Talk:Mega Mole

Are these the same Monty Moles that give away prizes in MLSS? – Spike

No, they are not...at least it hasn't been confirmed. Also the Monty Moles in MLSS are much smaller. Paper Jorge ( Need to tell me something? Go to my talk page.&middot;Contributions&middot; ) 21:21, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

Morty Mole
Prima Game`s strategy guide for Super Mario 3D Land refers to these guys as Morty Mole; not sure if that`s worth a mention. -- 03:17, 30 November 2011 (EST)


 * Prima's made naming mistakes before so best not to take this too seriously, unless they're referred by the same name elsewhere. But either way I added it to the trivia section just in case. - Four Paper  Heroes  FourPaperHeroes.jpg 03:22, 30 November 2011 (EST)


 * I was going to make a TPP, but changed my mind. Like Moneybags and Coin Coffers, they should be together. Technickal 18:57, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Split Morty Mole from Mega Mole 2: Molectric Boogaloo
Coming off the success of my most recent splitting proposal, I'd like to reopen this. To recap from my previous attempt:

Mega Moles: Brown and white, Japanese name is Indy, sunglasses, smug expression with large cheeks with circles on them and large lower lip without visible teeth, no whiskers, long pointed moleish nose and muzzle, jumping does nothing, works as a platform.

Morty Moles: Red and tan, Japanese name is Goropu (with "Indy" being a file name in the exact same situation as the aforementioned Bat), no sunglasses, neutral expression with visible tooth and smaller lower lip, has whiskers, short gopherish nose and muzzle, is defeated in two jumps, acts like a Rex.

These still seem very different to me. Literally the only similarities are being large-sized Monty Moles with a few hairs on top. However, given that we don't list Boss Bass and Big Cheep Cheep together despite Boss Bass being intended originally to be the "Giant" Cheep Cheep, I don't see why these should be listed together for being giant moles. Big Goomba and Grand Goomba also had Japanese names, yes, but at the very least they look the same, ie are simply upscaled Goombas, while these are both visually distinct from Monty.

Basically, different name in all languages, different appearance, different behavior, different weaknesses, literally the only thing they have in common is a parent species. I think if Big Bertha and Boss Bass are to be separate for having a distinction in one language, then these, who have a distinction in all languages, should also be split.

And no, saying "It's wrong because it's Prima" is still not a valid argument, particularly when the name is different in all languages.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick Deadline: October 24, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 31, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 7, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support, split them

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Doc.
 * 3) I agree.
 * 4) I don't even see how there's an argument when they're so wildly different.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) By every rule and every precedent by this wiki these articles should be split.

Oppose, keep them together

 * 1) I still feel the same way as I did in the previous. This should have been put under the older proposal. Why wasn't that done?
 * 2) This again? Per what I said in the last proposal. And the big Cheep Cheeps all have different qualities. Big Cheep Cheep is just a big Cheep Cheep, Boss Bass is the same, except it eats Mario, and Big Bertha is the same as Boss Bass, except it is a she and she has a baby. Cheep Chomp is the same as Boss Bass, except for color and similar to Spiny Cheep Cheep attacks. Very minor differences, but more than just a big Cheep Cheep. In theory, we could merge some of them, but there's more. File:BossBassEatingMario.png and File:Bertha.PNG shows the same sprite, yet we're most likely not merging them due to Big Bertha having a child to take care of. By comparing File:BigBerthaDS.png and File:NSMB MegaCheep-Cheep.png, you can clearly tell that Big Cheep Cheep in NSMB was designed after SM64DS, just like the other sprites, but this one differs due to Boss Bass eating as seen in the first picture. Only Cheep Chomps seems a likely candidate for a merge. And that's with the support of the wiki through a proposal.
 * 3) I'd rather err on the side of caution for the moment until the dust has settled. Per all, especially LTL below.
 * 4) Per last time, and then some. I repeat: I'd rather we stick to what closest matches the game data over go into a guessing game as to why the developers labeled Morty Mole the same as Mega Mole, and I believe that is what's currently represented in the article. The proposal glosses over the fact that its internal filename in Super Mario 3D Land ("Indy") is plainly and unmistakably its Japanese name in Super Mario World, which I suspect (unintentional or not) has led to at least one ill-informed vote. Again,  we've established precedent for internal names in various article content. If anything, if there are legitimate grievances about using "unseen material" such as filenames as the basis for valid information, it should be for a discussion broader than this - but as seen recently with Hatopop, just the opposite is gaining traction, and it's not like we plan to delegitimize the majority of pre-release and unused content articles anytime soon. Alterations to enemy behavior and additionally appearance are also nothing new in this franchise, especially for the jump from 2D to 3D after decades of total absence (and sometimes not nearly as long as is the case with "Mecha-Bowser" even receiving an alternate name). This version of the proposal still offers zero solution as to what to do with the big Monty Mole's appearance in Super Mario Maker, which was one of the main splitting concerns - we should have learned by now to avoid creating a shaky situation similar to the nebulous pre-merged status of Para-Beetle/Parabuzzy. Lastly, no new information has come to light since the original proposal; this would appear to be a quick recount on a separate talk page over the result making the proposer unhappy.
 * 5) Per LinkTheLefty.
 * 6) I don't think we have enough base to guarantee that these two names are associated with different things. Per all.
 * 7) Best to stick with this option until they appear in another game. Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.

