Talk:Boom Boom

A small bit of trivia: The Prima guide states that he is the "forgotten Koopaling". As the Prima Game Guides usually cannot be trusted, I'm wondering whether there is any evidence for this...

... Really? Weird, well, we could mention it in the Koopalings and Boom Boom articles I guess, guidebooks I don't really think should be trusted on matters like this, -- Sir Grodus


 * No. It's not official so we shouldn't. -- Son of Suns

Option 2

 * 1) Artwork are better than screenshot, period.
 * 1) Artwork are better than screenshot, period.
 * 1) Artwork are better than screenshot, period.

Comments
And we won't include both because......? - Yoshi Master

I'm guessing space issues. Though that can be resolved by just removing the cartoon picture; aside from that, I don't see any other solution. -- Sir Grodus

Why Remove cartoon image?It looks good like that.

I don't want a whole "thing" to spin out of this; it seems the majority agree that the page is good like this. If it gets bigger (I might expand the Appearances in Other Media section if I have time) we can use both of the above images. -- Sir Grodus

And the cartoon pic is blurry as hell. - Yoshi Master

?
Is or are Boom Boom(s) are character or a species? 17:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

i'm guessing species cuz you fight him like 6 times.

It's never been properly explained by Nintendo, but there were two Boom Booms that appeared together in Super Mario Advance 4. -- Booster

Species it is (unless that was a clone...). 14:35, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry but it said on the book that Boom Boom is The faithful Servant of Bowser so Knife other reason is right the other Boom Boom was a clone.

Spelling
My official SMA4 guide consistantly spells the name as "BOOM-BOOM". I don't know of any other official source material I could check, but should we change the spelling of Boom Boom to reflect this? -- Booster

Bradley Koopenberg?
Is it true that Boom Boom is really known as Bradley Koopenberg?

-_- Koopakid10

No, it isn't. Vent (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Redundancy
In the appearance section, it says Unlike them, he is bald and has no hair. which is pretty much saying the same thing twice. I've never known anybody to be bald and have hair (har har). Should I change this, or should somebody else? -- Super YoshiBros  20:51, 6 December 2011 (EST)
 * It's obviously redundant, so feel free to change it (as long as you do it properly).
 * actually, you can be bald and have hair; bald only means no hair on your head (unless you are an animal). So you could be bald but have a beard or a mustache. However, having no hair means, well, no hair, so in this case either bald or has no hair will work.M&amp;L Just because you&#39;re in red doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re strong. Have at you! 19:38, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Relationship section with Mario
Boom Boom is not important enough to warrant a section with Mario the only thing you can say is he fights Mario well duh he's a boss of course he does every boss does. Boom Boom also has no personality and only appears in 2 games so if he gets a relationship section with Mario than so should every boss because they all dislike Mario cause they fight him


 * Ya know that it's rediculous to say Boom Boom has no personality. Everyone has personalities, like you and I, even characters of the Mario universe. You may call him heartless or emotionaless since he likes invading every kingdoms of Mushroom World with the Koopalings and/or Pom Pom because he's a villain Koopa boss. But still, he has personality and traits. You don't have to be obliged to add a relationship section with Mario for everyone else's article if Boom Boom does.--Prince Ludwig 19:26, 7 December 2011 (EST)


 * How is it *ridiculous? He literally does not demonstrate any shred of personality besides antagonizing Mario, which is ultimately the extent of their "relationship". And if he's heartless for invading the Mushroom Kingdom, then so is Bowser by extension, even though he's been shown to actually care for Peach (and his minions if I recall) from time to time. Boom Boom doesn't show any particular emotion towards invading the Mushroom Kingdom - he just follows Bowser's orders.


 * Point is, the relationship between him and Mario is hardly even there; besides their obvious dislike of each other, there's nothing notable, and he just kinda exists as another enemy for Mario to step on. Lord Grammaticus 19:59, 7 December 2011 (EST)
 * yeah, if you fight him using Luigi it's not like he acts different, he acts the same and doesn't really care who it is. He just serves Bowser. Maybe he has no soul?M&amp;L Just because you&#39;re in red doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re strong. Have at you! 19:40, 31 January 2012 (EST)

You can say the same for one of the main antagonists of the Super Mario Bros. series? I don't think so. It's also like saying that Bowser Jr. has no soul either.--Prince Ludwig 23:04, 31 January 2012 (EST)

We don't know what his personality is because they never show or tell us about it. Vent (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2013 (EST)


 * We did, until they split Boom Boom into two articles which made him less than a character.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
 * Attacking Mario doesn't give you a personality, and that's all he's ever done, then and now. The species article does nothing to his status as a character, and your persistent complaining about the split is not helpful. As you've been asked twice before: give it a rest. - 23:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)

The species article haven't done anything do Boom Boom's status yeah, only the split and the agreement of rearranging the character's article did. I'm sorry Walkazo, but just by looking at it, it's obvious the character's article isn't going so great. It wasn't just about Mario. That wouldn't be good enough, despite knowing he would cause any disasters to destroy Mario in The Adventure of Super Mario Bros. 3. I stopped worring about his relationship with Mario for a year. He could've had a clear relationship with Pom Pom if she would return and the two of them would join forces to fight the hero so... Currently, it is unclear on what his relationships with Mario and Pom Pom truly are so we removed the section, we could still wait for another release featuring Boom Boom (and Pom Pom), which I hope it would literally blow my mind all over the place. LOL. It turns out they were right last year. It has to be more than that, it was just Mario and Boom Boom fighting, then decades later, the same twice (Super Mario 3D Land and New Super Mario Bros. U).--Prince Ludwig (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2013 (EST)

About Boom Boom's Classification
Boom Boom has constantly been changing from being a singular character to be being generic as shown in many sources as well as a few games. A theory that I think that explains this is that they might have given Boom Boom the Generic Character Treatment. That is where a character is generic but there is that one specific character from his species that so happens to have the same name as his species. Toad, Yoshi, and sometimes Kamek when he is mistakenly referred as Magikoopa, have been given this treatment. Maybe they might have done the same with Boom Boom. What do you guys think? Smasher345 9:57, 24 December 2012 (EST)


 * Not yet, unless Nintendo confirms they are actual clones or his species. He's often being the single character even though there are many Boom Booms out there in New Super Mario Bros. U. I'm hoping they are his clones.

But why would you assume they are clones? Because you want Boom Boom to be a singular character? Sometimes you have to face the truth, in the same way how we had to handle the Koopalings not being Bowser's children, which I accepted already. If they show multiple Boom Booms in the game in addition to some manuals and official websites referring to Boom Boom in the plural sense, that most likely means Boom Boom is generic. Thats pretty much proof that they are making Boom Boom a species where as there is no proof that they are clones. Sure you may say that some sources refer to Boom Boom in the singular sense but why with the constant changing from being a character to generic or vice versa? Like I said, the only possible explanation to this is that Boom Booms are species and there is one specific Boom Boom with the same name as his species. In fact, remember before the NSMBU website was updated, Blue Toad and Yellow Toad were both in the Generic Toads profile. After the site was updated, Blue Toad and Yellow Toad were each given their own profiles while the generic toads profile was removed. The same could have been done with Boom Boom with all these sources. It's hard to keep tradition but you have to face facts. Smasher345 12:47, 25 December 2012 (EST)


 * It seems more like you want Boom Boom to be a species. There has been no confirmation. Multiple Boom Booms on the world map may simply be Nintendo's laziness. Maybe they didn't want to program him running to the next tower, especially since you can do the worlds in different orders. Aokage (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2012 (EST)
 * At the end of the day neither side is right because Nintendo has called him both on person and a whole species but since references to him being a single person came first and since there are more sources that say he's one person the wiki should continue referring to him as one person.

I'm not saying I want Boom Boom to be a species, just that many sources including the game itself implies that he is a species. When someone sees more than one of that character, most people will naturally assume that they are generic not clones. I'll admit that I'm speculating about Boom Boom getting the generic character treatment, but sources indicate that Boom Boom is meant to be a species. The sources lead more into Boom Boom being generic than him being a singular character. Websites and manuals don't write in the plural sense for nothing especially when one game shows multiple Boom Booms. You and Prince Ludwig seem to want Boom Boom to be a singular character, only going with the singular sense sources while going as far as to disregard the sources that imply he is a species by giving speculation that the multiple Boom Booms are either clones or is just lazy on Nintendo's part. Neither of you have proof of this. Seriously, it isn't gonna be the end of the world for you guys if he isn't a singular character. But like Marshal Dan Troop said, neither side is right though I disagree that that there are more references to him being a singular character since they now lead to him being generic which could possibly be a retcon similar to the Koopalings. Smasher345


 * I'm not lying to myself, that's true. Boom Boom has to be a singular character. To be honest, once Nintendo confirms one of the two sources, many people wouldn't approve with this if there are many of his kind, including for his "twin sister", unless if he is a singular character spawning clones all over the world, that'll make him too powerful, so... As for me, I'm not sure if I'll say anything once it happens. I'll just have to keep editing the articles. Let's just way.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2012 (EST)

I guess you're right, we just have to wait and see. I don't necessarily think that Boom Boom being generic is a bad thing. They could still give him character development just like Yoshi and Toad even though they're generic. Pom Pom I believe is in a similar case to Toadette, we don't know if they can possibly be generic, just like the opening of Super Mario Galaxy showing two Toadettes. It would be cool if Boom Boom is a singular character since it would make him more unique. If Nintendo does confirm that those are indeed clones, then I would at least want to know which one is the real Boom Boom. Smasher345

Creating a New Page for Boom Boom Species
I'm thinking that a Boom Boom species page must be created. We got a couple of sources that mention Boom Boom in the plural sense such as a few manuals and 3 websites of Super Mario 3D Land, including Japan. Japan's sources are known to override any other region's sources. This is coupled with New Super Mario Bros. U showing multiple Boom Booms as well as a few World-e levels in Super Mario Advance 4. This cannot be denied. Only the American website refers to Boom Boom in the singular sense, as does the Super Mario Bros. 3 manual. America is known for their mistakes including the mistranslation of the Koopalings being Bowser's children and calling Kamek his species name Magikoopa. None of the other regions make these mistakes and the Super Mario Bros. 3 manual is the same manual that mentioned the Koopalings being Bowser's children. Now that a game finally shows multiple Boom Booms and he has been referred in the plural sense even in Japan, this is enough evidence to say that Boom Booms are a species and thus a species page must be created. Smasher345 14:01, 30 December 2012 (EST)
 * Can you read japanese? Aokage (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2012 (EST)
 * I believe that Boom-Boom is a species, but that no character called "Boom-Boom" exists. We should have only one page, the current one, focusing on the species. At least, in my opinion. 14:40, 30 December 2012 (EST)


 * You couldn't wait, couldn't you? -_-' --Prince Ludwig (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2012 (EST)
 * What ? 17:16, 30 December 2012 (EST)
 * He is talking about waiting until Nintendo confirms it, even though I have already provided enough evidence to suggest that he is a species. They are just in denial and often make up excuses for Boom Boom to be a singular character. And its not that I want to be mean, I'm just making them realize that he is species and that its realistic to think that, especially when two games show it and sources called him a species. Smasher345
 * Yes, the most recent Mario game show several Boom Booms at once, but "nope ! It's a singular character !"... 13:02, 31 December 2012 (EST)
 * That's exactly how they act. They're in denial, much like how they were with the Koopalings confirmed to not be Bowser's children. Smasher345 15:31, 31 December 2012 (EST)
 * I suggest that, if you have time, you rewrite the article. This is official, and anyway, one day it will be done, like the edits on the Koopalings article (sorry for my bad english...). 15:37, 31 December 2012 (EST)
 * I wish I could but I recently spoke to an admin about this and he said for now we have to leave the page the way it is until Nintendo confirms it. He did however say that we can mention Boom Boom as a species in the most relevant parts of the article as we can't simply ignore things such as multiple Boom Booms in New Super Mario Bros U or other sources calling him a species. I made a few changes mentioning them but I can't wait till the day Nintendo confirms this because you and I both know that Boom Booms are officially a species and this is most likely what Nintendo will say. Smasher345 17:21, 31 December 2012 (EST)

No I can't read Japanese but the European, Australian, and Japanese sites are exactly the same and they all have the same screenshots with the exact same description so I know that Japan refers to it in the plural sense. Go ahead and prove me wrong with a Japanese translator, I'm sure I'm right. He has been mentioned in the plural sense on these sites along with one(actually two if you count World-e) game clearly showing multiple Boom Booms with no justification that they're clones. I'm being realistic here and all you people trying to defend Boom Boom as a character just make up excuses so that he can't be a species even though multiple ones are shown in two games, also backed up with sources referring him in the plural sense. You guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment if you think Boom Boom isn't a species. Also I agree Banon. Smasher345 17:03, 30 December 2012 (EST)

