Talk:Mini Bob-omb

Merge with Bob-omb
The page says there's a discussion to merge it; while I don't see any mention of the same on the Bob-omb talk page, I agree that it should be merged considering that it has little information and Mini Bob-ombs have the same function as regular Bob-ombs, in general. 12:18, 18 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Many of the mini enemies from the MvDK series act similar to their regular counterparts. I see no reason to merge any of them. They are specifically known to be toy versions of normal enemies, not the enemies themselves. 12:24, 18 June 2016 (EDT)
 * The Bob-omb page does mention these counterparts, since there's not a lot of information on them anyway in their own articles, they may be better off on the actual article. 12:34, 18 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Shy Guy's article also mentions Mini Shy Guys. Mini Shy Guys act in almost the same way as Shy Guys and their article isn't that big either. If you suggest merging this with Bob-omb, first take into consideration the rest of the mini enemies to their normal counterparts. 13:03, 18 June 2016 (EDT)

Merge Mini Bob-omb with Bob-omb
Looks and acts exactly like a regular Bob-omb, and seems to have the same name as well. The only real evidence they're different is that they're smaller, which doesn't mean much considering we didn't split Mario vs. Donkey Kong Swoops and Bloopers.

Proposer: Deadline: September 10, 2016 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) The differences in appearances of these two are less than the Pokey that hasn't been merge with other Pokeys. Also, Citation is needed for this to continue as Mini Bob-omb. It is a Bob-omb. just smaller. There is no need to separate this form other Bob-ombs.
 * 3) Definite support; this is probably the most clear-cut of any Mario vs. Donkey Kong enemy.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) The name alone suggests a clear-cut merge (specifically, there isn't a source for "Mini Bob-omb" while this has been called "Bob-omb").
 * 6) A Mini Bob-omb is in fact a real Bob-omb, but smaller! I will agree on this case!
 * 7) – Per the precedent which we've enforced time and time again.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comments.

Comments
Maybe it'd be best to wait until the Pokey proposal has been settled before moving ahead with other proposals. 23:19, 26 August 2016 (EDT)
 * Why's that? This seems a bit more clear-cut than the Pokey issue. Niiue (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2016 (EDT)
 * Still, if the Pokey proposal passes or fails, it gives more strength to either side. As is, we now have a proposal following the heels of another proposal that hasn't been settled yet. 23:22, 26 August 2016 (EDT)
 * This could also strengthen the Pokey proposal to either side as well. But then again, the choice is more clear on this one. Either way, the strength from Pokey to Bob-omb is more than the strength from Bob-omb to Pokey. But the strength from the Bob-omb to Pokey only would happen if the pokey one gets legthen two more times. 22:16, 27 August 2016 (EDT)
 * It's inconsistent to have this merged while the others are split so if this proposal passes, we merge Mini Shy Guy and Mini Snifit with their respective articles. 01:43, 28 August 2016 (EDT)
 * The difference is that Mini Shy Guy has its own name. While Mini Snifit does not, it's parallel to Mini Shy Guy (since Mini Snifit hasn't been called just "Snifit"). While Bob-ombs already have a toy-like appearance (which is why we look at the name for better evidence), Shy Guys and Snifits are organic, and these enemies are more clearly shown to be toy versions rather than the enemy they're based on. Additionally, it won't be totally out of the blue to merge something from Mario vs. Donkey Kong to the enemy article: we have Bloopers. 18:16, 29 August 2016 (EDT)