Talk:Big Boo

Big Boo
Big Boo and King Boo were never the same person D; -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigifan14 (talk).

Sleepy Boo
Would the Sleepy Boos be counted as a sub-species of Big Boos? They are Boos and I'm pretty sure there very large in size, bigger than Mario. -- Sir Grodus

Merge
Vote here.

Change the name of the article?
Alright, before everyone goes crazy, hear me out...

In Japan, the enemy known as The Big Boo in Super Mario World was known as an Atomic Teresa. Simple enough. Teresa itself was changed to Boo Diddly in SMB3, which became Boo Buddies in SMW before settling with just Boo in later games. Good enough.

Super Mario RPG comes along, and the Teresa enemy wasn't renamed Boo, but rather The Big Boo. Chalk this up as carelessness on NoA's part, but these are most certainly not The Big Boos of SMW - rather, the only The Big Boo in the game was featured in Bowser's Terrorize attack.

Super Mario 64 brings back Big Boo - but wait? It dropped the capitol "The". That's okay, it was kind of cumbersome anyway. At any rate, Big Boo's Haunt (or Teresa's Horror House in Japan) was one of the game's Courses, and it stuck out of the one with the titular Boos. Except, in Japan, there weren't Atomic Teresas - it was Master Teresa that you had to find, which seemed to be a type of Atomic Teresa. So the title of "Big Boo" was skewed yet again to a new character. [On a side note, its remake, Super Mario 64 DS, also gave the name "Big Boo" to King Teresa, which was renamed King Boo in every other game he's been in, bar for Super Mario Sunshine which named Boss Teresa the King Boo instead of Boss Boo. Confused?).

Big Boos (or at least, our perception of them) took a back seat in recent years outside of Super Pricess Peach and the latter Paper Mario games. Super Princess Peach mistranslated some of the enemy names, but it brought back "Big Boo." Paper Mario games, however, went beyond and gave a retranslated name to the Big Boo - Atomic Boo. A name that makes sense and was kept in the series.

So here's a proposal. We should just rename the article entirely. The designation "Big Boo" was warped over the years that perhaps it's best to have Big Boo refer to many things, and Atomic Boo refer to the originally intended enemy. LinkTheLefty 16:30, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * Atomic Boo has been merged with Big Boo and the Sunshine King Boo got a separate article. But you say the Big Boo of Super Mario 64 is also a different character? --Grandy02 09:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the Big/Atomic/King/Boss Boo pages have been changed around so much since 2008 (and since last year, for that matter), I'm just gonna suggest that if anyone still has a problem with organization, make a TPP about it, or at least make a new argument: I'm afraid this particular question is too outdated to be properly addressed now. - 11:51, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Merged from Talk:Atomic Boo
Does this need the boss template? - Yoshi Master
 * Tough to say. While it is a mini-boss, it's also optional. I'd still say so, though. ayoshi TC@ http://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/24/Wayoshisig.png 17:52, 17 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Atomic Boo should probably be in the secret bosses category. Or under the mini-boss category with a note saying: (optional). -- Son of Suns

Dark Atomic Boo
Well, which image do you think would be better for the article (or do either of these even belong in the article)? -- 15:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I think they "Dark Atomic Boo" information could go to Beta elements, though it could be mentioned in a trivia section or something in the Atomic Boo article. -- Sir Grodus

Booluses
Do you think Boolusses might be a type of Atomic Boo? -Pal101

Mention of Relation to Bigger Boo
I honestly think the mention of Atomic Boo being possibly related to the Bigger Boo should be removed from the Trivia section. Aside from both being large Boos, they share little in common. In fact, the trivia section could be interpreted as making it sound like the Bigger Boo is an amalgalm of Boos, which is just plain not true. Is it all right if I remove it? 18:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Given that there's been no objection for almost two weeks, I'm removing the offending information. 12:08, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Merge to Big Boo
This is corroborated by TMK, New Super Mario Daijiten , Wikipedia , etc. Since they're clearly intended to be the same thing, I propose that this article be merged to Big Boo

Proposer: Voting Start:11:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Deadline:23:59, 17 April 2010

Support
 * 1) another one of those mistranslations (Why would they call a Cheep-Cheep Goby???)
 * 2) - Per the original intention of those Japanese Nintendo guys.
 * 3) - The European release (of SM64) uses "Big Boo" left in English like it's a proper name or something, not a translated or localized name (preventing a proper sample pool consensus between translation / localization teams), so I'll side with the probable intent of the Japanese creation team.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - Per all. Big Boos have always been "Atomic" in Japanese.
 * 6)  Very simmilar to Princess Peach/Toadstool, westerns make silly things very often.
 * 1)  Very simmilar to Princess Peach/Toadstool, westerns make silly things very often.