If Boom Boom is a species, would it mean that Pom Pom also is one ? 13:56, 31 December 2012 (EST)
 * Well, the European, Australian, and Japanese sites of Super Mario 3D Land refer to Pom Pom in the plural sense so its possible that she is a species. This is similar to Toadette who may possibly be generic due to the opening of Super Mario Galaxy showing two Toadettes. It's hard to tell when Pom Pom only appeared in one game, but I believe she is most likely a species as well. We can think of Pom Pom as the female Boom Booms in the species. Nintendo also needs to confirm this. Smasher345 17:40, 31 December 2012 (EST)
 * Pom Pom is most likely the female Boom Boom, and if the website use the plural sense, it's a species. I don't know if Nintendo will confirm this, but I think that, if Nintendo confirms that Boom Boom is a species, we should consider that Pom Pom is a species and apply the changes on the page. Also, I agree with what you said above. Where in the SMG opening can we see two Toadettes ? Note that in the same game we can see two Luigis as well, but it was humoristic. 18:15, 31 December 2012 (EST)
 * I have no clue why the developers added two Luigis when you play as Luigi, but I'll admit it was funny. My guess is that Nintendo didn't want to bother changing anything of the story through Luigi's playthrough aside from changing a few dialogue to fit with Luigi. In other words, it was just for gameplay reasons as to why they kept that NPC Luigi even though the player already plays as Luigi, so I don't think its meant to be canon. Smasher345 18:45, 31 December 2012 (EST)
 * I think the European(and Australian) site just made a mistake translating. Japanese nouns have no plural form, so it could be "Boom Boom" or "Boom Booms". Multiple Boom Booms on the world map can be explained the same way as multiple Luigis in Galaxy: Nintendo was lazy. Aokage (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * And here it goes again with defending Boom Boom as a character. You do not know that Australia and Europe made mistranslations, in fact I don't think they have evered made a mistranslation at all where as America has. I'm fairly certain it mentions him as a species in Japan when the 3 websites look exactly the same. Two Luigi's was for gameplay reasons, you should know this. It is a fact that there is only one Luigi in existence which is Mario's brother. Multiple Boom Booms on the other hand can be possible because Boom Boom has been considered a species before and Super Mario Advance 4's World-e levels show two Boom Booms so don't give me that "Nintendo was lazy" excuse. You can't compare Boom Boom to Luigi. Once people see multiple Boom Booms in a game, they have to conclude that he is a species unless something in the game proves they are clones, which there isn't. YoshiKong knows this. Like I said before, you're setting yourselve up for disappointment if you think Boom Boom isn't a species. Once Nintendo confirms the classification of Boom Boom, I'm positive that they'll say he is generic, as I have two games and a couple of sources to back that up. YoshiKong already allowed me to mention Boom Boom as a species in the most relevant parts of the article until Nintendo confirms this. Smasher345 10:19, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * As I said, Japanese nouns have no plural form so they could've easily made that mistake. Just because the websites "look the same" doesn't mean they say the same thing. And FYI Super Mario Advance 4 manual refers to him in singular. Aokage (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * It may also be a translation error. What does the Japanese manual says ? 11:12, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * Isn't the Super Mario Advance 4 manual the same manual that called the Koopalings Bowser's kids? Yes, it is and look how that turned out for the Koopalings. Sorry, but whatever is shown in-game overrides manuals. I thought you knew this. Smasher345 12:00, 1 January 2013 (EST)

In Super Smasher Bros. which is a valid crossover and canon according to the coverage policy has levels that feature multiple Mario's so should we also create a Mario (species) page?
 * No-one wants to create the Mario (species) page, we just want to consider Boom Boom generic. I don't want to apply the changes right now, I will wait an official confirmation, but I'm pretty sure that Boom Boom is a species : in a mainstream game, they are several. I know that technically, SSB games are canon, but, even if there is no evidence of this anywhere, I think that Nintendo didn't mean the battles to be canon. The Subspace Emmissary is, but not the "custom" battles. Canonicty can be ambigous : if you dies in a game 50 times, are those deaths canon ? (What I'm saying don't make a lot of sense, but...) 11:34, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * It doesn't matter what you think is canon it's what the wiki thinks is canon and according to the wiki all games including ssb are canon also in Donkey Kong jr. there are two mario's at the beginning therefore according to the logic you are using here mario is not a character but a generic species.
 * Yes, I shouldn't have given my opinion (it was useless, sorry). So, I will wait Nintendo confirmation, but there is a difference between Mario, and an ennemy, isn't there ? 11:50, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * You shouldn't feel bad about being bested in a debate by the second coming of John F. Kennedy (did I mention how modest I am.) And no according to the logic that I have been presented there is no difference because you are saying that because more then one Boom Boom appears on screen he is a species well the same applies to Mario therefore he is a species.
 * You are seriously going use Super Smash Bros against my argument? That game doesn't even have canon at all, its just a fighting crossover featuring Nintendo's all-stars. There has been so many things Smash Bros. has done that isn't even canon. Multiple Marios are just alternate costumes for players that also want to play as Mario should another player already choose him. Those alternate costumes are also used for event matches and stuff which is not canon. You know what thats called? Its called GAMEPLAY REASON. Smashwiki doesn't consider it canon and wikis are information written by people so just cause you go with what the wiki says it doesn't mean its true. Smasher345 11:58, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * No dude on this wiki Smash Bros. is canon therefore using your logic Mario is a species it's wiki policy it's right your wrong you can't go against and it would require a formal proposal to change it (also I think the admins like it this way) also that's not the only game where there are two mario's in DKJR at the very beginning there are two mario's therefore mario is a species not a character using your logic.
 * I know it's the policy, and I also know that there is very little chance to change it, but come on ! 90% of the text in this wiki is interpretation of the game : we consider that those pixels are a cap, we consider that this ennemy is a Goomba. If you want to be 100% canon, the wiki should be written like this : "At first, there are two black pixels here, three red pixels here. If the player presses the A button, there are three black pixels here... ". Well, I know that what I said can be seen as total nonsense, but the Mario experience is based on human interpretation. Our common sense identifies the pixels as a cap or an ennemy, and it also identifies the two Marios fighting each other as a gameplay feature. 12:07, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Marshal Dan Troop is right. As far as canon goes, all officially licensed Mario media is canon. The argument that two Boom Booms appear on the world map at the same time means more than one Boom Boom exists is very flawed, since that's very unlikely to be a direct confirmation that there is more than one Boom Boom present in that world at that time. The European referring to Boom Boom as plural is more concrete, but to enforce any changes, I agree with YoshiKong (who has told you that it is best to wait for further Nintendo confirmation before making these changes!!) that we should wait for more information from Nintendo before doing anything. That is all.

Banon You are wrong sir for three reasons 1. you have yet to address the fact that there are two Mario's in DKJR, 2. because the wiki considers the Smash Bros. series canon then all of those fights in the story are canon, and 3. because Nintendo has historically refereed to Boom Boom as one person rather then a species look at SMB3 for the GBA the manual still refers to Boom Boom as a single character despite a level with two boom booms in it, look at SM3DL where the American website (which is the one that this wiki as an American wiki) uses refers to Boom Boom in a singular sense. You have literally no argument other then the fact that you can see more then one which doesn't work because of the fact that more then one Mario's have been seen at the same time. So either you concede that Boom Boom is a single character or you concede that Mario is a species you don't get to pick and chose what is and isn't canon based on personal beliefs.
 * As stated above, the manual and the website could be translation errors. I don't speak Japanese so I don't know, but I will wait for a proper translation. (I didn't understand your sentence "which is the one that this wiki as an American wiki", isn't a word missing ?) 12:21, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Another thing : you're right, according to our policy we should create the Mario (species) page. So the policy needs to be changed. 12:26, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * You do realize that if you changed the policy then Boom Boom would have to be considered a character not a species right?
 * Not necessarily. The change is not necessarily to consider every character that have appeared at two places at the same time a single character. It could be another change, like consider SSB pseudo-canon, or something else. 12:47, 1 January 2013 (EST)

This is getting ridiculous. We are just gonna have to wait until Nintendo confirms something. To be honest, I didn't really want to start this argument, I just don't know why you guys would ignore multiple Boom Booms on the world map as well as ignore other sources that consider him a species. Boom Boom can't be in two or more places at once, so how can this be explained? Smasher345 12:41, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * How do you explain two Luigis in Galaxy or two Marios in DKJr? The world map doesn't really represent reality. If it did, Mario would be half the size of a tower. Aokage (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * I agree, but not at 100% because scale problem is different from ennemies that are visible. 13:21, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Banon why do you keep dismissing the fact that in the beginning of DKJR there are two mario's? is that game also pseudo-canon?
 * Sorry. I can't give my opinion at this fact, because I don't know how are the two Marios represented : I haven't seen them. Can you explain me, or give me a screenshot ? 13:21, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * [[File:TwoMarios.png]]
 * That's really strange... I don't know... I will just assume that was easier to explain how Mario move the cage, but that's speculation of course. 13:28, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * That second Mario is Luigi, obviously. He just had to borrow Mario's clothes that day because all his were dirty. I'm joking, by the way, since that would be kinda hard to pick up on over text.
 * Anyway, I agree with the position that Boom Boom is a species, and there is no Boom Boom character. You clearly fight two at once in at least either SMB3 or its GBA version. -- 1337star (Mailbox SP) 13:42, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * And you see two Luigi's in SMG and two Mario's in DKJR so are they both species? also the manual for the GBA version of SMB3 refers to Boom Boom in a singular sense.
 * My theory is that Boom Boom is an actual species and that Pom Pom is a character of the Boom Boom species. The reason is because of the fact that Boom Boom appears in many different colors and that the player clearly fights two Boom Booms at the same time in this e-reader level of Super Mario Advance 4.

---signed, a.k.a.  John Roberts 13:54, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * His color scheme changes slightly, as with other characters. And World-e levels are not part of "main game", so one could argue that they're not canon. Aokage (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * I know I contradict msyelf a bit by saying that, but according to our policy it's canon. And it's a maintstream game. 14:22, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Let's recapitulate : 14:32, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * One can fight two Boom Booms at once in Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 (2003) and one can see more than one Boom Boom on the map in New Super Mario Bros. U (2012).
 * But one can see two Luigis in Super Mario Galaxy (2007) and two Marios in Donkey Kong Jr (1982). Additionnally, in the Super Smash Bros. games (1999, 2001, 2008) every character can fight against himself, and two Toadettes in Super Mario Galaxy.
 * The official Australian and European website for Super Mario 3D Land (and maybe Japanese) mention Boom Boom (and Pom Pom) in the plural sense. (2011)
 * The official American website for Super Mario 3D Land mentions Boom Boom in the singular sense. (2011)
 * The Super Mario Bros. 3 manual mentions Boom Boom in the singular sense. (1990)
 * The Super Mario History 1985-2010 booklet mentions Boom Boom in the plural sense (2010)
 * It might be a translation error, because the same manual mistranslated the Koopalings stuff.
 * We should wait Nintendo's confirmation. (that's not part of the argument)
 * Don't forget that the Super Mario All-Stars limited edition manual also mentions Boom Boom in the plural sense. Smasher345 14:50, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * Thanks ! 14:55, 1 January 2013 (EST)

