Talk:Flamethrower

(First topic)

Image? I can't upload them. And even if i did, it would be like exploded chips smudged on a glass window, viewed from the inide. -- Dragonfree

Excuse me? You can upload an image here. Wa _T^C_@^Y 12:38, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Game

What game is this?  Caps Lock LORD 12:39, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Image

We're more than likely gonna need an image of the Flamethrower obstacles. Lord Grammaticus (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Where?

Having just played through the entirety of Mario vs. Donkey Kong, I never encountered any flamethrowing-barrels, and the enemies and obstacles list doesn't say anything about them. Is it possible this is talking about a different game? 09:48, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

From what I can tell, the initial article just described a torch-like barrel object, and then someone added the Shy Guy enemies from Mario vs. Donkey Kong before finally the original subject was attributed to that game, almost like a game of telephone. Looking through the obstacles, the closest thing this can possibly be seems to be the Color Lasers (which currently doesn't have an article). I'd be in favor of deletion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2018 (EST)

Might it be talking about the candle obstacles? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2018 (EST)

Probably not, as the article says it's a barrel-like object that can spit flames.

The user that created the page is no longer active here, but they are still active on an Animal Crossing Wikia (they also have a Twitter). I could maybe ask them if they remember where this info came from. Otherwise, this is a completely pointless article. 13:05, 6 November 2018 (EST)

Cylinder on something as small-screened and low-res as the GBA could be perceived as anything. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2018 (EST)

It's possible they also confused the Oil Can, but I don't know where the flame-spitting came from.

The fact they do that in DKC, maybe? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2018 (EST)

Well, regardless, I can't figure out what this (conjecturally named) page is actually referring to. So if there's no objections, I'm for making this redirect to Charizard's move. 14:05, 6 November 2018 (EST)

I was actually thinking of Flamethrower being the new title for the generically-named fire jet / flame spurt from Super Mario 64. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2018 (EST)

Hmmmmm that could work, too (though I kind of like fire jet). 14:23, 6 November 2018 (EST)

The Player's Guide is a higher priority source, though, certainly more than a file name. It's generic, sure, but suitable enough. The file name could have been generically named, too. Mario JC 23:21, 18 November 2018 (EST)

The problem is that the Player's Guide isn't only a generic description but also wildly inconsistent, calling it anything from a fire jet (63 & 67), a flame spout (42), jets of flame (124), jet of fire (120), fire (120), blast (120), fireplace (also 120, regarding a specific one in Rainbow Ride's Cloud House) and, actually, a "flame thrower" (twice on 114 and again on 115). Technically, that last one means flame thrower / flamethrower is used most often, edging out instances of fire jet. LinkTheLefty (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Ah, didn't know they'd be all over the place with its name. Fair enough, then. Mario JC 03:48, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Is it OK to merge this with Burner?

Because they look identical in my opinion. That's alright if no — The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToadMushroom823 (talk).

I'm not seeing strong enough allusions to the original Super Mario Bros. 3 iteration. That being said, the Burner article itself is pretty haphazard for all sorts of fire-spewing hazards so one can make the case for the merge OR the case to split off various hazards from the Burner article. Either way the current organization isn't great. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:57, April 18, 2023 (EDT)

Bumping this a bit. Considering we've been merging and splitting generic obstacles regardless of specific names given (as seen with a lot of Yoshi's Island ones like spiked weight) and the fact that "burner" has been used for non-mechanical iterations of spewing flames (like the internal names for Brawl obstacles of various origins), I'm starting to think that merging these might be for the best, especially with how associated with Bowser stages these are. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:37, April 27, 2025 (EDT)

If so, we can probably rename the (admittedly awkwardly-titled) "Flame thrower (Flame Chomp)" article to just "Flame thrower" and maybe get rid of the disambig. The ones in Super Mario Sunshine were also unusual, as were the Mario Kart DS ones that were just fire jets with no visible device in that game (like Super Mario 64 flamethrowers can be), so I can see it being the case that the Super Mario Bros. 3-like version wasn't codified until New Super Mario Bros. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:26, April 28, 2025 (EDT)

Considering Bill Blaster's design in the same game is the scrapcube, these ones being usually stone prisms (with occasionally nothing at all) does seem not that big of a deal, come to think of it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:22, April 29, 2025 (EDT)

Bumping yet again, yeah, this is absolutely just a Burner. It's a hole that periodically creates a straight plume of fire before shutting off. It's a more direct translation to 3D than Goomba is.--PopitTart (talk) 19:18, August 19, 2025 (EDT)

Merge to Burner

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: November 5, 2026, 05:55 (UTC)