Oppose

Comments

Split the Paper Mario boos into a separate article
I'm going to disagree with the idea that the Atomic Boos from the Paper Mario series is the same thing as the Big Boos. To start off, the Atomic Boo isn't a species, it's a separate entity. Only one of it appears at any given point in each game (I'd consider Mansion Patrol to be a very weak opposition to this due to how estranged it is from the main game and this only applies to SPM), which is unlike the Big Boos that have a habit of appearing alongside each other. There's also the fact that the Atomic Boo is clearly formed by a bunch of Boos combining with each other in two installments (TTYD and SS) and is implied to be this way in SPM, which is something that also distinguishes themselves from Big Boos and makes it closer to, say, Boolossus, another conglomeration of Boos who also has a separate article. That distinction in physiology alone is a huge reason why they shouldn't be in the same article. Yes, in TTYD they share the same name in Japan, and in SS they even share the same name in English, but the same name alone is not a good reason to merge two subjects, and this retreads the same reasons I laid out on the Gritty Goomba talk page and probably other places.

The difference in behaviour is also noticeable: the Big Boos from the platformers simply chase after Mario like their smaller counterparts, but in TTYD, the Atomic Boo can spit out its smaller boos and use a powerful glare, while the SS Big Boo not only has a visual difference, it can eat Mario and disappears in light. This can't be disregarded as simply a result of the difference between RPG's and platformers; there's a noticeable contrast between them and Big Boos. The one from SPM is harder to justify through behaviour, but it shares the same name as its TTYD predecessor, and, and mentioned, also shares the whole "combo of Boos" detail, so it deserves to reap the benefits of this proposal. Now, I don't think there's much of a reason to not split them, but to me, the biggest question is on how to split them. One possible interpretation is that the Atomic Boos are completely-separate entities and should be classified as different characters, in which case the Boos from TTYD, SPM, and SS would all get different articles, and another is that the Atomic Boo is a "form" that the Boos can take, kind of like Fire Mario, in which case the PM line of Boos would be split off into a single article. Regardless of which choice is picked, I find it undeniable that something needs to be done.

Proposer: Deadline: May 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: May 23, 2015, 23:59 GMT, May 30, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Split the Boos into a single separate article

 * 1) Wait, misread the options and I feel this is a better idea. I've always believed that just because two similar, yet different enemies who share the same name in another language, but have clear differences doesn't mean they are the same deal (or vise versa). I'd sooner support merging TTYD's Piranha Plants to regular Piranha Plants cause they look and act the same as Piranha Plants in the previous game and future games. But more on topic, Atomic Boos are definitely different from Big Boos in how they are formed and how they attack. I may wonder about the whole Big Boo from Sticker Star thing, but it seems more relatable to an Atomic Boo as opposed to a Big Boo.
 * 2) - Like I said on the forums, splitting the four three PM Atomic Boos into a separate article (i.e. Atomic Boo) is a reasonable idea (based on all the differences listed). It's not a recurring character since different sets of Boos are involved each time, and saying there are multiple identical characters seems way more ponderous than simply treating it like a recurring enemy species for the purpose of navigation and organization (then just discuss within the article how it's also like a form Boos can take).
 * 3) What a great way to celebrate my return than to vote in a hopeless proposal! Per All.
 * 4) Per All.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) I'm leaning a bit toward this side. As for 1337star's comment, I feel that a simple type weakness discrepancy isn't the best analogy. Atomic Boos have much more differences than a contradictory typing including abilities, name, and make-up. To handwave these differences as "artistic license" when they're, in my opinion, much more significant than the differences between the Dry Bones is not a strong argument. We don't split the Dry Bones because they're undead Koopas called "Dry Bones" that can resurrect after crumbling, and they can be defeated by only limited means. They otherwise share names, act the same, and are defeated with quite similar measures. In the other hand, though, in Sticker Star, Big Boo should remain as Big Boo due to a lack of continuity from the previous games and the lack of a name change.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.