For the sake of knowing what we're talking about, I retrieved all the Japanese bios. First up, the original SMB3 manual: 「ブンブン - 砦 を守って いるボス. 両手 をぶるんぶるん回しながら 、マリオに体当り をしてくる. ３回 踏まない と倒せない. しかし、踏む ごとにパワーアップするので気 をつけよう. 」　meaning "Boom Boom - The boss that protects the fortress. While both hands spin around, [Boom Boom] comes to do a full body blow on Mario. Three stomps on the head brings down [Boom Boom]. However, watch out for the power-up [Boom Boom] does for every stomp." Next, from the SM3DL website: 「戦艦 でマリオを待ち受ける ブンブン. ぐるぐる回転 しながらマリオに迫ります. 」 meaning "In the battleship is Boom Boom, who/that awaits Mario. While revolving, [Boom Boom] approaches Mario." For the sake of thoroughness, here's Pom Pom too: 「クッパ軍 の紅一点. <span class=explain title="かれい">華麗 な<span class=explain title="うごき">動き でマリオをほんろうします. 」 meaning "The Koopa army's lone female. [Pom Pom] toys with Mario using magnificent moves." I also looked around the NSMBU website but the closest I got to a bio for Boom Boom was the blurb about fortresses: 「ワールドの<span class=explain title="とちゅう">途中 にある「<span class=explain title="とりで">砦 」. <span class=explain title="さいじょう">最上 <span class=explain title="かい">階 には<span class=explain title="きょうてき">強敵 が<span class=explain title="まちうけ">待ち受け 、<span class=explain title="たおす">倒す とセーブ（<span class=explain title="きろく">記録 ）することがでいます. 」 meaning "On the way in each world is a "fortress". A strong enemy awaits on the highest floor, bring [the enemy] down and [you] can save (record [your progress])." As was mentioned earlier, there are no pluralizations in Japanese so that argument's wrong. They also leave out nouns if the subject's obvious and don't use pronouns much, hence all the []s in the translations. - So, the Japanese treats Pom Pom in the singular, but it's not really helpful about whether there's one or more Boom Boom(s), however Japanese isn't the be-all or end-all of Mario canon. Really, the only established practice we have regarding this kinda situation is "use the version that makes the most sense". Some material uses the plural for Boom Boom, others treats him like one guy, meaning we can go either way without leaving canon behind. To me, it all boils down to the fact that there are instances where we see more than one Boom Boom at a time, which means the Boom Boom that is talked about is an eponymous member of an overall Boom Boom species, and we should have two articles to reflect this. This isn't saying that there's more than one instances of the character Boom Boom - that's not possible, and the only times it really happened in-game is the DKJr. weirdness, but maybe it was just because of graphical limitations - we can't speculate on the "why" either way. The two Toadettes only happened in the storybook: we didn't count Rosalina's mom as being more than an implied character despite appearing in a storybook flashback, so we have wiggle room here too; plus, the characters weren't identified as "Toadette" and were seen from behind, so it's reasonable to say they weren't intended to be her in duplicate (but again, avoid speculation on the wiki: this is just to show that this isn't a good counterpoint to the very different situation at hand). You also can't compare the mechanics of SSB to the Super Mario games: yeah, it's all canon, but it's also apples and oranges. As for the the "two Luigis" SMG thing, they were made to look slightly different, and this was dealt with in-game with Roasalina calling the extra one Luigi's twin: it's enigmatic, but it's not the same thing as two Boom Booms being fought at the same time in SMA4, or Boom Booms appearing on every fortress top in the NSMBU map. - Since SMB3 and SM3DL both have at least once source referring to Boom Boom in the singular, the bulk of that info can stay here, with the extra SMA4 Boom Boom info going in the species article along with a mention of how the Boom Boom character (also) represents the species in the two games, and a discussion of the ambiguities and inconsistent pluralization stuff. Regarding NSMBU, if nothing says the specific guy's in there, all the info should be moved to the species page, with only a mention here saying he might be in the game, but wasn't differentiated. The SMB film and comic references can stay here because they're referencing "the" SMB3 Boom Boom; the SPM ref could go on either page (or even both). The TV show appearance's placement depends on how the show treated its Boom Boom - having never watched it, I can't make a call on that one. Most of the other info can probably stay, like how Birdo has all the information while Birdo (species) only has the "extra" appearances and other things that can't be attributed to "the" Birdo. And when in doubt, put stuff on both pages. - Course, others might disagree - I figured I'd just offer up what I think we should do on the matter. Also, on a side-note: stop saying things are "mistranslated". Most of the time, this is nothing but (often biased) speculation, and in cases like the Koopalings stuff, it's wrong (they were his kids in the original Japanese SMB3 manual, and the English simply ran with it; it's been discussed at length on the talk page and on the articles - the only "mis-" here is "misinformation" about the source material). Stick to the facts: something may be called "X" here and "Y" there, but it's not our place to say that either version is a mistake, because we don't know that for sure. And in conclusion, Nintendo's probably not gonna give us a straight answer anytime soon, so don't hold your breath; fortunately, we have the ability to think for ourselves in the meantime, despite all the conflicting canon. - - 17:56, 1 January 2013 (EST)
 * Does anyone have the Prima guides for SM3DL and NSMBU? What do they say about this? Aokage (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2013 (EST)
 * Just checked both guides, they mention Boom Boom in the singular sense. Though the New Super Mario Bros. U guide also mistakenly calls Kamek "Magikoopa". They aren't the only sources however, as other sources do mention him in the plural sense. I am aware that Boom Boom is a character but it still doesn't rule out the possibility of him being a species. Just like what Walkazo said, it all comes down to the fact that we have seen multiple Boom Booms and two games show this and we know that what is shown in-game overrides manuals and guides. I never agreed with the people that said Boom Boom is a species and there is no Boom Boom character. I mentioned before that Boom Booms are a species and that one specific Boom Boom has the same name as his species(much like Toad and Yoshi) and that is the character everyone talks about. Since Boom Boom has been mentioned as both a character and a species and two games show multiple Boom Booms, its logical to conclude that there is a Boom Boom character and there is also many of his kind. Walkazo already gave a great explanation about this as well as everything else and I agree with him that two articles should be created to reflect this. Smasher345 22:43, 3 January 2013 (EST)
 * Oh, if I had a nickel every time someone thought I was a boy... (I'm not.) Also, I was looking through my manuals some more, and I noticed something: a lot of enemies are referred to in the singular. For example, SMB Deluxe says "Fireballs don't even faze him" when talking about Buzzy Beetles, and SMB3 says that "As long as he's walking, Bob-omb seems cute" - this doesn't mean there's one Buzzy Beetle and one Bob-Omb, because all the "he" usage is a writing style, not something that is meant to be taken literally. SMB3's fortress description says "The Mini-Fortresses are guarded by Boom Boom, a tough servant of Bowser." - the deliberate pluralization of "fortresses" while "Boom Boom" remains single suggests he's meant to be one dude, but the newer fortress description from SMASLE can only be interpreted one way: "Each of these enemy strongholds is guarded by a Boom-Boom." The "a" means there's more than one Boom Boom: it's not us choosing how to take the writing anymore, the grammar forces our hand. However, I still think there's enough cause (and ambiguity) to maintain that there's a Boom Boom character as well. A TPP may be in order to see that the article gets split accordingly. - 01:20, 5 January 2013 (EST)
 * So does that mean a Boom Boom species page can possibly be created according to your explanation and the information that you provided? Smasher345 19:30, 5 January 2013 (EST)
 * I think someone should combine all the info (and I mean ALL) and then make a TPP. Aokage (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2013 (EST)

I really don't think it's a good idea. Let's just wait for Nintendo to confirm before reacting.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2013 (EST)
 * Just because you don't think its a good idea (And I know why), doesn't mean that it won't be done. Originally, I thought waiting for Nintendo's confirmation would be the best thing to do. However, Walkazo is right, Nintendo most likely won't confirm anything because lets be honest here, Nintendo probably won't give an answer from something as minor as this so don't expect an answer anytime soon. Besides, Nintendo is trying their best to confirm it by giving info on manuals, websites, and guides, which constantly change from mentioning Boom Boom as a character or a species. Since, he's been mentioned as both a character and as a species and two games show more than one Boom Boom, it could go both ways and thats why it's necessary for the article to be split into both the character and the species. Smasher345 13:25, 6 January 2013 (EST)


 * I don't think, and it does mean so. Maybe they will, maybe they won't confirm. If they won't... Let's abort idea of created of the character and the species articles. But, honestly. I'm not waiting. I'm still with Boom Boom being a single character spawning clones all over Mushroom World, which would make him awesome and amazing, much reasons why many Mario fans to be Boom Boom's fans as well (I'm just interested in classic characters, but that was just my opinion). If he actually is a Boom Boom species instead similar to Yoshi and Toad, it's disappointing, yes. He won't be Bowser's faithful servant we think he is anymore. One more thing, if I lose and the species gets created, we can't confirm whether they are actual real people or they are just clones, similar to Ludwig von Koopa and the Chargin' Chucks who are able to create duplicates, since it's still unconfirmed and unstated in any Mario games if they are Boom Boom's clones or his kin.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2013 (EST)
 * You really make me laugh. I'm betting you're the only one that thinks with that fantasy of Boom Boom spawning clones. No one else thinks this, including YoshiKong. Then again, judging by your talk page, you are one to cause many problems with users including admins. Nothing in the game(s) justifies the other Boom Booms being clones of the character. Also, don't give me that "we can't confirm they are clones or a species" excuse because if nothing in the game justifies they are clones then the only other possibility is that they are a species, especially when Boom Boom has been referred to as a species. Plus, its actually more realistic to think they are a species which many people will think the moment they see more than one of that character. The only reason why you use that excuse is because you don't want Boom Boom to be generic. It seems to me like you would've acted the same if Toad and Yoshi were introduced as singular characters and the moment you see many of their kind, you would assume they are clones. I can compare your fantasy of Boom Boom in the same way you made up that fantasy of the Koopalings still being Bowser's children in the Koopalings talk page. I think you should read Walkazo's explanation for a better idea of this to get in your head. Of course, you are most likely to disagree anyway given how ignorant you are with the info of Boom Boom being a species. Smasher345 21:00, 6 January 2013 (EST)
 * Japanese does not use plural suffixes so it may have been a translation error PTR (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2013 (EST)
 * @Prince Ludwig: What you personally want to be true doesn't matter. I want the Koopalings to still officially be Bowser's kids, but it ain't happening. Wanting there to only be a character page is a valid stance, but not if your argument is "I prefer to think of him that way" - save that rational for your head canon. @Smasher345: There's really no need to get so smug about it, mock him, bring up his history, and otherwise belittle his character. This conversation has been full of appalling behaviour on both sides: don't add to it. Keep it civil, or keep it to yourself. @PTR: Like I said before, speculating on the correctness of translations is not good practice, because it's just that: speculation. All we know is that some translators go with plural and others go with singular. We can't say which is "right"; all we can do is say that both exist and set the wiki up in a way that best handles this inconsistency. - 21:45, 6 January 2013 (EST)

By the way, thanks Red. I should have noticed that a long time ago.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2013 (EST)

@Walkazo: My bad, I got carried away from Prince Ludwig's behavior. I was just making him realize that Boom Boom can't just be a single character given the info we have. I apologize if I came out strong at him but he can't go claiming that what he thinks is true when he has no proof. I'll stay peaceful the next time and of course, try to contribute to both sides, which is what I have been trying to do. Smasher345 22:07, 6 January 2013 (EST)


 * Guys, don't be like that if I don't want to change my mind about Boom Boom being a singular character, or a character able to create clones. But that would have been awesome. We don't have any proof while Nintendo hadn't confirmed anything special about him yet. That's why I was telling to wait before... So...--Prince Ludwig (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2013 (EST)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not telling you to change what you personally believe. All I'm saying is that just because you believe something doesn't mean the article must reflect that belief, just as my belief that the Koopalings are Bowser's kids doesn't give me the right to rewrite their articles to say they are. The wiki is for facts, not beliefs, and fact is, there is lots of evidence that there is a Boom Boom species beyond the character Boom Boom. Nintendo will not help us: even as recently as SM3DL, the European and American websites have different stories, not to mention the discrepancies between games and over time. We have to think for ourselves and use all the facts to figure out how to best communicate all that conflicting information, and do so in a way that isn't biased by our personal interpretations and original ideas. I'm going to make a TPP to create a new article: I'm halfway through writing it as we speak. Then we can vote to determine one and for all what is best for the wiki regarding this matter. - 23:51, 6 January 2013 (EST)

A TPP, huh?--Prince Ludwig (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Create a Second Page for the Species
MAKE A SECOND PAGE 14-9-1

As you can see in the above discussion, there's a lot of inconsistency about Boom Boom. Some sources treat Boom Boom as one specific character, while others say Boom Boom is a species. Right now, all we have is this one Boom Boom page which treats him as a singular character, glossing over the instances where more than one Boom Booms appear onscreen, and not discussing the inconsistent game manual descriptions. I feel that the best way to deal with this situation is to keep this character page and make a second page for the species. It would be called, like how Birdo (species), Yoshi (species) and Toad (species) distinguish the eponymous characters from their overall species. It would also work the same way as those pages, with the bulk of the information on this main "Boom Boom" page, and only the stuff that's not the one guy getting moved to the other page. This page would then say that Boom Boom is a Boom Boom who specifically appears in some games, however it would also discuss that there is some ambiguity due to writing styles ("he" also being used for enemies known to be generic) and conflicting information (i.e. the NES SMB3 sounding like he's one guy, while SMASLE's SMB3 entry makes it sound like there's a group of them), and the fact that original Japanese offers no insight (since there's no pluralizations or pronouns). The species page would also discuss the precarious situation.