Comments
@WildGooseSpeeder I'm not hiding it, the information, and as such, the old proposal, was originally listed under Morty Mole due to being a more recent name, but the information was moved to Mega Mole due to being an in-game name. The talk pages weren't moved as both pages already had separate talk pages. Either way, I'm making it abundantly clear that this is the second attempt, as seen by the title. Don't be so accusative. Over 4 weeks have passed, and I'm doing this due to the support for my Bat proposal, which was an almost-identical situation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I changed my vote reason before you commented. Still though, why wasn't this second attempt proposal below the first one? If I didn't link, the older proposal would have likely been hard to find or overlooked. Some people might not even be aware such a proposal took place or even remember. -- 04:07, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Because I figured it should go under the current "Main Article" and not a redirect. I suppose I could link that talk page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I agree with that fact that the first proposal that is under the redirect's talk page isn't good. What to do? Should the old proposal be moved to make things easier? Merge the entire talk contents of the redirect's talk page with this talk page? -- 04:22, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I have it conspicuously linked now at the top of the proposal, by the way. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

I admit my position is a little more relaxed since last time due to knowing some more about Super Mario Pia. However, the fact of the matter is, excepting the pattern broken by your recent Swoop/Bat proposal, we've established precedent for internal names in various article content. For example, prior to knowing the internal object filename for Phantom Guy, it was previously considered a subject separate from Polterguy (as it turns out, its filename is identical), affecting wiki organization. (In fact, Phantom Guy and Polterguy both have differing appearances, behavior, and non-internal names - basically the same arguments made for "BasaBasa" & "Indy" - so where is the urgency for that proposal?) The game's own data is certain vital information mostly left out of this round, by the way - absolutely no one was bringing up Prima except to say that it's the only source for the name Morty Mole as of now, thus a merged Mega Mole would have that as the article title. Additionally, while Super Mario Pia is better at cataloging name changes than Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten, honest coverage gaps still seem to happen since you have to remember the book authors are not the game developers; for example, they listed Snifit as appearing in Super Mario 64, while the enemy's Japanese name was corrected to something else in Super Mario 64 DS guides, which they did not use as. Moreover, one facet important to me remains unaddressed: if this splits, does the coverage for the big Monty Mole from Super Mario Maker go into the same nebulous yet easily avoidable situation that Para-Beetle/Parabuzzy was in back when they were split? If that is the case, my stance is already settled. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Also, don't you think starting this proposal fresh on another talk page without going into very much detail about the reasons it failed last time is rather misleading to others? LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I linked to the other proposal. And it was like 5 in the morning, so I can't be expected to have all the info for why it failed. And @YoshiTheSSM the original Japanese name for Boss Bass/Big Bertha was "Kyodai Pukupuku," literally "Giant Cheep Cheep," meaning it was originally intended to simply be a larger counterpart to Cheep Cheep back then, a role now filled by Big Cheep Cheep. That's why I brought that up. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * In the future, perhaps you could wait until you're of sound mind before making a proposal. 14:18, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I was sound of mind. Just minorly forgetful. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty Alright, you outright lied there. I did say that Morty Mole has Indy for a filename at the top. And regarding the "Name is not Morty," even in the current situation, the wiki uses "Mega Mole" and not Morty Mole, so don't jump to conclusions regarding my motivation behind the file name. It was actually a tiny bit of both, just for fun. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Don't name files that'll be used on the wiki for "fun". It's unhelpful. 14:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Exactly why I haven't done so since then. Take a look at all the SS+BM sprites I uploaded last night, for instance. We all do stupid things when we're still starting out, right? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * You joinedd in May and uploaded the image in September. 14:54, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * And had only recently started uploading files. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Doc - I refer you to image use policy, specifically "When uploading a file, be sure to give it a straightforward and meaningful name, as this makes it easier to use, is better for searching purposes and looks more professional." and "Names should be serious and professional." (Not to mention, even disregarding any particular reasoning for the title, it was -highly- anachronistic.) Also, I meant exactly what I said - reread that "recap" you wrote up for this very proposal. If people are just joining in, they're not going to have all the facts, as one case has already proven right in front of our eyes (I'd say that one might even be subject to Rule 5). Maybe for greater visibility/transparency, the proposal should've been written as a bullet point rebuttal (besides just that fake Prima part which wasn't an issue at all prior)? LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sorry, I considered there to be too many details for a full recap and figured saying the filename was the same would be sufficient. As for the image name, yes that was highly immature of me and I regret it. But I still believe they should be split, as they are in practice about as alike as Colossal Koopa Paratroopa and Tub-O-Troopa, and I figured with the Bat precedent I'd have more ground. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