This is relatively straightforward. This page is about the periodic flame jets that appear in Super Mario 64... and, uh, the ones in Super Princess Peach, too. These are pretty much the same as Burners mechanically, but in 3D, and with a slightly different name. Meanwhile, the ones in Super Princess Peach are even more overtly "just Burners with a different name", considering that game is also a 2D Platformer. The only reason we can think of to keep these split off is the different name, but we merge similar obstacles with slightly different names all the time, like with Spinner or Spike Traps. Heck, Burners themselves have been called "flamethrowers" at least once, in the official Player's Guide for Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: November 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Merge (it burns, burns, burns)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal.
2. Wandering Poplin (talk) I think this sounds reasonable. (I don't agree with the suggested merges brought up by the opposition, but as noted, those have nothing to do with this proposal.)
3. PopitTart (talk) These are almost certainly the same exact concept introduced in Super Mario Bros. 3 given a different, generic title. Any atypicality in appearance can be attributed to Super Mario 64's status as the first 3D game of the franchise, especially when it already features Donut Blocks that have porthole windows, Fire Bars that look like incinerated flan cakes, Spinies that are headless, and a Bill Blaster that is literally just a cube with a hole in it. The fact that it is a stream of individual particles also falls under this. How else could they have depicted a stream of flame in 3D without using individual billboarded particles?

Keep Split/Status Quo (burned on this)

1. Mr. Sorbetti (talk) Disagree with the proposal's basis. I've never been a fan of merging subjects simply because they are similar, and I don't think that should be the approach we use on other pages either. Pages are built around a subject with its own specific information and appearance; merging similar subjects not only causes a page to lose its identity, but it also makes it overly generic, which I am strongly against. Just because a subject is similar or comparable to another should not justify a merge. This is an issue I've been seeing around the entire wiki, and I think it is summarized here. For some reason, the wiki has a tradition of lumping similar obstacle objects together, which it does not do with enemies and characters. The examples brought up on this proposal are a clear example of this, and I don't think that in this case, "merging because other pages do it too" is a good argument. Spinner has merged three subjects that, although similar, are not the same and are considerably different from the clearly recurrent design of the obstacle, the three being the Spinning Spikes (which I am currently working on splitting) and the unnamed ones in Super Princess Peach and Donkey Kong Country Returns. And with Spike Trap, don't get me started: the Spiky iceberg was merged there until recently gaining its own page. That's just an example of how bad that page is; there are genuinely three different subjects there, and I think that a lot of information there could be moved to Spike Block. Honestly, I am surprised thorn is not merged there. Burner is not a generic subject; it's an obstacle with a recurring design and function, a consistent flame, consistent areas where it is used, and its own variants. In the comments, I am going to attach a gallery to show how consistent its design is (with only a few exceptions). Burner's distinct variants and consistent design should not be discarded, and I don't want the page to end up like other pages like Cannon or whatever this was. As shown in the comments, the two objects have different names in every language available in the encyclopedia, including Japanese. Not only that, but there is no such thing as a "flamethrower" really; that is just a generic descriptor and is inconsistent. This page claims that flamethrowers are mechanical, which is not true because they are inconsistent in design too, so we shouldn't be making this page about the thing that expels the fire—it should be about the fire itself, which is the recognized obstacle and the consistent one. At the end of the day, I am always in favor of keeping more pages around.
2. Hewer (talk) Leaning towards opposing here. This proposal's argument is essentially just "these are similar to Burners", but things can be similar without being the same subject, and Burners have a pretty consistent design that differs from these. Past precedents for cases of "similar but not the same" include Warp Block & Warp Box, Poison Mushroom & Rotten Mushroom, Mushroom Genie & Genie of the Lamp, and White Block & Grab Block.
3. Nelsonic (talk) Per.

Comments (this proposal is lit!)

• 

  Super Mario Bros. 3
• 

  New Super Mario Bros.
• 

  New Super Mario Bros. Wii
• 

  Yoshi's Story
• 

  Super Mario 3D Land
• 

  Mini Mario & Friends: amiibo Challenge
• 

  Mario Kart Tour
• 

  Super Mario Bros. Wonder

The flames are the same in all games; the engine design usually varies, but it is still very recognizable. As for the Smash Bros. info, that is a different case from this and requires its own discussion. Also, as a side note, the obstacles in SMG do not expel fire, nor are they called Burners, so I don't know why they are merged here at all. Mr. Sorbetti (talk) 22:39, November 1, 2026 (UTC)

...So, like, pray tell, what exactly is the difference between these and something like the Super Princess Peach flamethrower? The only real difference we can think of is that the SPP ones (and we guess the SM64 ones) rely on particles, rather than being just, one solid hurtbox. Is that... Really enough of a mechanical difference to warrant a split, though? (Also, lowkey, we've been considering a merge for poison needles and just haven't had the time to sit down and write it, so, uh, maybe not the best counter-argument...) ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 00:30, November 2, 2026 (UTC)

Burners as a whole encapsulate both the fire and the engine; a flamethrower, on the other hand, is mostly just about the fire. Flamethrowers usually appear in the form of holes from which fire exits, while Burners appear as mechanical objects that expel fire. Flamethrowers vary in the areas where they originate, as they can appear from chimneys, paintings, pits, or structures in differently themed levels, while Burners are always tied to castles or airship-like areas. A flamethrower is a fire-generator obstacle that varies in appearance, while a Burner is a recurring subject with its own theme, appearance, and uses. They both serve different purposes as a whole, but share being coincidentally obstacles that expel fire. Aside from that, they are not the same in any aspect—at least, that's how I see it. Also, the SPP flamethrowers are mechanically different, as the player needs to approach one to activate it. Like I mentioned above, even if the subjects are not that different, that doesn't justify a merge. We don't have pages for the sake of getting as much information clustered into them; we have pages to document a certain subject, and these are two distinct certain subjects. Mr. Sorbetti (talk) 01:56, November 2, 2026 (UTC)