Broken down appearance-by-appearance, the situation is as follows:
 * Super Mario Games:
 * Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES) - Only one Boom Boom is ever seen at a time. The English manual reads: "The Mini-Fortresses are guarded by Boom Boom, a tough servant of Bowser. When you defeat him you get a magic ball..." and "This is the boss that controls the Mini-Fortresses. Boom Boom hurls himself at Mario with his arms swinging. Mario needs to jump on Boom Boom 3 times to defeat him. Be careful, though, Boom Boom gets quicker every time he gets stomped on." - Verdict: Character. - The pluralization of "fortresses" while Boom Boom remains singular supports the idea that he's one guy appearing multiple times, in all the different fortresses. There is no evidence to the contrary.
 * Super Mario All-Stars (SNES) - Same as SMB3, but the manual only has the first quote (with "Magic Ball" now capitalized). - Verdict: Still a character. - It lacks the second quote which brings most of the strength to the "one guy for multiple fortresses" idea, but there's not enough evidence suggesting this isn't the case for this take on SMB3, so leave well enough alone.
 * Super Mario Advance 4: SMB3 (GBA) - Two Boom Booms appear in the bonus World-e levels Swinging Bars of Doom and Kōri no Toride. The manual's text is the same as SMAS. - Verdict: Still a character, but a second one appears as well, which goes on the species page. - Just because another Boom Boom appears doesn't necessarily mean the other one and all the single Boom Booms aren't still the one guy, although the possibility of them all being different can be brought up on the species page. The character page must also mention the second Boom Boom and the ambiguity.
 * Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition (Wii) - Same as SMAS, but the one piece of fortress text now reads: "Each of these enemy strongholds is guarded by a Boom-Boom. Defeat him to get a magic ball..." - Verdict: Still a character, but it's ambiguous enough to bring up on the species page too. - The "a Boom-Boom" bit cements the idea that there is a Boom Boom species (all the more reason to bring it up on the species page), but whether the Boom Boom in the fortresses is always the one member of the species or different ones each time is unknown, as the use of "him" may just be the writing style. Like the first SMAS, however, there's not enough evidence against it being the one guy, so leave it.
 * Super Mario 3D Land (3DS) - Only one Boom Boom ever appears at a time. The North American website describes Boom Boom and Pom Pom together: "Cruising for a bruising in Bowser's airships, Boom Boom & Pom Pom wait for you in the lower chamber. They may look tough, but they're a bit of a pushover-three quick stomps to the head will take them out." The European website reads: "Boom Booms lie in wait for Mario on the battleship. They'll spin themselves into a frenzy as they try to attack our hero!" The Prima guide apparently uses the singular (I don't have a direct quote for it, however) - Verdict: Species, but ambiguous enough to mention on the character page as well. - The European websites means we have to put it on the species page, but like SMA4, just because there's more than one doesn't mean the Boom Boom isn't present, and the NA website makes it sound more like there's only one, so it deserves a section on the character's page, as long as it also discusses the European take on things.
 * New Super Mario Bros. U (Wii U) - Multiple Boom Booms appear on the overworld map at once. I couldn't find any info on him from either English website. I don't have a direct quote from the Prima guide either. - Verdict: Species, and could mention here that he might be in the game. - It has to go on the species page, and there's even less wiggle room than SM3DL to justify saying the specific character's involved, but since people will probably come here expecting something, a one-liner about the possibility with leading back to the species page wouldn't be unreasonable.
 * Other Appearances and References:
 * The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 (TV show) - Singular Boom Booms appear in four episodes, only producing roaring sounds and doing nothing but attacking Mario and company (or fleeing lava, in one case). Dialogue referring to them is limited to: "let's show that big bad Boom Boom...", "here's a little something to keep you (Mario) company", "Mario, he's getting angry". Verdict: Species. - The Boom Booms aren't treated as characters, but as generic enemies, and do not even seem able to speak. The one use of "he" is just a speaking style (like how people often call animals "he" or "she" rather than "it").
 * Super Mario Bros. (film) - There is a place called the "Boom Boom Bar" - Verdict: Indeterminate, so mention on both articles. - It's a reference to SMB3, so it's probably referencing the guy, but we can't be sure, since TAoSMB3 was based on the game and it treats Boom Booms like generic monsters. Better safe than sorry and put it on both.
 * Nintendo Adventure Books (comic) - There is an item called "Boom Boom's socks" - Verdict: Character. - Like the film, it's SMB3-based, but while it could be a "Kuribo's Shoe" kinda deal, overall, it's way more likely to be referring to a character's socks than socks worn by a species as a whole.
 * Super Paper Mario - There is a Sammer Guy called "Flailing Boom Boom". What he says has nothing to do with Boom Boom ("BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! Flailing Boom Boom is master of this place, the 40th of gates! First I FLAIL! Then I go BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! FLAIL! BOOOOOOOOOOM!" "But I FLAILED! Then I went BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! But I lose... Next time, I go BOOOOOOM! And then I FLAAAAAAAAAAAIL! ...AND I WIN!") - Verdict: Indeterminate, so mention on both articles. - Same deal as the film.
 * Pretty sure that's everything...

One of the arguments against creating a species article is that it'll mean we'll have to make a "Mario (species)" page because more than one Mario appear in SSB and Donkey Kong Jr.. That's not true, and it's comparing apples to oranges to grapes. SSB is playing by a completely different set of rules due to the nature of its gameplay, and while it's all canon, you can't compare in-universe SSB realities to the Super Mario series. DKJr. had an extra Mario sprite in one shot, but it was never named or acknowledged, so again, it's not the same thing as Boom Boom. As for the two SMG Luigis, the game deals with it by calling the extra one Luigi's "twin" and playing with the dialogue: it's a different character (although others disagree, but that's a different TPP altogether), not evidence of a species of Luigis, so once again, apples and oranges. Even the two Toadettes in the SMG storybook is a moot point, since they're not named as being Toadette, and they're all seen from the back, so we can't say for sure they're the one girl in triplicate as a species of her own. By contrast, we know all the Boom Booms seen simultaneously are Boom Booms, and official material calls them as such, with some explicitly saying there's more than one Boom Boom, and most others being at least a little ambiguous.

Creating two pages, one for the character and one for the overall species, is the best way to deal with that ambiguity, by providing a way for us to include both stories and organize the conflicting information in a clear and unbiased way.

Proposer: Deadline: January 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Create a second article

 * 1) - Per my proposal and all the stuff I said in the above discussion.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo as well as a couple of things I mentioned above.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) - my first reaction to this thrilling debate is "who the [expletive] cares about Boom-Boom", but since there's more than one of him, yeah, sure.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per proposal and Glowsquid
 * 9) Per Glowsquid.
 * 10) - I just now read the whole debate, and I agree with the supporters - we should create a page for the Boom Boom species, as there clearly is one. Per all.
 * 11) - Per Walkazo.
 * 12) Per Walkazo.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) &mdash; Per Walkazo.

Leave as a single character article only

 * 1) - Per my proposal and my statements.
 * 2) - Opposing this because: 1. The most recent sources refer to him in singular, that is, the NSMBU and SM3DL prima guides. 2. Too much ambiguity. 3. We'd have to talk about things on both pages and constantly mention how "this could be the character" and so on. 4. Personal preference.
 * 3) We're still seeing Boom Boom appearing as a singular character in the most recent games, so it's not sure whether there is a species for it. The only thing that we know is Boom Boom is from the Koopa species.
 * 4) I don't think that boom boom being seen in multiple spots means nintendo says he's a character. I'm pretty sure they didn't think about it much. Per all.
 * 5) Creating a page for Boom Boom (species) would be like creating a page for Shy Guy (character).
 * 6) Redundant.
 * 7) Per KoopaGuy.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per All. Him being in multiple spots is a coincidence.

Make the single article a species article

 * 1) - I prefer changing the existing page into a species article. As Walkazo has pointed out in the above discussion, many of the enemies in old manuals are referred to in singular, and that goes for Boom Boom as well. His situation is similar to that of Koopa Troopa, who's most recently defined as a character in Mario Party 9, but still has only one page for the species he belongs to. Since Boom Boom's status is so ambiguous, I believe this option is the best one to go with logically.

Comments
If someone could provide a direct quite from the Prima guides, that would be helpful. - 00:53, 7 January 2013 (EST)


 * Just a reminder to the opposers that this isn't actually trying to make it so that the Boom Boom character isn't a character anymore. He is a character, but he's not the only "Boom Boom", and this TPP's main goal is to make a place to talk about those extra Boom Booms. As for having to talk about the ambiguity, we're already supposed to do that: having a page to reflect the times where it's impossible to only have the one Boom Boom (because two or more are seen at once) doesn't add ambiguity, it just makes our coverage of the tricky situation more well-rounded and complete than only noting that "multiple Boom Booms are shown on the world map" or "the player fight two Boom Booms at once" in passing. "There's more than one, but there's only one" isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a riddle. - 20:20, 7 January 2013 (EST)


 * Walkazo, your reasoning for SM3DL is flawed. Two websites say he's a charachter.  One says he's a species.  How does that mean he's most likely a species!?--
 * It doesn't, it just means that there is a species and that the Boom Boom character is a member of that species. Even if the species as a whole is represented, that still includes the character, and the verdict puts the emphasis on the species for SM3DL because something explicitly says it's a species so we have to do something about that as well as maintaining the character idea (I did say that this page keeps its SM3DL section, as long as we also discuss that at least once source says there's more than one). Everyone keeps thinking this is an "either-or" situation, but it's not: that would actually be against policy, since we're not supposed to make judgement calls about which story is right or wrong, just present both stories and the discrepancies and ambiguities that come with them. - 15:39, 9 January 2013 (EST)
 * @BowserJunior: You say that only one website mentions Boom Boom as a species when in reality the Australian website also mentions him in the plural sense. So technically, both sides are even in SM3DL. As with what Walkazo recently posted, since the websites equally call him a species and a character, we mention both sides, not ignore one for the other just because of personal preference of one side. I mean that's the whole point of attempting to create the species page after all, at the same time removing personal beliefs of which side is right or wrong. We also have two games that show two or more Boom Booms, which means a Boom Boom species does exist. Does that mean Boom Boom isn't a character anymore? No, he has been mentioned as both a species and a character with two games showing many Boom Booms so we mention both stories, not go with one. That would be bias because of personal preference, which isn't allowed on the wiki. Smasher345 16:18, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Just them? Even though more other official websites and guides mention he's just the character?--Prince Ludwig (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2013 (EST)
 * What other websites are you talking about? Because as far as I know, only the SM3DL websites are the only ones that even mention Boom Boom. The NSMBU websites don't mention Boom Boom at all. Do you have a source for other websites? Don't say things like this without evidence. Of course you would go for what guides say even though they are known to make mistakes. If going by guides, then I guess we have to officially change Kamek's name into Magikoopa since the most recent guide calls him that (and the NSMBW guide as well). I also thought what is shown in-game overrides what manual, guides, and websites say. NSMBU shows multiple Boom Booms, which means that the guide is wrong mentioning him as a character (Again, guides are known to make mistakes). Also, I'll say it again, we are not saying that Boom Boom isn't a character anymore, he is a character, but a species of him does exist with evidence proving otherwise (A couple of sources and two games). Smasher345 07:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)


 * The guides I just said can also refer to instruction booklets of these games and the remakes. It just seemed that Boom Boom has many profiles that only refer him as the character, even in the old times. By the way, if Boom Boom is mentioned in instrucion booklets of Super Mario 3D Land and New Super Mario Bros. U if somebody has them, please tell me if it describe him as a species (it also involves the notable member like Walkazo and Smasher are saying) or the singular character only. If Boom Boom is still meant to be only one character, which may imply that he can produce clones or he is cloned (don't mind what I just said).


 * I don't know about the others, you know I'm not saying he's not a character anymore. I'm saying that Boom Boom won't be the singular character as he was always meant to be (character only) if the second article gets created or that is confirmed that Boom Boom is a species (species only) or has his kind with him (character & species).


 * For your information, there's absolutely no way that we could change Kamek's name into Magikoopa (character) since he already has a name of his own.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2013 (EST)

That isn't necessarily true. Boom Boom can still have character development even if a species of him does exist, unless your telling me that Toad and Yoshi didn't gain any character development just because they're generic. I also have both SM3DL and NSMBU and none of the manuals even mention Boom Boom (in fact, its barely an instruction booklet at all, at least compared to the manuals of past games). My point with Kamek is that guides are known to make mistakes and the fact that you want to go with a source like the NSMBU guide and call Boom Boom a character just because it says so even though in-game it shows multiple Boom Booms. I need to repeat myself again, what is shown in-game overrides written sources like manuals and guides and NSMBU shows multiple Boom Booms in-game, which means it overrides what the guide says. That means that the guide made a mistake in calling him a character just like with Kamek's name. (Walkazo even mentioned the verdict being species for NSMBU because he knows that the species are shown in-game) Smasher345 00:40, 12 January 2013 (EST)
 * * because she knows... (because I am a girl, not a boy, for the record). Anyway, it's not so much a case of overriding or "some manuals are mistaken" (everything is canon, after all, and we're not supposed to speculate about what writers "meant" to say), but rather, a matter of contradictory information. Many things use the singular to refer to Boom Boom (although seeing as manuals often use the singular to talk about generic enemies, there's some ambiguity here), but at least one source uses the plural, and a couple games show that there is more than one Boom Boom, so it's impossible for there to not be more than one Boom Boom. If you say otherwise, you're ignoring valid information (not allowed: everything is canon); if you justify it by saying Boom Boom has "always meant" to be a character only, you're reading between the lines (not allowed); if you say the stuff that show multiple Boom Booms or speak of them in the plural is wrong, you're making a judgment call and weighing one source over another (not allowed - same as for the pro-species side); and trying to say it's one guy with cloning abilities is nothing but speculation (not allowed). You can speculate and be selective about what you believe as much as you like on your own time, but you can't do it here. One story says he's a character, one says there is a species - we can and must include both stories on the wiki (in fact, we already do, but a full page is much better coverage than a couple lines about the inconsistencies in our current article); fortunately, since the character can be part of the species, they're not mutually exclusive stories and nothing about Boom Boom-the-character's identity will be lost as a result of a second page being made, so I am really baffled as to why there is so much resistance to this proposal... - 01:29, 12 January 2013 (EST)
 * Walkazo, as it's been pointed out, manuals and other sources, old or not, tend to offer varying information on enemies, classifying them either as a character or a species. As the only person who has so far voted for the third option, I believe Boom Boom is just another enemy type which is mostly fought as a boss. Going by some of the enemy articles on this Wiki, and checking the old manuals, I don't see any character articles that separate a specific enemy from the rest of its species; Koopa Toopa is a prime example of this. Also, what Boom Boom severely lacks to be a character of its own is distinction from its species, something like Toad (character) has over other members of his species.