I thought about it, and realized that the file name is actually quite supportive evidence for my argument. I am on mobile, so it will take a while for me to get back here, but I want to throw this out: if Indy is the file name, the developers still consider it valid for something, and if they intended upon release for it to be Indy, why not just officially call it Indy? Instead they called it Goropu, but due to that file name indicating there still is an Indy, thst would make Goropu not a rename, but a distinct entity. Probaby, much like Bat, it was initially intended to be Indy, but to get it to work in the game in question, they had to change a lot of details; enough that they decided it should be its own thing. Hence the different name, despite how "Indy" was still in usage by them. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Adding on to this for clarity: File names really should only be used as a rather low-tier resort, because they represent plans from when the object was initially created, which may not jive with the final project. Why would this be? Because if they were to rename the object, every instance of the object's name in the code would also have to be changed, and if they had coded it enough to decide it was too different from the official Indy, the name would probably have been in there a lot, so instead of altering every instance of a name in the portion of the game people aren't intended to see, they simply kept the object name as is, to not use time for a relatively pointless endeavor and avoid potential problems arising with missing them. It's like how when we move pages, we need to fix redirects, except with no redirects in the first place. Now I'm no expert programmer, but it sounds about right to me. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

@ToadettetheAchiever If that's the case, you shouldn't have a problem with me merging Porcupo, Harry Hedgehog, and Porcupine, especially since the second one's original Japanese name was the same as the first one's, so it must be a rename!

@LCrossMK8 They have different Japanese names, and I explained the problem with filenames above. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I think that assuming things are the same is the more unsafe, speculative option unless they look or act exactly the same, while assuming they're different is the safe option, barring the aforementioned circumstances. And as for filenames, I explained above. And from here on out, anyone who claims I didn't note the filename was Indy in the proposal shall hereby be committing slander, as I put that there next to the official Japanese name when I first made the proposal. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2017 (EDT)

Internal file name
I know this discussion isn't ongoing at the moment, but it's honestly pretty baffling to me that an enemy with both a different Japanese name and localized name is being lumped in with another enemy because they're called the same thing in the game files. The Bat enemy from Mario Galaxy is named the same as Swooper in the game's internal files, but has a different Japanese name and localized name (I believe it was actually split off from the Swooper article), so why these two are merged is honestly really confusing to me. Everything else seems like an assumption and not really an accurate representation of the subject of the article, considering they both have separate names. Internal files shouldn't take precedent over officially named sources, IMO. I'd make another proposal, but not entirely sure how to do that, plus I'm not the most active editor here so I don't know 100% how things work here. BubbleRevolution (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2018 (EST)
 * Thank you for your support! If anything, Morty's a derived species. Also, this was initially split by an admin, then lumped together as one of countless major edits done by one particular user who never asked about any of what they did until they had been warned a few times. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2018 (EST)
 * Yeah, they're clearly different enemies, they have different behaviors, names, and appearances, and an internal filename is not enough to base merging an article off of, IMO. It looks like the Wiki's rules state that overturning an earlier proposal can be done 4 weeks afterwards, so I'd definitely be interested in getting another proposal up to split the two. BubbleRevolution (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2018 (EST)

Split Morty Mole from Mega Mole (again)
Deciding to propose this again, as I honestly feel like these two being lumped together is honestly inaccurate. Were I active on the wiki at the time of the last proposal (see above), I would have supported it.