Do nothing

 * 1) I feel that we're reaching a point where we entirely disregard the Japanese names and rely entirely on English localizations, which I feel is a horrible idea. The thing is, this is a Japanese series, and by ignoring the original names, we're disregarding creator's intent. Ultimately, just because a localizer translated something differently doesn't actually mean much unless the differences are extremely major, not a minor change similar to Paper Mario series Bill Blasters being fairly weak enemies instead of indestructible level components. And as for the differences mentioned, enemies act different between games all the time. Boos in Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine can be jumped on, a trait not shared in any other games (except the RPGs, but that can be explained as basic RPG physics).
 * 2) Dry Bones in the platformers are immune to fire, Dry Bones in Paper Mario can only be defeated by fire. Should we split the PM Dry Bones from the main article? Of course not. The different behavior in the PM Big/Atomic Boos is clearly nothing more than artistic license on the part of Intelligent Systems, as is the decision to retranslate their name to be more in line with the original Japanese.
 * 3) Per both.
 * 4) I think too much focus is put on The Thousand-Year Door and Sticker Star incarnations, but not enough is factored on the Super Paper Mario version. In the latter, it acts just like any other Boo, and doesn't exhibit any special characteristics whatsoever. The only thing that somewhat connects it is the line, "Some say it's a gathering of many smaller Boos," but in any case, the language used suggests this is hearsay and not confirmation. It's just a cute reference to the former Big Boo, where that was clearly the case. I believe a case can definitely be made for splitting the former two on the basis of them respectively being a boss and mini-boss, especially since there's already a sort of precedent with the unique Super Mario World appearance; but I'm not convinced we should throw in the latter enemy as well.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
@Walkazo: Still three Boos.
 * Goddammit... - 21:25, 2 May 2015 (EDT)

@Binarystep: As Time Turner pointed out, there are still several factors that make Atomic Boos more unique in comparison to Big Boos. Atomic Boos (and Sticker Star's Big Boo) are made up of 100-200 smaller Boos while Big Boos are literally just big Boos. TTYD's Atomic Boo also use that idea as a form of attack. I don't think we're disregarding original naming here, I think it's just going with what makes the most sense, in this case stating that Atomic Boos are more different than Big Boos.
 * It still doesn't seem like much of a difference considering how there have been a lot of cases where enemies act slightly differently than normal as a stylistic choice. Binarystep (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Binary, I've already explained on the Gritty Goomba proposal, which I linked to, that names are absolutely not the absolute deciding factor when it comes to differences. The bit about "creator's intent" is also incredibly speculative, since, unless you can provide some sort of source that proves otherwise, we have no idea what it was. Maybe they weren't aware that a "Big Boo" already existed in the Mario series, or maybe it was just an easy name to use to show the difference in size, or maybe they were intended to be the same, but the fact of the matter is that going solely off of nothing more than a matching name would make any attempt speculative beyond belief, which leaves us to make further interpretations from all of the other information that's available, like their appearance, or their abilities, or their locations, or the fact that they're single, or the fact that they're an amalgamation of Boos (which is an enormous difference in and of itself, again, as I've already explained). This can't just be brushed off as a difference between genres; there's simply way too much of a gap. Binary, can you provide an example of an enemy that encompasses changes in abilities and physiology that are just as extreme as the Atomic Boos?
 * Their appearance isn't really that different from regular Big Boos though? It's not like we have a comparison anyway... But I can see a good argument to split, especially considering that one's an enemy species and these are bosses. As for other enemies with major differences, consider Lava Bubbles (which tend to look/act different on a regular basis, and even have different origins in PM:TTYD), Koopa Troopas (which also look/act different all the time), or even Bill Blasters (which can be killed easily in the Paper Mario series, and look more like generic cannons (they don't even have the skull insignia)). Binarystep (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2015 (EDT)
 * It couldn't hurt to be a little more specific than "they're different", right?
 * Well, there's the thing with Lava Bubbles randomly going between obstacle and enemy, being able to be jumped on in Super Mario RPG, or their being undead in TTYD. Or Koopa Troopas randomly going between two-legged/four-legged, acting differently when jumped on depending on the game (hiding in their shells, flying out as Beach Koopas, being flipped over), or their shells acting differently depending on the game (usually being projectiles, but acting odd in games such as Super Mario 64). Binarystep (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2015 (EDT)

