this subject speak Japanese. There is usually a little bit of separation between the people who make the games and the people who localize them into other languages. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:42, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

You know, I completely understand that separation, but I think sometimes it's taken too strictly. I would like to have a discussion about this because at least for me it has generated quite a bit of confusion and questions.Sorbetti (talk) 19:13, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

Unclosing this proposal because a 4-3 outcome means that consensus has not been reached yet. You can use {{Proposal check}} to check if a proposal has actually reached consensus or not.

With a margin of 1 vote, at least 60% approval is required. 57.1% approve the first place option. CONSENSUS NOT REACHED

Jdtendo^(T|C) 02:09, April 14, 2025 (EDT)

Split Ruby Rock and Big Ruby Rock from Boulder (second lap)

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

Split 7-1
Second try.

Well, it seems we have these guys merged with Ruby Rock, since the page lists all the generic rock guys by their Japanese name. However, this isn't your conventional generic rock, it's a Maslenki!

Although Ruby Rocks don't have a distinguishable name in Japanese, they are quite different in appearance and mechanically speaking. Starting with a large, round, glowing red dot that serves as a weak point to defeat Ruby Rock, which, upon being defeated, will drop Star Bit as a reward, just like other enemies. I know that boulders and rolling boulders tend to change per game, but changing your mechanics is one thing, and becoming a living maslenki is another. Because yes, Ruby Rocks are officially categorized as enemies, both in SMG and SMG2, in the encyclopedia and in Mario Portal. Ruby Rocks appear from the first levels of SMG as a way to teach the player how to calculate spin, a mechanic that serves as inspiration for two battles and a transformation (Rock Mario). The battles are against Bowser and Sorbetti (me), which require prior training with Ruby Rocks to be defeated. It's also worth noting that Ruby Rocks have an officially recognized variant, Big Ruby Rocks!, which appear exclusively in Dusty Dune Galaxy. Ruby Rocks also received artwork alongside other enemies in SMG2 , which proves they're an enemy. And finally, Ruby Rocks did receive unique names in others languages than Japanese.

So, here we have an iteration of Boulder that is an enemy, with its own mechanics and method of defeat, which in turn serve as inspiration for other fights. It has its unique name in other languages. It has its own variant and its own artwork. If that doesn't deserve its own page, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Proposer: Sorbetti (talk)
Deadline: August 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT

I like maslenki (support)

1. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per our stance in the last proposal--the ruby rocks have a bright, red, jolly, candy-like distinction between them and your average boulder, and this is a distinct feature of those ruby rocks that hasn't been seen on more generic boulders, prior or since. This feels like a rather straight-forward split to make.
3. Salmancer (talk) Look, if we can have Level and Galaxy, where the latter is the Super Mario Galaxy interpretation of the former, we can have Boulder and Ruby Rock, where the latter is the Super Mario Galaxy interpretation of the former. And we have voted at times to not merge things sharing a Japanese name, like in this proposal about Panser and Volcano Lotus. Lastly, "Ruby Rock" comes from Mario Portal itself: It's about as rubber stamp of approval as rubber stamp of approval comes. If some regions naming things in ways others don't is a problem that Nintendo wanted to fix, they probably would have started by not printing "Ruby Rock" in Mario Portal.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per all. This is a pretty unique and distinctive type of boulder.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) even if it wasn't called Ruby Rock in english, it's just too distinct from your average rolling rock. i could MAYBE understand keeping them merged if the weak point was like, a crack with a bandaid on it, like the back of a Whomp. as is, with the gigantic red gemstone, and unique mechanical distinction? split 'em.
6. Mario (talk) Sure, split the red corundum rock.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) While a subject can be an enemy in one game and not one in the next (as apparent with many Mario subjects, including famous ones like Blooper which is an enemy in Super Mario Sunshine and then an item in Mario Kart DS), and the Galaxy enemies are certainly extensions of the Indiana Jones boulders from Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64, they do exhibit discretely unique mechanics and functions that I think substantively distinguishes it from other boulders. If any of these rocks went by a more specific, non-generic name, then I can see the grounds for keeping them together. But I think this is fine. It should be noted, however, that neither Mario Portal nor the encyclopedia correctly identify the "Big Ruby Rock" - none of the screenshots correlating with it are the ones from Dusty Dunes. This doesn't make it invalid or an untrue designation, but whatever we do should be relayed to the reader. I would also support further severing "Rolling Boulders" at large from the generic boulder article. It's weird to lump a recurring rolling obstacle with giant, non-spherical, sometimes unmoving rocks.