Morty Moles, as they appear in Super Mario 3D Land, both appear and behave completely differently from the Mega Moles in Super Mario World. They also have completely different names in both English and Japanese, with Mega Mole being known as "Indy" in Japanese, and Morty Mole being known as "Goropū". There is also nothing that explicitly indicates the two are supposed to be the same enemy in any official material aside from the name in 3D Land's internal files, which is far from an official confirmation. The connection should definitely be noted on the page if the two are to be split.

While the internal file name being shared with Mega Mole's Japanese name is definitely worth nothing in the article, I do not feel that it is enough to go off of when determining whether or not they are intended to be the same. File names do not necessarily represent the final product, and to supersede two different official names in both languages that comes from an official source feels kind of silly to me. While I certainly think there is a connection, nothing definitively indicates they are intended to be the same enemy, at least in the final version of the game. They might have been intended to be the same enemy in early development, but an offhand name entered by a programmer that may or may not represent the finished game does not seem like it's enough to judge them to explicitly be the same enemy.

The wiki has precedent for keeping subjects named similarly in internal game files separate, most notably on the Bat page. Bats in Super Mario Galaxy use the Japanese name for Swoop, "Basabasa", in the game files, but have an official name in Japanese of "Batton". Despite the shared names, they are considered to be separate enemies, and I believe this precedent should be applied here as well. On some occasions, internal file names have been used as sources, but in those cases they were used for articles that had no explicitly confirmed English name, unlike Morty Mole.

While it's certainly possible the two could be the same enemy, and Morty Mole/Goropū could be a renaming, similar to how Boss Bass was renamed in Japanese, there is nothing explicitly confirming this, and assuming them to be the same enemy seems like pure speculation. Therefore, I propose separating the two, as there is no concrete proof that the two are intended to be identical, and I feel the wiki should not act as though the two are confirmed to be the same thing unless information stating such is found.

Proposer: Deadline: February 27, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) Per ever single wall of text I have written on this issue on my last two proposals regarding this.
 * 3) At the moment, I disagree heavily with the opposition, so per both.

Oppose

 * 1) For the same reasons as the two failed proposals.
 * 2) Agreed.
 * 3) The differences can easily be explained by the 21-year gap between appearances. Additionally, their first appearance was a 2D game, and they reappeared in a 3D game. This wouldn't be the first time enemies had different behaviors, appearances, and even names from either of those.
 * 4) Literally nothing more has been brought up since the last time this was proposed. To those supporting: Just because there's nothing confirming a name change does not automatically mean there is enough information to split them. 2D enemies may behave differently when in 3D environments, hence why we don't split the 2D and 3D Goombas just because one aimlessly wanders and the other charges. And no, Bat (Super Mario Galaxy) isn't a good example, since they clearly behave differently from Swoops. Magmaarghs also clearly behave differently to Blarggs, and look drastically different anyways (the latter is not even entirely composed of lava in the TV series, nor in their official game artwork). Per all.