 * As a side note, if gameplay overrides written sources, wouldn't Boom Boom and, by extension, Pom Pom, be species rather than characters in Super Mario 3D Land, because they "die" like common enemies in that game?
 * Edit: Fixed time in signature. Silly me, making a mistake like that. - SmokedChili 05:43, 12 January 2013 (EST)

@SmokedChili: I'm against that Boom Boom is only a species because he fades away after dying. He's supposed to be a character too. Ludwig, Roy and Morton also died like that and they are still around. @Smasher345: It shows a map with many mutiple Boom Booms so they reveal who is guarding them, we really didn't need to rush things. Boom Boom still can have character development if he is a notable member of his kind, but, he likely won't that be that special, unless if he can clone like a Chargin' Chuck. Okay, the cloning technique might be really fun but I am serious about him not being so special like I expected, since his species would be so much like the classic and the modern Boom Boom which make them the most specials at the moment. @Walkazo: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you and Smasher are doing is similar to how I view Boom Boom and the others just in a different way? Since no sources I know even mentioned the rest of the Boom Booms are specifically his kind.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (EST)
 * Prince Ludwig, please note that Super Mario World logic may not apply to that of Super Mario 3D Land, or modern Mario games in general. In case of the former, almost every enemy sans Bowser and Dry Bowser disappear in a poof while also leaving behind a bunch of coins or power ups. The problem with using the Koopalings' death animations in SMW is that we know them to be 100% singular characters on their own, whereas Boom Boom could be an unspecific member of his species. - SmokedChili 07:29, 12 January 2013 (EST)

@Prince Ludwig: I see what you're saying. You want the Boom Boom character to have unique traits that set him apart from his kind. Well, Boom Boom hasn't been in many games so you're going to have to wait for more games to come out that include Boom Boom in order to see if he gains any character development. Yes exactly, different Boom Booms are guarding the towers in the world map and I correspond that to the fact that a Koopaling is shown in different parts of the world map. They could have easily put one Boom Boom standing on one tower and simply make the other towers empty until the player reaches that world, but they didn't. Take a look at Kamek, he is shown in one spot in the world map and when the cutscene of him creating the tornado around Peach's Castle ends, you see it end with Kamek circling the tornado in his broomstick. Yet once it goes back to the player controlling Mario on the world map, Kamek is back to standing right in the same spot he was at in the world map, completely avoiding to show two Kameks, which they did not do with Boom Boom. @Walkazo: Oops sorry, I didn't know you were a female. I keep forgetting that I have to use 'He/She' whenever I mention someone that I don't know about. But now I know so I won't make that mistake. Smasher345 09:09, 12 January 2013 (EST)

@Smasher345: Yeah. I do. I don't know, maybe he might appear in the next games, perhaps in the next one for the Wii U which is we most suspected to be a 3D Super Mario game. @SmokedChili: Most notable members also do the same thing. Bowser did too, his shapeshifting servants as well (they are species so it doesn't count of course), Gooper Blooper and Petey Piranha died many times in Super Mario Sunshine and they are still around even though they disappeared.
 * You who I assume to be Prince Ludwig, I have never seen Bowser do this in a Mario game, expect RPGs, but simply dissappearing when losing doesn't count in my books. Petey Piranha sounds like an expection, but what basis do we have for Gooper Blooper dying multiple times in Super Mario Sunshine? Speaking of which, what about Boss Wiggler in that game, who disappears when you're about to get the Shine Sprite in Episode 2? Are we to assume he phased out local space-time continuum until Episode 3, where he is rampaging through Gelato Beach, or that he was never there to begin with? As for other major members I can think of, King Boo is a character, but remember that he's also a ghost, and that "King Boo" in Sunshine wasn't the same character in the Japanese release.


 * Seriously though, stop being so overly defensive about Boom Boom being a character. I say it again: official sources can list enemies either as a character or a species, yet this Wiki chooses to refer to them as the latter, because we can see many of them at once. What Boom Boom has over common enemies is that he's a boss, and it usually means that you'll fight it one at a time. This helps at creating an illusion where we think it's a character, but NSMBU now shows multiple Boom Booms, so that doesn't apply here. Furthermore, NOA has a habit of giving Mario games bit more interesting descriptions, while NOE follows Japanese sources almost exactly (see Koopalings). Noting that Boom Boom is made to sound like a species in Europe and Australia, and the varying manual descriptions for other enemies alike, this gives Boom Boom's status so much ambiguosity, it's for that reason hard to see him as a stand-alone character over the similarly named species. - SmokedChili 11:45, 12 January 2013 (EST)

To be honest, enemies or bosses coming back from the dead is common trend that happens in the Mario series. I mean, take a look at Bowser, who has been defeated much worse than simply disappearing, to the point where it would seem like he died (like falling in lava). Yet, he keeps coming back from the dead in many Mario games. This was explained in his article through his resilience. Usually when a boss gets defeated, they die in a dramatic way compared to reluar enemies. However, just because an enemy disappears in a puff of smoke, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are regular enemies or a species for that matter. I'm not denying that the Boom Booms in SM3DL can still be a species since there are sources that mention him as a species, but what I'm saying is that notable members can also die in a puff of smoke. Kamek even gets defeated the same way as the Boom Booms get defeated in NSMBU, where he disappears in a puff of smoke on the world map screen. @SmokedChili: That sounds very interesting that America gives those kinds of descriptions which could explain why America always mentions Boom Boom as a character in every written source like official guides and manuals. Do you think something like this is the reason why America constantly calls Kamek his species name 'Magikoopa'? - Smasher345 14:27, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Yeah, that was me. Even though I sign, sometimes, it doesn't appear along with my saved edits. Sorry about that. @SmokedChili: I heard you calling Boom Boom an "it", he has a gender.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2013 (EST)

@Smasher345: The American sources where Kamek's called "Magikoopa" are, according to this wiki, NSMBW and NSMBU Prima guides, NSMBW trading cards, and Mario Party 9. Contrast this with Super Mario Galaxy Prima guide and trading cards, where the Magikoopa in the opening is called Kamek. Considering this, I think calling Kamek a generic Magikoopa seems to be a current American trend. @Prince Ludwig: A slight case of misused words in my defense. However, don't be that nitty-picky about such detail, it only makes you look even more defensive about the situation. - SmokedChili 15:40, 12 January 2013 (EST)


 * @SmokedChili: I can't help but being in over-defensive. @SmokedChili and Smasher345: As for Kamek, as long these are his game appearances and that he has a name (and a full title), it is Kamek.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2013 (EST)
 * But hold on a minute, wouldn't that contradict some of the logic thrown around here? The common defense for Boom Boom's inclusion as a character is that the most recent sources identify him as a character, so he must be one. This is also the case in the light of game events itself as well as the contradicting evidence. However, now you say that as long as Kamek is mentioned by his name (and title), it wouldn't matter if the majority of recent evidence said otherwise. If this were to be true in future games, that wouldn't really count as an appearance in a game for Kamek, but for a generic Magikoopa. Speaking of which, I don't see Kamek having so much distinction from the other Magikoopas in the current games... - SmokedChili 17:33, 12 January 2013 (EST)

@Prince Ludwig: Whoa, hold on a minute. I agree that the character is Kamek but like SmokedChili said, you're contradicting yourself. The most recent source mentions Boom Boom as a character and calls Kamek 'Magikoopa', you go with Boom Boom being a character yet you would ignore that the guide calls Kamek Magikoopa. Are you going to tell me that the guide made a mistake calling Kamek 'Magikoopa', but mentioning Boom Boom as a character isn't, despite the game showing multiple Boom Booms? The European website confirms the character is Kamek, but even without the website, you can easily tell its Kamek because in-game he does the altering environment/making enemies bigger magic, an ability that has only been used by him. The game also shows multiple Boom Booms in-game on the world map which means that there is a Boom Boom species. So wouldn't that mean that the guide made a mistake with both Boom Boom and Kamek? This right here shows even more contradiction on how you go with the guide, "Kamek mistakenly is called Magikoopa but Boom Boom being a character is true". Come on, get real here!

@SmokedChili: Actually no, Kamek does have a distinction, he is the only Magikoopa that has the power to alter the environment and make enemies bigger. Additionally, he is also the only Magikoopa outside of the Paper Mario series to use a broomstick. Not to mention that he so far is the only Magikoopa to have a role whenever a game has only one Magikoopa appear in the entire game (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time, Paper Mario Sticker Star, NSMBW, and NSMBU). Appearance wise, I agree that he looks no different than an ordinary Magikoopa but there are other ways to tell him apart like I mentioned above. Also, when he is called Magikoopa, he is mentioned in the singular sense. In other words, it makes him just like Toad, Yoshi, and Birdo where he is a notable character from his species but has the same name as his species. Smasher345 20:41, 12 January 2013 (EST)


 * @Smasher345: Ahem, seems I was misunderstood again. I'm not gonna say such thing like it's a mistake of calling Kamek "Magikoopa" for the fact that it his part of his full name and he is a Magikoopa. I said as long as it is Kamek, it is Kamek, even though he's known as Magikoopa in a Mario game, but not if that's just some Magikoopa who we thought it's actually Kamek. Boom Boom is a character which is true and... That's it. Didn't you say that Boom Boom is a character and it exists a Boom Boom species too? Then it means that that he would still be remained as a character too, but I am against that because it'd be better to be left like it was before, like everyone knows...--Prince Ludwig (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2013 (EST)

But the see that's the problem. You want to leave it as a single article because you say most people traditionally know him as a character, but want to completely ignore the sources that mention Boom Boom as a species and even two games that show multiple Boom Booms in-game. Look at the Koopalings. Didn't everyone traditionally know the Koopalings as Bowser's children, yet look what has happened to them under Miyamoto's statement. Then that official information had to be changed in the Koopalings article because it is a fact that they are not his children, even though many people (including Walkazo and me) has known them as Bowser's children for a long time. Mariowiki is not for what people believe how it should be, the wiki is used to put the correct information on the site just like with the Koopalings and fact is two games show multiple Boom Booms in-game as well as a couple of written sources that mention Boom Boom as a species and that cannot be ignored. That is why the species page must be created and Walkazo's proposal mentions how this can be organized. And yes, I did say that Boom Boom is a character and a species but I wasn't talking about SMB3 or SM3DL. I was referring to the fact that NSMBU has the species as opposed to the character(unless one of the Boom Booms is the character). Also unlike you, me and Walkazo actually don't ignore the character information like you do with ignoring the species information as well as two games that show it. Smasher345 22:21, 12 January 2013 (EST)


 * @Smasher345:I'm not ignoring any of these, but opposing them. It's not only because of most people says he is, it's one of my secondary reasons. Shigeru Miyamoto hadn't said anything about Boom Boom's current story yet unlike how he did with the Koopalings are not his children after the release of New Super Mario Bros. 2, as we most suspect that Bowser Jr.'s the reason for being the ideal son for Bowser. Despite of not doing any of these like you said, sometimes we have to take the risk depending what kind of situation we are in. And we, including I, are doing something so similar to believing what it should be when it comes to something unconfirmed and/or uncertain. Honestly, I haven't heard anything like those Boom Booms being specifically a species (mentioned) in any of those official sources but only in plural sense, however, you and Walkazo might say these source heavily imply to be his kin or they actually do, but still... Even if one of the two sides wins (it ain't no challenge, but it kind of is at the same time), I will still be waiting until Boom Boom (character) confirmly has a kind or is cloned. Just a fun question, if eventually it's confirmed to have a species, would one of you approve that he finally have the ability to produce clones in the future too?--Prince Ludwig (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2013 (EST)