I hate maslenki (oppose)

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I don't understand these headers. Any-hways, I feel like these are an extension of the SM64/DS rolling rocks that can only be destroyed by Wario and the Mega form in the latter game. Adapting that trait for normal Mario. These are ontologically the same object as standard rolling boulders, as the lang-of-origin description indicates. They simply have a game-based gimmick, like many other enemies and obstacles; this is the first game to feature Chomps rolling, Urchins... also rolling, whatever is going on with Mini Goomba, Mechakoopa, and Spiny Cheep Cheep; Big Goombas being outright immune to stomps, and standard Piranha Plants that can be permanently defeated by jumping on them. Not to mention things like Goombas that can be flipped upside down by attacking them in a non-stompy way, many Bob-ombs that are permanently inert, and Boos that can be flung around by the tongue. This is a similar case to those.

Ruby Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick I don't know what you're not understanding. I use "Second Lap" when I repeat a proposal on the same topic. Besides, your argument doesn't even contradict the proposal. In fact, I could consider it more of a support vote than an oppose vote. Sorbetti (talk) 18:21, August 10, 2025 (EDT)

What I don't understand is what in the world "maslenki" is supposed to be. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:31, August 10, 2025 (EDT)

Maslenki Sorbetti (talk) 18:51, August 10, 2025 (EDT)

...yeah, it would be useful if that was linked in the body of your proposal. Not even Wikipedia has an article on these cookies yet. rend (talk) (edits) 01:29, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

(Turns out I misspelled the word; my point still kind of stands, as "maslenki" currently redirects to... this...) rend (talk) (edits) 01:34, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

Yes you're right, I thought more people knew the name of these cookies. Sorbetti (talk) 07:52, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

I would argue that Goombas being able to be flipped over in Galaxy is in fact consistent with other games. Why? The Spin is only a primary game action in Galaxy games, and it is not interchangeable with any other spinning attack. That includes the Spin's incarnation in Super Mario 3D World, that isn't a primary game action. And thus, that collective group of melee spinning attacks being unable to flip over a Goomba is entirely consistent. And Pirahna Plant proves to be a running change as more Mario games release, which is proof positive its not really a variant. And Ruby Rock is definitely higher on the totem pole of "makes sense to split" than Piranha Plant, given Ruby Rock is named. Salmancer (talk) 03:07, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick Yeah, Rolling Chomps don't have their own name and have returned in later installments. It's different with Urchin, as it was their 3D debut . Just like Goombas chase in Mario 64, here Urchins do too, and there are no differences in names or appearance. With Micro-Mechakoopas, you could argue that the name and mechanics are different, but then the name for the Micro-Mechakoopas is changed to Mechakoopas in SMG2, and in later installments, Mechakoopas can actually breathe fire too. Minigoomba, despite not being as small, still functions as a weaker Goomba, and he never had a name change. With Spiny Cheep Cheeps, he is quite different in appearance ; however, he never had any issues with names, and his mechanic of chasing the player was later transferred to 2D games. Finally, with Goombas and Mega Goomba, the Goombas still have the same way of being defeated as always ; only now they can also be defeated with spin . With Mega Goombas, despite only being able to be defeated now with spin, it is still the same concept, and it continues to maintain the same name and appearance. None of the enemies you mentioned apply as a comparison with Ruby Rock, either because they do not have problems with names or because their mechanics were, above all, unchanged. They did not have significant appearance changes, and if they did, it was because it was their debut in 3D . Unlike Ruby Rocks, which if are assumed to debut in Mario 64, that mean that they were the only obstacles in changing their appearance, becoming an enemy, changing mechanics, having their own variant, and serving as inspiration for other things, without leaving the game where they received these attributes. Sorbetti (talk) 07:29, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

@Sorbetti Yeah, about Big Ruby Rock... I checked all the Japanese guidebooks for SMG and none of them mention "Dekagoro Iwa" in any capacity. There's a good chance it was made up for the Encyclopedia. SmokedChili (talk) 08:30, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

Interesting, but as Salmancer mentioned, both Ruby Rock and Big Ruby Rock appear in Mario Portal, so that's a name approval all the way around. Sorbetti (talk) 08:38, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

And oddly enough, the image chosen is not the actual "big" one that is exclusive to a sidescrolling area in the Dusty Dune Galaxy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:16, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

In the encyclopedia they do have an image, so it is an error exclusive to Mario Portal. Sorbetti (talk) 11:51, August 11, 2025 (EDT)

It's not about lacking "an" image, it's about having an image that doesn't show the right thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:25, August 12, 2025 (EDT)

That's not what Sorbetti meant at all. From context clues (given it's a reply to your comment about the entry on Mario Portal showing the wrong image), you could tell that they meant that the encyclopedia does include an image of the correct subject (i.e. the actual Big Ruby Rock), unlike the Mario Portal that mistakenly used an image of a regular Ruby Rock. No one here is claiming that the Mario Portal is actually missing images of enemies, and one can only misinterpret Sorbetti like that if they excluded the context of your comment and took the language in Sorbetti's reply to you too literally. rend (talk) (edits) 19:46, August 12, 2025 (EDT)