Comments
I'd again like to point out that the evidence they are different far outweighs the evidence they are the same. If anything, I'd say it's best to assume things are different until absolutely proven otherwise, and not assume that they're the same until proven otherwise, as that's a far more rash and speculative choice. The only thing even suggesting that they are even related is the filename, which is very low on the heirarchy for naming. The guide calls it something different, and unlike Big Boo/Big Goomba/Boss Bass/whatever, the Japanese name was never "Kyodai Choropu" or "Deka Choropu" or "Biggu Choropu," meaning it was always intended as somthing much different than simply a larger counterpart. And still, the Galaxy Bat article gives precedence for splitting off things that are very different in spite of file name and listing as "derived." That being said, the evidence that they are different is the different official names in all languages, the vastly-different durability (outright rideable vs. two-hits and squishy), and the extremely different appearances. This is not a "Big Goomba has sometimes been immune to jumps and sometimes splits when jumped on," this is a completely different situation where neither is simply a large counterpart, but a further permutation thereof with outright irreconcilable differences. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * @Waluigi Time Then Explain why Sumo Bro's only change was to account for terrain, while Bony Beetle only got an aesthetic change. Apparently, the file name for Magmarrgh is "Unbaba," despite it not being the same as the Blargg from SMW. But we don't have them merged. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * My point is that these differences could happen, not that they always happen. The difference in appearance isn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be either, it's really just dropping the sunglasses and a color swap from a game that had many of its enemies change colors later, and in the case of the Koopalings was usually inaccurate altogether. Additionally, Sumo Bro and Bony Beetle's reappearances were both in 2D games and neither of them have been in 3D games yet. -- 18:18, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * Massive smug lower lip vs. tooth? And again, that addresses not how Morty acts more like a Rex. Anyways, shouldn't we assume things are different when there's a large degree of ambiguity plus known different names, and not lump something with something else on absolutely tenuous terms? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * Actually, Monty Moles also had the lower lip in SMW, as well as possessing sunglasses in artwork. The Mega Mole design in SMW was consistent with Monty Moles at the time, and merely updated to reflect the changes the Monty Moles have gone under over the years. The Rex behavior is easily explained by a change in game mechanics - how many enemies have you seen lately that Mario can stand on besides more "artificial" enemies (Thwomps, Whomps, mechanical enemies and the like)? There's also a precedent for changing names of enemies that have been gone for a while (Galoomba) or even if they haven't been absent very long as we just saw with Maw-Ray. -- 12:57, 15 February 2018 (EST)
 * That sprite of Monty does not have a lower lip. It has a fat belly that extends up its chin. As for what other enemies can he simply stand on that aren't artificial, Mandibugs and Goonies both come to mind. And Galoomba has kept a consistent Japanese name, and not gone under two completely different names (that are even more different than the various "Kyodai/Biggu/Deka" enemy names). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2018 (EST)
 * I'm pretty sure that's a lower lip - notice the darker brown pixels near the end of the smile, which Mega Mole also has. Also, I don't think it's wise to completely discard the English names either in arguments like this, since we're an English wiki. Mandibugs are a good point, although in that case Mario is standing on their shell. As for Goonies, I'd argue that the different mechanics of the Yoshi's Island games compared to the Super Mario series make that a moot point. -- 13:39, 15 February 2018 (EST)

I'd add that Boss Bass and Cheep Chomp have the same Japanese name and nearly identical designs, but have separate articles. They have different English names, yet are both called Bakubaku (バクバク) in Japanese (and from what I can gather, are generally seen as different variants of the same enemy over there, like red and green Koopa Troopas), but have separate pages. If those two get to stay separate, then Morty Mole having separate names from Mega Mole in both English and Japanese with nothing explicitly stating that they're the same enemy should be enough to keep them separate as well. BubbleRevolution (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * That is a different proposal. What has been keeping Boss Bass and Cheep Chomp separate is the color (red vs. purple) and English names. The Big Monty Moles (I call them that due to SMMF3DS) have basically the same color (brown vs. red-ish brown). 22:48, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * But these two have both different English names and colors. Based on precedent on the wiki, they should be separate since nothing explicitly confirms them being the same. BubbleRevolution (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2018 (EST)
 * The shades are little different in color from Paragoomba and Red Paragoomba. One is a bile yellow-brown, the other is a bright mahogany. So, extremely different from each other. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * To both: Again, just because they are not confirmed to be the same doesn't mean that they are different either. PRIMA has been known to make some mistakes. But, usually there are other sources to be found that we can use to confirm. If not, they we can't be certain it was a mistake until we have the proof. Cheep Chomp also gets its name from PRIMA. The only difference is, the name can be found in other languages too. Color is very minor, on the other hand. While, it appears to have keep things separate, it isn't. Red Paragoomba and Paragoomba act differently in the two games the Red Paragoomba appeared in. Nintendo probably only used the Red Paragoomba's attack pattern for Super Mario Maker due to the regular ones from Super Mario Bros. 3 wouldn't go well with "create your own levels" and making it harder to incorporate, where it can be easily gotten. Gloomba is a Goomba colored blue...-ish. But, only has Super Paper Mario info with brief info of Super Mario Bros. underground Goombas. What keeps them separate is HP difference in Super Paper Mario. Also, many RPG duos who appear together and don't have separate appearances from each other aren't separate. Even though, color is a big difference between them. I know that this doesn't exactly describe SMW and SM3DL Big Monty Moles, but it is an example of color and separate names not separating them. Though, their examples are hard to replicate outside of RPGs, making it an exclusion. But, it is an example nevertheless. How things are decided is by a proposal. And two already try to do this for this article and did not pass. One person coming onto the wiki with the same information and wants to support the pass doesn't change proposals. Not usually, anyways. 10:36, 15 February 2018 (EST)
 * I understand that there's a possibility that they could be the same, but the course of action I've seen in the past on both here and other wikis has been to split articles if there's no explicit confirmation of such. Lumping them together when it contradicts the only official sources we have just doesn't seem right to me, and seems to be going completely off of assumptions. Even if they are intended to be the same enemy, if there is no explicit confirmation, then we cannot be 100% sure, and they should have separate articles until other information comes to light. Prima has made mistakes in the past, yes, but as far as I can tell, their names for the 3D Land guide, and numerous others, have been correct, and I don't see why there's any reason to doubt that currently. There doesn't appear to be any reason for the pages to be merged other than fan interpretation of an offhand name in the source code, and contradicts some stances from what I've seen on the wiki, like the previous examples with Bat and Magmaargh. And proposals can be overturned, it's part of the wiki's rules, I'm sure this isn't the first time a proposal has been challenged on here. BubbleRevolution (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Another thing, what are the German and Chinese names refer to? 22:49, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * The German one is talking about Mega Mole. Morty Moles are called "Morty Maulwurf" over there, from what I can find. The Chinese one appears to be Morty Mole, at least from what I can gather. BubbleRevolution (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2018 (EST)
 * You forgot to sig. Anyways. Why does "Mega Mole" have a German name and not a Chinese name? 10:36, 15 February 2018 (EST)
 * Whoops. And to answer that question, I don't believe Super Mario World was ever officially released in China (could be wrong on this, but it definitely wasn't released over there initially), due to a ban on video game consoles that was repealed a few years back. Mario 3D Land was brought over on the iQue 3DS thing released there. If there was a release of SMW, then it's likely no one has found the Chinese name and added it yet. BubbleRevolution (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2018 (EST)