 * You can't oppose facts, and you can't choose what to believe: on the wiki, you can only report, and you must report everything, even if you don't like it, and even if it's contradictory or ambiguous. The fact is that there is more than one Boom Boom seen at a time, with the plural form used at least one time, and that means that there is more than one Boom Boom, and if you have more than one living thing that look, act and are named the same, that's a species (to put it very, very simply, as actual taxonomy is messy as heck). The cloning thing is a fan theory: use it for your own personal enjoyment, but stop flogging it here, because it is not acceptable as a wiki-based theory about why there are more than one Boom Booms (that kinda theorizing is for the forum, not the database). @SmokedChili: Personally, I've always thought of Boom Boom as a species too, and was kinda surprised when I saw the wiki's character interpretation, but since English is ambiguous, both interpretations are possible and valid, hence the "two pages" approach is the fairest way to deal with the situation. Everyone "wins" that way, and more importantly, all the facts are served to the readers without any bias - whereas our current coverage is biased towards the character interpretation, and a species page only approach would be biased the other way. - 23:30, 12 January 2013 (EST)

@Prince Ludwig: Yeah me too, I'd also be waiting. Me and Walkazo are just simply saying that a species exist according to info we've been given. As for your fun question, if he is confirmed to be a species then I can't be sure that he creates clones unless he is actually shown to do such an ability. Also, this just popped in my head right now, but I think I may have found a unique trait of Boom Boom that sets him apart from his kind. NSMBU has the species as that game show multiple Boom Booms on the world map while SMB3 has the character according to some written sources as well as Walkazo's proposal that the verdict is a character in SMB3. In SMB3, Boom Boom has the abililty to jump and change his arms into wings by himself. The other Boom Booms in NSMBU needed Kamek's magic to give them the ability to jump and change their arms into wings. The first Boom Boom fought is only shown to flail its arms which is probably what the other Boom Booms would have only done had it not been for Kamek's magic. That right there shows that the Boom Boom character is superior than his kind since he can do those abilities by himself while the other Boom Booms require Kamek's magic to gain those abilities. @Walkazo: I agree that its a win situation for both sides but some of the opposers don't understand this. Also, are some of the opposers reasons even valid, like BowserJunior's and KoopaGuy's for example? - Smasher345 23:39, 12 January 2013 (EST)
 * Since it's my proposal they're opposing, I can't make that call: conflict of interest, and all that. Although I will say that BowserJunior's vote sounds like a "Nintendo doesn't care, so why should we? So let's leave the page as is" opinion, rather than "no, he's a character only", since the message itself seems to be against the character take on things. And I have no idea what KoopaGuy is trying to say - aside from the fact he don't want a second page... - 00:30, 13 January 2013 (EST)
 * I think both of their votes are valid since Bowserjunior also said per all which means he agrees with the other arguments granted. And I actually understand what Koopaguy is saying, he's saying that splitting boom boom into two articles would be like splitting the shy guys species into a shy guy (character) and species article which we don't do.


 * @Walkazo: That's true, I am a big Mario fan. Sometimes, imagination is important. @Smasher345: If he is such powerful character capable of doing such things on his own (becoming giant (NSMB), spin jumping (NSMBU), fire spin (SM3DL), creating duplicates (Fan)), along with the species crawling around Mushroom World, then, I suppose I would be fine with this and both articles being available. But I'm sure he's already perform any of these abilities. @Marshal Dan Troop: I agree. It'll be a huge fuss, just like I did with Red-Shelled Lakitu.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2013 (EST)
 * As a bit of off-topic trivia, cloud-riding Lakitus in Super Mario World are actually red-shelled. The green Lakitus were the pipe-dwelling ones in that game. You can tell this by their eyes, the pixels on their stomachs, as well as (to a lesser degree) by eating and spitting them out while Luigi's riding Yoshi in Super Mario Advance 2.


 * @Marshal Dan Troop and @Prince Ludwig: There's a difference between Boom Boom and Shy Guys, and not just in the obvious way. KoopaGuy's logic is flawed in a sense that we don't have very much evidence to believe that there would be a specific Shy Guy (character) besides anything where he's the only one to appear, but this is similar to Koopa Troopa in spinoffs. Meanwhile, we have evidence for Boom Boom being both a species and a character, so both interpretations are valid. My point is that just as those two enemies are seen as common species even with a "character" status in certain games on this Wiki, it wouldn't affect Boom Boom if he had two articles for a character and/or a species. Especially just the latter. - SmokedChili 05:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Also I would like to point out SWFlash's reason. First of all, he/she says that it is redundant with no explanation given. Second, if creating a species page for Boom Boom is redundant, then why do we even have the Toad, Yoshi, and Birdo species pages in the firstplace? - Smasher345 10:18, 13 January 2013 (EST)


 * @Smasher345: Because they are proven to be species while Boom Boom hasn't. They look exactly like Boom Boom(character) so there are chances that those guys may be something else, like duplicates. :@SmokedChili: No, we don't. Not yet. I think it will affect Boom Boom as long it's not the case that the character is special than what you all consider to be his kind.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)
 * @Prince Ludwig: Have you forgotten Walkazo's analysis way above? It's clearly there that we've got proof for Boom Boom being both a character and a species. And... not the case? Could you clarify a bit?


 * As a sidenote, "duplicates" isn't a convincing argument at all. All those Goombas look alike, Koopa Troopas look alike, so do Lakitus, Shy Guys, Spikes, Hammer Bros. and all those other Bros., every enemy that's identified as a species looks alike. That goes for Boom Boom as well, and I have yet to see a single one that has something over these "duplicates". After all, we haven't given the enemies originating from Super Mario Bros. their character pages while saying every other similar looking enemy is a duplicate. It simply wouldn't make sense only for those enemies, but for Boom Boom as well. - SmokedChili 16:24, 13 January 2013 (EST)
 * Boom Boom probably is a species. However, I do not think this article needs to be changed at all. aka Shy Troopa or User:JohnRoberts  17:04, 13 January 2013 (EST)

@KoopaGuy: And why is that? You do know that Toad, Yoshi, and Birdo have a character and a species page right? If a species exist, then it must have a page created in the wiki because the wiki is used to put correct information, not used for how people want something to be (like the Koopalings). Walkazo's analysis has all the info about Boom Boom and the species, with evidence to prove a species exist with two games also showing two or more Boom Booms. - Smasher345 17:29, 13 January 2013 (EST)

i hope you peoples realize you've written 5 200+ words over Boom's Boom's status as a character or a species --Glowsquid (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2013 (EST)

More like ten thousands of them...--Prince Ludwig (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Boom Boom and the others
I should disagree with this. Similar to Yoshi and the other Green Yoshis, Birdo and her species, I'd say it should still be considered that Boom Boom is involved with his other equivalent selves.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2013 (EST)
 * This is already being dealt with the exact same way: Birdo (species) talks about the appearances of Birdos besides the Birdo, as does Yoshi (species), and so does this. If you're talking about the recent NSMBU infobox/appearance chart disagreements, there was nothing saying any of the Boom Booms were THE Boom Boom, so that'd be speculation, and that's bad, which is why that game is covered over on the species page and only listed as a possibility here. - 21:52, 17 February 2013 (EST)
 * I meant for the character's page, the same way we did to Yoshi and Birdo, without stating the probability. As if he's actually involved, like "Boom Boom reappears in New Super Mario Bros. U". Without stating we don't know which one is the real Boom Boom and things like that, it's just like we did before (it never mentioned whether he's a singular character or there's mutiple of himself but his role in New Super Mario Bros. U).--Prince Ludwig (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2013 (EST)
 * But we know when it's the Yoshi or the Birdo, and we don't know for sure about Boom Boom. We can't write "as if" something's actually true, that's speculation. And how that section was handled before was very bad (you can't have a specific character also be a multiple, it makes no sense): it's a good thing things now are not just like they were back then. Unless new solid, factual info from Nintendo comes out regarding the matter, this is how the page is being handled from now on: kindly respect the outcome of the above proposal, and stop beating this dead horse. - 10:37, 18 February 2013 (EST)

I've thought about this for three weeks now. Maybe the way things are now is a good thing, however, in fact things were perfect the way they were, as you guys said this wouldn't ruin Boom Boom's position as the notable member of his "species", and it did while the species article is flourishing. I don't mean writing "as if" and other kinds of sorts in here. But that case was the same for Yoshi, when there were mutiple Green Yoshis but as far as we know the Yoshi is involved in the events of New Super Mario Bros. U but we don't know who is it (perhaps the one Mario rides on when playing 1-Player mode). We know that Nintendo meant for Boom Boom to return for New Super Mario Bros. U, which means the singular character is there.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2013 (EST)
 * Please do as Walkazo said and drop the issue. Unless we get new info, this is the way it's going to be.

Boom Boom "Species"
This is ridiculous. Why would anyone sane think that there is a Boom Boom species?


 * Two boom booms in super mario advance4 : a clone, not another character


 * Multiple boom boom's on nsmbu's world map: out of canon, just there for the players benefit.

--82.30.222.194 11:43, 6 September 2013 (EDT)
 * Wait, two green Yoshi in NSMBU? One is a clone and the other is the character? What about the various Toad that appear in multiple color? They are all clones? That make species not clone.-- 18:22, 30 July 2015 (EDT)

Merge "Boom Boom" page to "Boom Boom (species)" and rename it "Boom Boom"
It was hard to me to make a opinion with this recently, but I come to a fact that I think their is not actually a "character" that is name "Boom Boom", my reason is because in mostly all the games that Boom Boom appear in, Boom Boom don't appear has one character. In Super Mario Bros. 3, I really don't think that Boom Boom is a character because of different powers that Boom Boom have in all the fortress, some even fly and some don't. In New Super Mario Bros. U, It make the most cense that Boom Boom is really a species, because they appear in the top of 6 towers and each of them have different powers that Kamek give to them. I look to some other characters like Koopa Troopa and Shy Guy and their is not really a specific characters that is name Koopa Troopa and Shy Guy (except the one from Mario Party Advance). So the way I would do this I will delete this article because Boom Boom is too much a ambiguous species for the moment to make a article about "the" Boom Boom and make like the Koopa Troopa and Shy Guy a article about the species in general. So, what do you think about it?

Proposer: Deadline: August 13, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my rebuttal and comments (which I'd strongly urge everyone involved read before they settle on a vote).
 * 2) I saw this and sighed, "HOO BOY". Definitely per proposal and LinkTheLefty's analysis.
 * 3) Per LinkTheLefty.
 * 4) overly cautious interpretation random website bios and manuals is hardly worth making two nearly-identical pages for, especially when those old nes and snes manuals talk about emenies as if they're individual characters. just have one page that notes the ambiguity and avoid making a definitive statement about what the hell boom-boom is.
 * 5) Per LinkTheLefty and Glowsquid.
 * 6) This approach seems to be the least convoluted approach to a messy situation that deals with ambiguous sources. The more the merrier, but you can't always resort to that argument, especially when it leads to these two pages that end up being difficult to follow. The arguments in the last proposal, especially from the Super Mario Bros. 3 manual, seems to be taken out of context, which seems to me is less of a reason to have two articles. Despite all the arguments that call for Boom Boom being an individual character and thus deserving of a separate article, invoking Yoshi, Toad, and Birdo, this Boom Boom has not adequately made enough single appearances (as opposed to the aforementioned three), which leads to the two articles being highly identical. The Mario Kart 7 Lakitu has more individuality than this Boom-Boom, and it got merged with its parent article for not being substantial and distinct. Boom-Boom is a very similar case, where the mish-mash of sources making Boom-Boom distinct or a mere member of a species along with the accompanying arguments that would win the "Most Tenacious and Contentious Argument of MarioWiki" award makes me think the effort to keep the Boom-Booms as separate articles isn't doing a service to either the editors nor the readers.
 * 7) Alright, now I know who Boom Boom is, I will say that this is a good idea!
 * 8) Glowsquid's solution sounds like the best one to me. I feel like having two pages that describe nearly the same thing is redundant beyond belief and a small blurb in a single page does the wiki a better favor at organization and navigation, and it's extremely confusing to have two pages on what looks like the same thign.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I'm on the edge on this, but I think there's not information on the character Boom Boom to give a healthy article (if he in fact exists). As such, it should be under one page.

Oppose

 * 1) You're forgetting a major thing: Bios and descriptions. Boom Boom is referred to as a character in SM3, SM3DL, and SM3DW. While I understand there is clearly a species involved as well "NSMBU, M&S:Rio", there is enough pointing to the existance of this character.
 * 2) - Various official sources indicate there's a single character, while other materials are ambiguous, and both "species" and "character" stances are popular opinions among fans: altogether, the simplest and least speculative solution is to retain both articles. Also, in response to the comments below, a species page for Pom Pom would be unnecessary: afaik, all appearances indicate that she's just an individual female Boom Boom who runs with the individual Boom Boom character.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) The ambiguity is all the more reason to have separate articles. Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per Walkazo
 * 7) Thinking about it again, there clearly is a Boom Boom character in certain games. The article about the Boom Boom character can cover SMB3, 3D Land, and 3D World, while the Boom Boom species article can cover all appearances of Boom Booms in general, including the character.
 * 8) Per SuperYoshiBros and Walkazo.
 * 9) Per Walkazo.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per Toadbrigade5 and per Walkazo, since Boom Boom is referred to as a character in SM3DL and SM3DW and in this game Boom Boom have a spikeless shell and in all other games, he have a spiky shell. Even if this is my proposal, I maybe found a solution in the last subjects below.