"The thing is, this is a Japanese series, and by ignoring the original names, we're disregarding creator's intent." I feel the reasons for relying on Japanese name alone is oversimplifying what is actually going on in the localization process. I feel that the Japanese names alone should not always take priority over the English names alone. How can you be so sure how independent the localization process goes? Don't you think the "creators" might have some idea what the localizers do? It's been always bugging me that you rely on Japanese name alone. It's not a horrible way to argue, don't get me wrong, but it tends to require some valid supporting evidence to back up those statements. Finally, "creator intent" feels like a very weak argument to invoke because it's so vague and has little supporting details to explain what exactly "creator intent" is? Maybe the localizers do have a point in naming them differently, you know? In the end, I think whatever name makes more sense wins, not regional origins. 19:24, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
 * I'm actually trying to find some "valid supporting evidence" (e.g. guides/ingame Tattles/etc.) to back up my arguments, so there's that. Binarystep (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
 * That's good, but you should've voted AFTER you're more informed on the subject. 19:43, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
 * I'm actually considering changing my stance (considering the Paper Mario Big Boos are bosses, not a species). Binarystep (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2015 (EDT)

"Boos in Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine can be jumped on, a trait not shared in any other games (except the RPGs, but that can be explained as basic RPG physics)." You can also punch them in the face and kick them (if you turn quickly enough) to kill them. Also, the only means to defeat them, the Star, doesn't appear as an invincibility item, so I can say, "that can be explained as basic Super Mario 64 mechanics". Super Mario Sunshine is a successor, so that's self-explanatory. 20:30, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Good point, especially since Sunshine was a bit...different than the other games. Binarystep (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2015 (EDT)

I don't understand how one of the particular enemy appearing only once is a working argument. We also have Wiggler, who in SM64 appears once as a boss as opposed to his usual role of an uncommon enemy. And speaking of Boolossus, known as Jumbo Boo in Japan, he appeared in Luigi's Mansion 2 going by the Japanese name, but his appearance and behaviour (and physiology) differ from the Luigi's Mansion incarnation.

The reason why some of us use the Japanese names above all so often as an argument is because they are constant most of the time and from genre to genre, compared to the behaviour, roles and appearance that change between those (though the last one is rare nowadays). The Japanese versions are more of an indication that a single enemy can adapt to different roles, assume different appearances and learn new techniques, compared to the common intepretation here that reasonable enough differences in behaviour, role and (localized) names should lead to separation of the enemies otherwise considered the same. As for the ”localizers having a point” and thus ”making more sense” and ”being right about it”, with that stance there's a risk that we end up creating speculative stuff of our own. And when the article is trimmed out of that, is the remaining info enough to justify the separation from the other article informing the readers about basically the same thing? For example, ”Atomic Boo” is only a different English name from ”Big Boo”, and doesn't mean that it's a different species/entity/type/whatever of Big Boo. Same for the names in other languages, they're only different names and nothing else. Big Boos in Sticker Star and Luigi's Mansion 2 (going by the English name) are both singular bosses and formations of Boos like Atomic Boos, so that's a link in physiology and role between the two. Boos in early Paper Mario games look slightly different from the usual, as do the majority of the other enemies, so that's not a good argument in this case. And behaviour is prone to changes according to the game and genre. SmokedChili (Talk) (Thoughts) 07:00, 26 May 2015 (EDT)


 * I think the Wiggler is still called "Wiggler" in Super Mario 64. One can argue that the Wiggler is reworked as a boss in a 3D platforming environment. That it looks different in Super Mario 64 than it does in Super Mario World, you can say it's from severe graphic limitations.


