Talk:Porcupuffer

Main Picture
Hey I fond this real Porcu-Puffer artwork. Would you rather have a sprite for the main picture or artwork for the main picture?

OR


 * It would be great if there was not a background. Anyway, I recommend you try putting that up and see how things turn out.

I actually found a Porcu-Puffer card and cut out the Porcu-puffer image.
 * Hm, looks good on that infobox ;)

Cheep Cheeps?
Any proof these are actually related to Cheep Cheeps? Binarystep (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (EDT)
 * They look like them. That's the most proof you will get 21:57, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
 * So do most Mario series fish. Binarystep (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps
FAILED 1-12

The wiki lists Porcupuffers as being Cheep Cheeps, even though no foreign names even hint at them being so, no official media (to my knowledge) calls them Cheep Cheeps, and our only proof is that they look similar, even though it's obvious it's just the Mario way of depicting fish.

Proposer: Deadline: June 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Porcupuffers aren't Cheep Cheeps

 * 1) Per proposal.

Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps

 * 1) - The Porcupuffer's design was based on Cheep Cheep and is similar enough to warrant being included in the Cheep Cheep family (along with Rip Van Fish, Blurp and other standard Mario fish modelled after Cheep Cheep, for that matter, like how all standard turtle enemies are Koopas). It's what people will expect to find, and what they should be able to find via  and other lists. Common sense should trump sacrificing navigation ease and interconnectivity for the sake of details most readers and editors really won't know or care about.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per. Porcupuffer bears even less differences with Cheep Cheep than Bandit has with Shy Guy, so I am incredibly iffy on splitting this one, but I'm leaning toward "do nothing", ever since this was made.
 * 4) Per All.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Change of vote, per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Sometimes you just gotta use common sense on these things. Of course, Walkazo already said that and put it better than I would have, so per her.
 * 10) I've been thinking over this, but Baby Luigi's made some good points in the comments. Per those comments.
 * 11) Per all. If you want to see a species of fish that was actually mistaken for a sub-species of Cheep Cheep please direct your attention to the Spike Bass. Unlike the Spike Bass, Porcupuffers share a lot in common with other Cheep Cheeps, including their lips and eyes.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
It's hard to say, but I don't know if they are or not. I'm going to think about it before I vote. They are similar in some ways. ShyGuy8 (talk|contribs) ( Just a Shy Guy who loves Mario... ) 14:57, 2 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Having similar appearances is not enough to relate the two of them, as explained by Binary. Unless you'd like to start referring to all of those fish as Cheep Cheeps?
 * You've got a point there. I don't want to refer all fish as Cheep Cheeps, but I guess I will vote that they are'nt.

ShyGuy8 (talk|contribs) ( Just a Shy Guy who loves Mario... ) 15:06, 2 June 2015 (EDT)

Okay, so the line between "random fish" and Cheep-Cheep-like is a bit blurry, but these bear an extremely close resemblance to Cheep-Cheep. Their eye shape is the same, their body shape is the same, their mouth shape is similar, and their fin shape is similar enough. The only difference is that Porcupuffer is much fatter and has spikes on its back.

As for your examples, BinaryStep, Rip Van Fish is categorized under Cheep Cheep and it does strongly resemble a Cheep-Cheep. Loch Nestor has little resemblance to a Cheep-Cheep (its eyes mostly; the rest of its features aren't notable enough, but it could squeak as a derivative Cheep Cheep species). Finally, Spray Fish looks nothing like a Cheep-Cheep from drastically different body shape, eye shape, mouth shape, and that minor, but still notable blush mark.

That Bandit proposal has now gotten me concerned if we're going to split other extremely similar, but different enemies simply because of those differences. 20:48, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

@Opposers: The problem is, we have literally no proof Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps other than their appearance. If the only reason we're calling them Cheep Cheeps is that it's what people expect, we might as well, for instance, keep calling Bandits Shy Guys. Binarystep (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Also note that while the design is clearly based on Cheep Cheeps, that doesn't really mean much (again, look at the issue with Bandits and Shy Guys). Binarystep (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Sure there's no concrete proof that they are Cheep-Cheeps. There isn't concrete proof saying otherwise. This is why we make inferences based on available evidence. Besides, from the looks of things, the Bandit proposal won't pass. 16:06, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Using the example of Bandits and Shy Guys in support of your proposal when you're opposing the other proposal? Seems a bit hypocritical.
 * I was trying to make a comment more along the lines of "why do so many people think Bandits aren't Shy Guys but that Porcuffers are Cheep Cheeps despite having no evidence of the latter", not stating my own opinions on the Bandit/Shy Guy issue. Binarystep (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

":Also note that while the design is clearly based on Cheep Cheeps, that doesn't really mean much (again, look at the issue with Bandits and Shy Guys). Binarystep (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2015 (EDT)"
 * I voted oppose in both your proposals. Also, it does mean much that they're clearly based on Cheep Cheeps. It's a related species on that alone so it deserves to be at least categorized with the Cheep Cheep rather than have its ties severed. 21:55, 5 June 2015 (EDT)
 * I also voted oppose on both per what Mario said. It does need to be categorized as a Cheep Cheep because that's what it is related to. The same with Bandits and Shy Guys. Please keep it categorized of how it is. Thanks,

ShyGuy8 (talk|contribs) 22:01, 5 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Bottom line is this: are we allowed to write information on this wiki that has strong evidence that can be found with common sense (but is not outright stated), or do we need solid, outright proof for everything? Andymii (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Ugh I don't like the word "common sense", especially when used to make educated inferences. It's not an aspect of critical thinking for a reason, or else hindsight bias would get in the way rather than looking at things skeptically. But I understand what you're talking about, and yes, we can make valid assumptions if we have strong supporting evidence for it. It's a bit like creating scientific theories. We all know gravity is actually considered a theory, same with plate tectonics, but those have indisputable, really strong evidence to draw links to be universally accepted. What happens here is similar to that, except less technical. If we need solid proof for outright everything, we need to rewrite basically everything on the wiki. That would be counterproductive to our goal. Making educated inferences based on strong supporting evidence is actually the way to go when writing these articles if the lack of solid concrete proof exists, and most of the time there isn't a source outright making those claims. 21:48, 6 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Rewriting everything on this wiki would be a lot of work!

ShyGuy8 (talk|contribs) 22:45, 6 June 2015 (EDT)

But the truth is, Binarystep, we don't need solid proof that Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps. It's pretty obvious that Cheep Cheeps are one of the main type of fishes in the Mario series. Every other fish in the series is related to a Cheep Cheep because there is really nothing else you can categorize it to. I'm not trying to be rude, but this is ridiculous, If there is no other main fish in the Mario series, then what should we categorize it to? Itself? No. It needs to be categorized to a Cheep Cheep so it wouldn't get confusing. Same with Bandits and Shy Guys. We can't just categorize it to itself. ShyGuy8 (talk|contribs) 00:09, 7 June 2015 (EDT)