...so if this gets merged to Burner at all, does that mean it's possible for the other flame thrower to merge with Flame Chomp? Could we finally merge Snifit (Super Mario 64) to Snifit? At least those subjects share Japanese names with each other. rend (talk) (edits) 02:04, November 2, 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that any of those possible merges are related to this proposal's topic. As a side note, I would also oppose both merges per the previous failed proposals. Mr. Sorbetti (talk) 21:16, November 2, 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't really thinking about any of those merges, honestly. We were mostly campaigning for merging these two as the literal only distinction (aside from name) is that one technically works off of a series of projectiles (...that are rapid enough to effectively form a solid hurtbox), while one is a solid hurtbox. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 21:32, November 2, 2026 (UTC)

@Mr. Sorbetti No we are not thinking of merging Goomba and Goombo. Or any other pairs like it. We won't lie, it feels a little bit like we're being condescended towards to even hear this brought up (even though we do have it in good faith that you probably didn't mean it that way, at least), considering those very clearly doesn't meet the same reasons for the merge we were initially proposing. Sure, they're mechanically similar, but they have consistently been treated as though they're distinct things, unlike the SM64 or SPP flamethrowers, which haven't really been treated as a bespoke "variant" of the Burner, and just get treated as such because... Well, one is named Burner as a proper noun, whereas one just doesn't really have a concrete name beyond things either derived from dev data, or descriptive nouns taken from guidebooks? We're gonna be honest, we still don't think we fully grasp why exactly merging these two is a bridge too far when it's not like we split Wario Land's "Thorns" from Spike Trap anymore. That sort of merge was more along the lines of what we were thinking of than. Anything of that sort. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 22:09, November 2, 2026 (UTC)

I didn't bring those examples in bad faith; I brought them because they align with points from your proposal. More specifically, with "These are pretty much the same as Burners mechanically" and "and with a slightly different name," and also per your comment above about mechanical differences. So on paper, they follow some of the reasoning behind your thoughts, but not entirely (as pointed out by yourselves), which is why I brought them up. Similar subjects always exist, and some even have the same names like Bumper (Super Mario Maker series) and Bumper, but they are not meant to be the same. The reason why we have split Goombo from Goomba despite being mechanically the same and having slightly different names is because they are considered different, or at least not considered the same, which I think aligns with this case. As much as flamethrowers can be similar to Burners mechanically, both still have a different design, purpose, and uses, nor are they considered the same. We don't have pages to document as many subjects as we can put into one; we have them to document a specific subject. Also, I heavily disagree with Spike Trap being brought up as an argument again; that page is just a cluster of spiky-subjects where different of them could really have their own page, but share the same article, same goes with Spinner. Also, sorry if I am referring to you with the wrong pronouns; I am not very familiar with them, so I hope everything I wrote is okay. Mr. Sorbetti (talk) 22:54, November 2, 2026 (UTC)

@Camwoodstock I've checked the Mario Encyclopedia, and at least in Spanish, Japanese, and English, Burners and flamethrowers are consistently treated as different and have different names. Not only that, but the Japanese and Spanish description is this: "If hit, you take damage and run around for a while. There are also pillars of fire and fireballs." I think for this page as it stands, I can see why someone could want to merge, but these are different objects with different names and mechanics. While Burner is an engine that expels fire, what we call "flamethrower" condenses generic fire flames and fire obstacles like the fire columns or the fireballs found in Lethal Lava Land. I think this page should be rewritten to be about the flame (which is the Japanese name) rather than the thing that expels the flame, wich is inconsistent anyways. And also, I could finally see the SM64 section of Lava Bubble removed from there and merged here; only one guide refers to them as Podoboo, but the Encyclopedia set it as a type of "flamethrower". Finally, I think flamethrower should be renamed to flame spout or just flame to be more understandable. Mr. Sorbetti (talk) 21:43, November 3, 2026 (UTC)

So the Encyclopedia entry isn't about the flamethrowers specifically, it's about fire hazards in general. Blinker (talk) 00:47, November 4, 2026 (UTC)

The encyclopedia entry is about the fire expelled by "flamethrowers", while this page is about the thing that expels the flames. For some reason, the page claims this to be a mechanical hazard, which is not true, the mechanism that expels the flames is inconsistent (sometimes it is a pit, other times a chimney, or another time a stone structure). This article should be about the flame obstacle, not about the thing that expels them, because the former is the obstacle recognized as its own thing. Mr. Sorbetti (talk) 00:56, November 4, 2026 (UTC)

Fire in SM64 also is used on wall torches, from volcanoes, and from enemies, not as a jet. Also, "burner" is itself sometimes just the flame without a mechanism attached. As for the names, that happens with generic-ish obstacles often; see Spinner, Spike Ball, and spiked weight for some examples. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:35, November 5, 2026 (UTC)