 * Using the Japanese names alone isn't always a surefire way to determine which enemies should be split, which ones shouldn't. I feel like they're not compelling cases by themselves. I wasn't arguing that "localizers make more sense", but more that they don't operate entirely out of the blue and give different names just for the sake of it. You have to consider their thought process as well, and we would probably operate on a more similar thinking process as the localizers because, well, most of us aren't native Japanese Mario developers. Which is why it can be difficult determining the names sometimes. That being said, I am aware of the Piranha Plant (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) page, stuff where the Japanese name is considered, but I supported it to remain split because the American name is the only conflicting info, so it carries less weight. In Atomic Boo's case, however, the names are much more conflicting, so you can't use the same arguments here.


 * We are separating "Atomic Boo" from Big Boo because looks can be deceiving. That it has a different name is only supporting evidence, but this Atomic Boo, how it is encountered, how it forms, and how it attacks. While you can argue that Big Boo in several games (in Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon and Sticker Star) attacks (some of its attacks, not all) and forms similarly, it has continued to be called "Atomic Boo", showing some continuity and perhaps suggesting that it is a different entity. As Walkazo said, perhaps it's better to put all the "Atomic Boos" under one article for the ease of navigation. Each argument alone doesn't make for a very strong case, but when put together, I feel like this is enough to split it from this page. 00:58, 27 May 2015 (EDT)


 * So they think different looks, role and behaviour from the core design are a sign of a different entity, and don't consider under any present difference the possibility that it is supposed to be the core design modified for the particular occasion? Isn't that why we got enemy names like ”Flopsy Fish”, ”Spiny Fish”, ”Gabon” etc., some of which were pretty recently merged here by using the Japanese names as a connection? Even if the following games in the subseries create their own consistency from the core, what then when the subseries shifts towards the core? This proposal doesn't adress that. Is Big Boo in Sticker Star an handwave from the localizers to differiate it from Atomic Boos just to make ”more sense”, or did they not realize they're supposed to be the same (ugh) species? Also, since Pale Piranha is Piranha Plant in Japan (and not even called a subspecies there, as I've heard) and TTYD Piranha Plant is actually Killer Piranha, what reason would the localizers would have to name them such and such? Their looks, because it makes ”more sense” than follow their Japanese names?


 * Look at Kamek for example. The NOA localizers make him his own character, while the NOE localizers have made him just a random member of the same-name species similar to the Japanese version. Someone would also think that his SSBWIIU trophy is wrong about Super Mario World being his first game, but this page from this guide also marks Super Mario World as his first game, meaning the trophy is actually correct. So is Kamek really the individual we thought him to be? And then there's the NTSC version of the Puzzle and Dragons crossover. Why is there this one Magikoopa, who is called Kamek, and thus having his name unchanged compared to the other Magikoopas, who are all called Kameks in PAL and Japanese versions? What were the NOA localizers thinking? "Follow what we established"? "Appeal to the fandom"? "It's right this way"? Why would that make more sense? Wouldn't making more sense be more decieving than looks? SmokedChili (Talk) (Thoughts) 12:04, 30 May 2015 (EDT)


 * That's my issue with our entire argument. You can argue from both sides, but it's really based on interpretation. You can argue that they're same, and the differences are due to the demands from a different genre and developer require such changes. You can argue that they're different because they have drastic behavioral differences and the naming is different, which has been retained in a sequel title. I can't argue for the Japanese naming consistency here, as I feel that making assumptions from those precedents don't make for a compelling argument, so proposals like this generally go case-by-case supported by precedent, rather than using precedent as the MAIN argument. In other words, "case-by-case" is a common problem here, at least from my experience.


 * The "subseries deriving from the core and then reverting to the core" argument does sound like a problem, but as I said, the case-by-case basis of these arguments make it very difficult to determine the exact answer to these. Anyway, let me think of an example. What would happen if there was a new Goomba called "Goomba" in the 1st-party developed Mario Fishing series, and it looks like a fish with a Goomba head and happens to be the penultimate boss? We'd probably split that. But what if that same enemy then becomes, well, a Goomba and is the weakest enemy in the game? Then we probably add information to both articles.


 * I feel the Kamek issue is another localization issue that has little relation to the Big Boo / Atomic Boo situation we're having. It's similar to that whole Toad species and Toad character debacle where it's not clear who's a just a generic member and who's the distinguished member. I don't know the NOA localizers' intent this time, but, as I said, I think it's a different case all together. It feels like an arbitrary localization compared to Big Boo / Atomic Boo, which the two are quite different. 21:24, 3 June 2015 (EDT)