@Toadette a few things have. Magmarrgh was found to have Unbaba as a file name (according to an edit summary from LtL), but they're not getting merged. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2018 (EST)

@Toadette again. Using the TV series as an argument is automatically flawed for a number of reasons, and Blarggs in SMW and Magmarrghs act exactly the same: Hiding under the lava with only their eyes visible, then bursting out upon being approached. And again, there should be more proof for them being the same than different before lumping two completely different things together. (also this was split a long time ago by an admin before being recently being merged without proposal by a repeat offender of "making massive changes without gaining approval first," so...yeah.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * Only in the 3D games. Magmaws fill that role in the 2D games. 23:12, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * And in the only non-3D game it was in, it was a boss flunky, which in the 2D games, often act a bit different from normal. Like Big Pokey and the Spiny Eggs in the Lakithunder battle. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2018 (EST)
 * Also, the fact that they acted the same once outweighs that. The fact that the other two never appeared in the same genre also causes it to become a tad broken. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2018 (EST)

@Toadette; saying the Mario Galaxy Bat isn't a good example because they look and behave differently is kind of confusing here, as Morty Mole and Mega Mole DO look and behave differently. And just because there isn't anything explicitly confirming the two is exactly why they should be split into separate articles, if we're trying to be encyclopedia here, then merging based on assumptions is not the way to operate. Magmaargh and Blargg also look and behave nearly the same (the TV series isn't a good metric to judge things by), and so do Boss Bass and Cheep Chomp, and they both have the same file names, yet they stay separate. Additionally, 2D and 3D Goombas have the exact same name and are confirmed to be the same, Mega Mole and Morty Mole have separate names in both English and Japanese, and are being merged based on an assumption from a filename. I really don't see why splitting these two is facing so much opposition when so many others remain separate (like the article for Piranha Plant from TTYD being separate from the main Piranha Plant article). BubbleRevolution (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2018 (EST)
 * What I mean is that Bats and Swoops actually look different. Morty Moles and Mega Moles look so similar to each other that it's more likely to be a difference from 2D and 3D platforming. Read LinkTheLefty's previous oppose votes if you're not convinced. 09:23, 15 February 2018 (EST)
 * I've read those, and I don't agree with them, I don't feel that file names should take precedence over official material. Per the previous examples I've given, enemies like Magmaargh and Blargg have had the same names in files, yet are not merged, while the two look and act very similar (in addition to Blargg not having appeared in a 3D title), and the same argument could be applied to them being merged, but they remain separate. Different sub-species of enemies have appeared over the years that have been similar and there doesn't seem to be anything linking the two other than assumptions, hence my disagreement on this topic. BubbleRevolution (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2018 (EST)