Comments
If this passed, I skeptical to merge Pom Pom with the only Boom Boom article or create a Pom Pom species article.-- 18:45, 30 July 2015 (EDT)

SuperYoshiBros, when I talk about delete the page, I talk about removing the page, but all the content of the page would be merge to Boom Boom (species). I forgot to put this information on my explain. Sorry for the confusion.-- 19:08, 30 July 2015 (EDT)
 * I correct my mistake now.-- 19:11, 30 July 2015 (EDT)

Why Boom Boom should deserve a character page if it come to a point where we can't really make a separation between him and the species. I look to Koopa Troopa that in my opinion more deserve a character article, because he appear has a singular character in various spin-off (eg:Mario Party 9, Mario Kart series). Boom Boom appear in games where they are multiple Boom Boom that appear to fought. It would be more simple to make a page about the Boom Boom species in general like Koopa Troopa if him (Koopa Troopa) don't deserve a character article. About the bios, we can imply in the new article that official guides and bios imply that their is a Boom Boom character that appear, it would be simpler and less ambiguous.-- 20:13, 30 July 2015 (EDT)

Boom Boom (the character) is probably the Toad/Yoshi (the characters) of the Boom Boom species: a character named after his species. Likewise, Pom Pom's the Toadette: a female version of the male character. I think. Am I wrong on this? Mirai Moon 20:16, 30 July 2015 (EDT)
 * Some bios and official sources implied their is a character named Boom Boom, but I found it strange their is suppose the have a character in a game that multiple Boom Boom that appear in with different powers (aka SMB3), even Koopa Troopa, which in my opinion their is a character named after is species, only have a article about the species in general and I find that Boom Boom is too much ambiguous to have a character article. They are source that imply that Boom Boom is a character and other that say Boom Boom is a species. So, like Koopa Troopa, Boom Boom only need a species article.-- 20:23, 30 July 2015 (EDT)


 * Plenty of recurring bosses have different powers from fight to fight, even within single games. Otherwise battles get repetitive, boring and too easy. - 20:28, 30 July 2015 (EDT)
 * Not, if it get power. Look at Boom Boom from the Acorn Plains's tower in NSMBU, Boom Boom has the same abilities from all fortress from SMB3, but it get power from Kamek in all others towers, that's not it's own power, it get the power. A another good point to this is Bowser himself, in it's simple form in the SMB series, the only thing he do it's spit fireball and jump, but own new abilities from Bowser Jr. in NSMB, Kamek in NSMBWii and NSMBU and the Koopalings in NSMB2. This is a point to observed. The Koopalings in NSMBWii, each of them have the same abilities from SMB3, but get power from Kamek in their castle boss fight.-- 23:20, 30 July 2015 (EDT)

There was a proposal that won not to long ago about creating a page for the species. Why in the world would we want to merge Boom Boom with that? Usually, characters have their own articles and they don't get merged into their spicies page. And to rename the spicies page to Boom Boom... Species shouldn't get renamed to names that don't include "spicies", even if you merge Boom Boom with it. I don't even know who Boom Boom is, but I still don't think this is a good idea. (talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 23:45, 30 July 2015 (EDT)
 * PowerKamek, please elaborate your position, you say per Walkazo, but here in the comments you say you don't even know who Boom Boom is (so my arguments tell that their is not really a Boom Boom character). Why do you really think that's not a good idea, maybe you can check LinkTheLefty's analyst. Thanks!-- 13:10, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

LudwigVon beat me to it, but I've had my eyes on these articles for some time, and I've planned to do something about them after Boom Boom made one more appearance at this rate. I've went over a second analysis starting on each bullet point from the previous (multiple-choice) proposal from the top-down, because I noticed that certain things in the larger discussion weren't mentioned when it was compiled (which is forgiveable because it was admittedly rather bulky and unsightly at times). The write-up was intended to carefully evolve into a complete proposal whenever it was ready. What I found was that the entire argument for a split hinges on the way that the NES manuals were written, and the ambiguities themselves seem exaggerated as a result. Unlike every other "species" character, Boom Boom is the only one without any official or clear distinction behind it. Basically, at this point and in the foreseeable future, Boom Boom the character doesn't exist: he is a hypothetical construct based solely around poor syntax taken at face value, and I would say perceived ambiguity is a misleading (if not irresponsible) reason to keep the articles as-is. The same logic could be used to give almost every single classic enemy species a nigh-indistinguishable character page, and I cannot think of other articles like this off the top of my head. Frankly, this page is big enough, so please read the full in-depth version here. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

one thing I don't get is; what's the point of having two, nearly-identical pages that unnecessarily complicate piping? Why not just make a section (or note in the intro) that boom-boom is in a weird limbo between being an individual character and a generic and leave it at that. --Glowsquid (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

Time Turner, for my part, I think the ambiguity of Boom Boom if there is or not a character from the name of the species is one of the things less than satisfactory that a encyclopedia should rely on. If we relied on the bios of other languages ​​such as Europe which implies that there are many Boom Boom is still good, Nintendo of America can both make mistakes. Too much reliance on one region (America) may induce more errors on the Super Mario Wiki and for my part, I would like a lot more that this Wiki that I care a lot have the least possible error, because of old guides from NES and SNES. I also believe that LinkTheLefty made ​​a very good analysis of the problems from Boom Boom and that those who voted before LinkTheLefty has put a position on this proposal should read this analysis. So, making a unique article about the species in general would be less ambiguous than two articles that make this really confusing.-- 13:36, 31 July 2015 (EDT)


 * Honestly I would do the opposite. It would be more correct to leave the page of the character and to delete the page of the species.--Sonic98 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
 * Why? Can you explain your position. Why deleted the page of the species? Can you explain the fact of the multiple Boom Boom seen on Towers in NSMBU?-- 14:04, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

I do agree that, at one point, there used to be a Boom Boom character. However, this has changed with time, like how the Koopalings aren't Bowser's kids anymore. Even though I still view Boom Boom as a character in my headcanons and whatnot, the line between Boom Boom the character and Boom Boom the species is too small now. It's mostly, "Boom Boom is in this game, however it might be another Boom Boom or the character" now. -- 20:15, 1 August 2015 (EDT)

SuperYoshiBros, apparently, in SMB3, mostly all characters are refer to their singular form, if it was only one goomba, one Koopa and one "Boom Boom". If you have a hard time to make a good decision, maybe just go et read LinkTheLefty's analysis if you don't make it yet. -- 16:27, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
 * There's still 3D Land (and probably 3D World). LinkTheLefty's analysis on 3D Land doesn't make much sense to me. "There's only one of them at once during the entire game, one website and a guide call him a character, but one website calls him a species so he's a species." -- 16:34, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
 * That's why to me, it's to ambiguous to say that their's a character and I could also say the same thing about Koopa Troopa who is define as a character and a species, but only have a species article.-- 16:39, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
 * SuperYoshiBros.: Why not just address the ambiguity in one article in its own section? 18:15, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
 * I suppose we could, but this seems to be another Yoshi/Toad/Birdo situation. -- 18:53, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
 * The Boom Boom thing isn't as definite as Yoshi/Toad/Birdo, so there's less need for an individual article compared to those three. I don't think Boom Boom has been addressed as an individual enough times compared to those three. 19:34, 4 August 2015 (EDT)

With the amount of ambiguity surrounding this subject, I think it's counterintuitive to try and separate the content into two different articles. Aokage (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2015 (EDT)


 * Agreed. For every little nugget that implies but doesn't state Boom Boom is/was a character (ie. SMB3 NES manual [among other enemies], 3D Land American site), there are contemporary existing versions of the same material that outright contradicts it (eg. SMB3 guide/re-releases, 3D Land European site). The situation with Boom Boom is certainly far from clear-cut, unlike every other set of articles split between a species and its character. Since it borderline infringes on this, there's no good reason not to simply scoop up the pertinent information that's been scattered across three (counting Pom Pom) articles and conveniently condense it in one coherent section. On another note, opposers "Per Walkazo" should really clarify their own positions since she earlier more or less opted out of the ensuing discussion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * So it's here we now come to the proposal rule #5:Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Since, some users don't come back here to read the comments, should I go to opposer's talk page to ask them to clarify their vote?-- 14:45, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * I've mentioned that elsewhere, but I didn't want to press it further. Basically, Walkazo expressed a fundamental dislike of my examination of her two-years+old writing but unfortunately couldn't bother reading the whole thing or refuting any points due to some current timing / TL;DR issues, though it doesn't sit right with me that approximately half the opposition inadvertently follows that example at the moment. Someone correct me if I'm incorrect since I don't really know the nuance or expectation of that rule, but votes stamped before the full breakdown may be safe even though they themselves rely heavily on the original argument that went mostly unchallenged. On the other hand, I've felt the need to notify others through their talk pages whenever significant developments occurred in my own proposals at least once in the past. It might be fine if you do that as a courtesy, but I'm personally wary of citing Rule 5 to question or withdraw votes just yet unless others confirm that this case would be an appropriate use of it. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * If I understand what you say, I ask to the opposers by courtesy to clarify their vote, because of the flawed arguments and the fact that Walkazo opted out of the ensuing discussion, but I must not mention the rule 5 yet?.-- 16:21, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * It's more that I honestly don't know if it's appropriate since I've don't think I've seen an actual situation where Rule 5 has been used unless the voter literally had no comment, but I bet someone else would know. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Ok, so, maybe like you say, we should be for someone who know more about that rule.-- 16:50, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

I said all I wanted to say: just because I'm not bothering to waste my (honestly very limited) time repeating my stance over and over in the comments doesn't mean I'm not keeping up with this TPP: it just means that I feel others are debating the issue perfectly fine without me, and that I haven't changed my mind despite others' posts, because I personally feel my points are still stronger than the support points. Rule 5 is not for questioning and trying to remove votes you disagree with: it's for removing votes that clearly have no idea what they're talking about, or which seem like they were only cast to support a friend / burn an enemy, etc. It's also not for going around and soliciting "per" voters of votes you disagree with to come back and change their mind. Aside from blank votes and the odd fan vote, it's not used often to remove stuff, and that's a good thing: it's a fail safe more than anything else. My vote, and those that per me, do not fall under the Rule 5 criteria. My stance is perfectly legitimate: if you ask the administrators to remove it, they(/we) won't, and going around and asking everyone who agreed with me to come back is baseless: they agreed with me, that's their right, deal with it. LinkTheLefty, I very clearly told you upfront that I was busy and uninterested in discussing your giant essay, yet you kept pursuing the conversation: perhaps I was less than cordial, but you were pretty rude by the end there, so you hardly have the moral high ground here, and either way, personal issues are not a legitimate basis for casting doubts on a vote I wrote before you contacted me at all. I try very hard to keep personal biases out of voting: if I didn't, then I'd say get rid of the character page, because I personally never believed in a singular Boom Boom character, but lots of readers do, and apparently lots of people at Nintendo do too or there wouldn't be so much ambiguity even in modern games, and for those reasons, I say we keep both pages (which aren't exactly the same, contrary to what's been said before). - 19:12, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Fair enough on Rule 5 since LudwigVon and I didn't think it was clear enough, but as for pursuing the conversation earlier: the point I was trying to make is that I, personally, would absolutely choose not to vote or would otherwise feel obligated to rescind a vote (even temporarily) if I was conscious of not thoroughly reading the other side of the argument or entirely grasping updated/new information, which was definitely the case (at least last I checked) and that last note made you appear to be done on the Boom Boom matter altogether. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not blaming you for not having time to do so because that's ludicrous and selfish, but I really don't believe there's any rudeness in my expectations, nor do I think my summary of the conversation I was alluding to was disingenuous. Maybe the fault is on me for not phrasing it more concisely. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * But, your saying they are various source that say that Boom Boom is a character, but we are saying to you that they are only 3 (I think) official source that say that Boom Boom is a character and the SMB3 is not a good source to it, because the official guide say mostly all enemies at the singular form (one Goomba, one Koopa and one Boom Boom) so, that's not working. Boom Boom in 3D Land, the American version say that Boom Boom is a character, but other version say that Boom Boom is a species (if their is not only one Boom Boom) so, which one is good or not good is difficult to say and 3D World do the same thing. So, their's not a valid and good source that imply that Boom Boom is a character. By having two articles that say mostly the same thing and saying that Boom Boom is a character or not is really speculative. Having only one article and saying the ambiguity of Boom Boom is less speculative to me.
 * Make a character article of Boom Boom for 3D Land and 3D World since they implied that Boom Boom is a character?
 * Not really since some versions state their is more than one Boom Boom will make a speculation article and this is forbidden from this wiki. I can also say to you about Koopa Troopa which appear to it's singular form in some game like saying is a character, but he didn't have a character article.-- 19:54, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * As someone who's been really inactive in this whole debate and honestly doesn't care an extraordinary amount about this, I have a few comments to make about what you've said:


 * "the official guide [of SMB3] say mostly all enemies at the singular form (one Goomba, one Koopa and one Boom Boom)" I've gone through the guide, and I don't see that anywhere. I have the guide right here, and the enemies in the giant list of enemies, like the Goomba and the Koopa Troopa you decided to use as examples, are clearly pluralized. Heck, Boom Boom is explicitly referred to as "This Koopa boss", further solidifying its individuality. So, that's one of the best examples to use.
 * "Boom Boom in 3D Land, the American version say that Boom Boom is a character, but other version say that Boom Boom is a species (if their is not only one Boom Boom) so, which one is good or not good is difficult to say and 3D World do the same thing." First, it's not the games themselves, or the manual or the guide (which also refers to Boom Boom as a character), but the websites, which is already a distant source. Secondly, the American version clearly refers to Boom Boom as a character; even if there are a couple of other sources that conflict with it, there's still clearly one that's referring to it as a character, and the conflicts just further support having separate articles. You can't cherrypick your sources and dismiss everything that doesn't fit with your image. Also, I haven't seen anyone mention 3D World here (heck, I've been browsing the official websites and I don't even see mention of Boom Boom), so I don't think citing that is appropriate.
 * "By having two articles that say mostly the same thing and saying that Boom Boom is a character or not is really speculative. Having only one article and saying the ambiguity of Boom Boom is less speculative to me." Here's my biggest gripe: where's the speculation in our votes? Speculation is coming up with answers that have literally no backing, like saying that there's going to be a game based around Waluigi in the future: I don't have any sources and nothing official to provide as proof, it's just something I came up with off the top of my head. However, the opposers are absolutely not speculating, because, as many people have brought up, there are very clear sources that point to Boom Boom being an individual character. Our arguments aren't baseless, as you seem to be asserting, but entirely based around facts. This is the crux of every proposal: an ambiguous situation is brought up, with various sources that don't seem to agree with each other, so the users interpret what's given to them and come to a conclusion, which is exactly what we've done here, and our conclusion is that it's appropriate for there to be an article about the species and an article about the character. It's entirely acceptable for you to not like that conclusion, and that's fine, because we're not right, and neither are you. Proposals aren't about being right, they're about a community making a decision on what they believe in. Was it wrong for us to stop listing real world animals as subspecies? Who knows, but that was the decision that the community came to. Therefore, please don't refer to what we're arguing as speculation.
 * Sorry, just had to get that off of my chest.
 * Time Turner, did you look at LinkTheLefty's analysis that claim that various enemy appear at their singular form in the original guide? It's from their I take my argument.-- 20:57, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * I honestly don't see that anywhere. If it's from the blocks he wrote on Walkazo's talk page, I'm not going to humour him badgering Walkazo.
 * You can see that here.-- 21:11, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * All right, then... except one, he's referring to the manual, two, he refers to other manuals that have a similar grammatical scheme even though they have nothing to do with Boom Boom, and three, his point isn't applicable a good portion of the enemies, plus I'd argue that his title, "The Boss of the Mini-Fortress", carries a little more weight. Really though, if we're going to argue about these trivially-semantic details, I won't say much more. It's like we're rewatching a movie for the hundredth time just to analyze everything we didn't analyze on the last ninety-nine viewings, and at some point, we really should just drop it.
 * Micro-Goomba, Para-Beetles, Fire Chomp, Jelectro, "The Pirana Plants" and Hammer Brothers. All that shows is that pluralization in the enemy descriptions is clearly internally inconsistent within the same manual. Obvious sloppiness actually strengthens the inconclusive verdict. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * My point about semantics still stands.
 * How, and where's the call to be trivially-semantic enough to split the vast majority of other older enemies? LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
 * That's a ridiculous slippery slope you're trying to argue, and you know it. I'm bringing it up especially since the proposal the opposition doesn't solely rest on how much the Enlgish translators cared when they wrote the manual.
 * That same logic can still be used to split almost every other single older enemy between a species and character, so the bottom line is that something was taken out of context somewhere. If we as a wiki are going to strive to be source-driven and fact-based, there needs to be an unambiguous reference for Boom Boom as a character that's not a weird mishmash of occasional inconsistent pronouns that results in an appeal to "the popular opinion" - basic observations past and present point closer and have indicated species, not explicitly otherwise. The facts are there, and there's no distinction. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

Not going to bother adressing the page argument, but yeah, bringing up an usertalk argument into a discussion like this, and in this manner, is Not Cool. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

A couple things. -If you take issue with a persons vote or wish someone to clarify they're position, you bring it up in the comments section and then seek administrative input if you feel like the issue isn't being resolved. We/You can't, and let me be clear here, force people to post or reply. The vast majority of editors are not obligated to respond past their initial posting and harassing them is never acceptable. -It is never acceptable to try and force another user, administrator or no, into a discussion, especially one very obviously crafted to bait particular responses, such as the one LinkTheLefty orchestrated and then attempted to use here. -While we're on that point, no user has to talk to you for any reason if they don't want to or otherwise don't have the time. This can seem like a problem when trying to converse with members of the administrative team, but guess what? We have plenty of people who can help. It is considered bad form and generally seen as a violation of our Courtesy policy to bug people who have made it clear they either can't be on hand for a discussion or have expressed disinterest in the topic. To tie this back around to the current situation, I'd call LinkTheLefty's conduct here a clear case of harassment. - Ghost Jam 02:22, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Stating my reason for taking issue with certain votes and bringing it up in the comments as succinctly as I could is exactly what I did, and I feel going on further about whoever was more in the wrong over broken promises that happened about a week ago here is a distraction for everyone. I really don't know how to make it clearer that this proposal has been less than ideal for me, too. All that needed to be said was that Rule 5 is not applicable here; it is now clear that it does not, so the main relevant matter is still whether more people agree with this or that. Let's carry on. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * You may say you were just being succinct and not disingenuous about your concerns and the talk page conversation you were basing them on, but if you truly think dismissive comments like "couldn't bother reading the whole thing or refuting any points due to some current timing / TL;DR issues", your whole "if I was conscious of not thoroughly reading the other side of the argument..." speech (yes, you're not blaming me for being busy, you're just judging me for voting despite being busy: that's much better), or the mere facts that you were implying my vote was ill-informed and should be removed, and were using personal dealings as a way to try and discredit me in a proposal aren't inappropriate and insulting, and don't require more than a "Rule 5's not for that", you're delusional. And it's funny how you say that going on about talk page matters is a distraction in the same breath that you're taking one more personal pot shot at my credibility. But for the record, I never actually promised you anything back in May (last time you took issue with people agreeing with me), I just said "You can feel free to show me your progress" and "I'll be happy to provide feedback when asked". And actually, I did look it over and did give feedback (second-to last of my comments, last sentence), I just didn't read every last little detail, but I never said I would, and didn't need to in order to know that my "there's conflicting info so keep both pages" vote, based on my overall knowledge of the subject, was still a valid (and perfectly well-informed) opinion, so kindly stop publicly slandering me about it, and maybe the proposal actually can carry on. - 17:11, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * For reference, "I'd say just give up and stop wasting your time because the page isn't gonna be deleted anytime soon, if ever," was the feedback I took (since I already explained planning it in a complete rebuttal format ahead of time), and it was stated that there was no inclination to read all of it... Anyway, maybe there were communication problems, but there is no deliberate slander. Basically, "hey, so-and-so stated earlier they haven't or aren't going to read the full deconstruction or express interest in engaging beyond their vote, could this be against the rules since they're written a little unclear?" Maybe it's technically allowed, but I wouldn't hesitate to think it may be potentially dishonest to some voters when you repeat that you had no bias but aren't stating here that you're solely looking at this from a certain "Wiki POV"/more the merrier perspective (and, at least last we checked, indeed didn't weigh everything into account), which I don't believe would be readily assumed by everyone. Either way, there's no gain in adding to the confusion, and I've been doing nothing since then but trying to calmly settle it after I made my faux pas. Take it with me off-page if you must, but please stop it here. (And yes, my impression was that promises were made - you don't have to say "I promise" to make it so.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

Finally, I think I find Boom Boom!
Well, this is it, this proposal made me think about Boom Boom greatly and I carefully inspected the official arts of Boom Boom and I noticed something amazing and FINALLY could possibly make an end to this debate which almost does not make sense now. To my thinking, I'll put SMB3 side, it give me more trouble to make a link between the character and the species. In short, I think I have found the Boom Boom character between species. Have you noticed that in some games and in relation to games, I mean Super Mario 3D Land and Super Mario 3D World Boom Boom has a shell without spikes, while in others, such as NSMBU, P & D: SMBE and M & S: Rio, it has a spiky shell. That's where our famous character is, Boom Boom (the character) is one that has no spike on its shell. So I proposed that article of the character does only includes information on the Boom Boom which has a shell without spikes and on the article of the species, the one that do have spike, but mentioned the character Boom Boom, the one that do not have spikes on its shell. What do you think?-- 00:13, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Actually, I have a minor thing against that. As far as we know, we don't know if there is Boom Boom "character" among the species in 3D World, right? The closest I think we have is Super Mario 3D World Original Soundtrack. The track number 24, on disc 2, is called "Bowser's Minions" in PAL English release. Said music is played exclusively during Boom Boom boss fights. Imo, this is an implication, maybe even a confirmation, that 3D World features different Boom Booms each time instead of "the" Boom Boom every time, so no, "the" Boom Boom isn't the only spikeless member of its species. It also goes along with the European 3D Land official site. SmokedChili (Talk) (Thoughts) 04:11, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Yes, this isn't a new discovery. Inconsistencies still exist among different translators, etc. This would also shift the basis of the articles into "Boom Boom (plain shell)" and "Boom Boom (spiky shell)" - and it's speculative to definitively say which one is the character and species. As a wiki, we also have to take everything into account, so Super Mario Bros. 3 can't be tossed aside. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * That's not really speculative (maybe a little) since in game where Boom Boom have a plain shell, he's refer by a official guide as a character like 3D Land and in games where Booms Booms have a spiky shell, he's not the only one that appear (look at NSMBU, Puzzle & Dragon and M&S: Rio. Also about the fact that the same music is used for Boom Boom, what about the Koopalings who have the same theme, that's not make them a species. The Bio from Europe also refer Pom Pom to a species.-- 10:45, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * If there's a 3D Land strategy guide - Nintendo Power's discontinued Player's Guides traditionally hold more authority over Prima Games material. As for Pom Pom, it was discovered a while back that an excerpt from the Japanese website directly says there's only one Pom Pom. This has an obvious intent, whereas Boom Boom in the literal sense appears to still be vague in the same space. Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo of America's language translations differ, and one branch is sometimes more accurate than the other. Another thing is that Boom Boom's shell spikes are apparently retractable in Super Mario Bros. 3, meaning the original Boom Boom would be both spikeless and spiked. Either way, these are things that should have their bridge crossed when we come to it rather than spontaneously, especially since I find it unlikely that the other opposers are going to be keen on agreeing with this idea. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Well, I will wait if someone can also argue about it. Just another something, I skeptical with the fact that admins can vote on proposal, that's not to be mean, anyway I find that the admins make a really good job, It's because they are suppose to make the rules in here and some rules can eveb apply at them as they are all users with some more occupation to do, but how some users might find that some arguments are distorted from admins who votes and who would like to talk about some of their rules, but since they make the rules, they may decide that since they are the admins, they refuse that users apply the rules against them. Already they can cancel proposals according to the proposals rules. That's just a remark.-- 12:29, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * It's really ill-advised to change a stance in the middle of the proposal's lifespan before checking general opinion. This conflicts with the previous voters' expectations since opposers most likely prefer things remain untouched, and I highly doubt that's the outcome the opposing side will be quick to agree on after the fact. I don't agree with the alteration, but if you truly think you can make a decent case for keeping the Boom Boom articles between spiked and plain shell versions over species and character, maybe you can least try asking an administrator if you can add a third option so that everyone can be aware of this alternative. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * I will talk about it with Walkazo since she was opposing to this proposal and I will see.-- 13:05, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Rule 14: "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. " - i.e. anything more than fixing writing issues and typos and other such minor tweaks should not be done after 3 days. So no, I'm afraid you can't change the current proposal; instead, ask for the proposal to be deleted and then make a new one with your new ideas. - 17:11, 6 August 2015 (EDT)