Talk:Frog

Split Frog (Donkey Kong), Frog (Yoshi's Story), and Frog (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon)
For some reason, this page is essentially just a list of frogs in the Mario series. Because of this, the frogs that assist you in Donkey Kong and the frog enemies from Yoshi's Story and Luigi's Mansion are on this page, even though they have nothing to do with each other or generic real-world frogs, any more than they have to do with Frog Pirates or Kleptoads. Sure, they don't have unique names, but neither do Bees and we have those split.

Proposer: Deadline: February 14, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - This is getting too excessive for my tastes. Plenty of enemies with specific names have different roles in different games, yet we don't split them most of the time: why do the same here just because they're generic species? If anything, that'll just undermine the plain "Frog" page to the point where it no longer is worth covering per Generic subjects and then we've lost a perfectly fine article and all the tidbits about the truly misc frogs. The unnamed frog info can be understood perfectly well all grouped together: splitting is unnecessary complication.
 * 2) Nope, this split goes against the spirit of Generic subjects. What do you mean by "they have nothing to do with each other or generic real-world frogs" because they seem like they act any old generic frog, especially the ones you suggest to split in the first place.
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
@Walkazo: If the article is only useful as a catch-all list of every frog in the Mario series, regardless of behavior and in-game role, then maybe it's just not a very good article.

@Bazooka Mario: How do the frogs I mentioned act like "any old generic frog"? The Donkey Kong ones are allies that can move you to higher platforms, and the Yoshi's Story and Luigi's Mansion ones are enemies with unique behaviors. They have as much do to with regular frogs as Chickens have to do with regular chickens. Literally the only thing they have to do with each other is that they're frogs, and they would definitely have separate pages if they were actually given unique names. Niiue (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2016 (EST)
 * To me, they seem like jumping platforms, and frogs are known for jumping, so it's not unusual behavior for a frog at all. Yoshi's Story one doesn't have a lot of detail, but they're enemies that appear in lagoons and hurt Yoshi... exactly how does that make them different from normal frogs? Finally, Luigi's Mansion frogs, the only property that's totally different is in the final King Boo battle, but the normal ambiance enemies seem to act like normal frogs to me. Chicken (enemy) doesn't even barely resemble a chicken compared to the frogs Yoshi's Story or the Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon resembling frogs so I don't know why you brought that up. And yes, names are important. Yes, if they had their own names, they'd get their own page, but they don't, so they're generic enemies and belong to an umbrella page for these generic enemies. 20:45, 31 January 2016 (EST)

Split Frog and cut down on its genericness, take 2
Yes, I see the proposal directly above this one, but both the proposal and the opposition itself was flawed compared to what I'm about to propose. Essentially, what I'm proposing is that we split part or all of the Frog article by game, as we actually already do the same for Beetle and Mole. Let me break it down for you: Unlike the Banana case, I don't see how these splits would be too complicated nor open up a can of worms. Each of the four non-generic Frog appearances look noticeably different from each other, and I think a split is warranted here.
 * Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars: These frogs are clearly sapient, and don't behave as the other non-generic frogs do. You can also actually interact with them.
 * Diddy Kong Racing: These frogs serve little purpose other than one that turns out to be a cursed Drumstick, so I think we should just delete this section as being too generic, but that's for another proposal.
 * Yoshi's Story: These frogs are actual enemies that attack the targeted Yoshi.
 * Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon: Unlike Yoshi's Story's frogs, these frogs are red and yellow in color, and can be defeated with the Strobulb.
 * Super Mario Odyssey: The most generic of the many types of frogs, these ones are more well known for their capture abilities than anything else (they're neither characters you can interact with nor are they truly enemies).

EDIT 1: I've made the proposal multi-option to counter the current opposition. EDIT 2: I've narrowed it down to just split all, split Yoshi's Story, and split nothing.

Proposer: Deadline: January 1, 2019, 23:59 GMT Extended to January 8, 2019, 23:59 GMT Extended to January 15, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Split everything

 * 1) My preferred option.
 * 2) Per proposal, I was actually thinking of proposing this myself a while back but never got around to it.
 * 3) Indubitably. We don't cover generic subjects, and the Yoshi's Story Frogs may be split. In a talk page, are we allowed to several proposals at once, or only one proposal at once? Anyways, i support removing it genericness.
 * 4) Per all.

Just split Frog (Yoshi's Story)

 * 1) We should at least do this; these should not be lumped in with generic frogs simply because the Nintendo Power writers didn't bother to give them a non-generic name.
 * 2) I'd support splitting off the Yoshi's Story ones due to having a specialized Japanese name, but the rest of these have every right to be on here. The JP name means Yoshi's Story frogs are no more "generic" frogs than Cheep Cheeps are "generic" fish. Additionally, given the first game we cover to feature generic frogs is SMW2, to say it's anything else would be straight-up lying. Per my comments and 7.
 * 3) There are too many option. The Yoshi's Story ones aren't intended to be the same frog at all. Also, it got too much options. @_@ Also, saying that the Yoshi's Story frogs are intended to be the generic ones is purely speculative, as like i said, the Japanese name can tell wether the original creator's intent was to put a generic frog or just an invented species. We already have Frog Pirate split due to their Japanese name, so the Yoshi's Story ones should be split as well. And yeah, we should either split all, or just split Yoshi's Story ones, but i think just splitting Yoshi's Story ones is the most appropriate option. If this proposal fails, should i make a proposal of splitting Yoshi's Story frogs. If this proposal succeeds, i'd be the one who splits them off. Is Bazooka Mario's vote still valid, or i invalided it? (just for the Yoshi's Story part) Honestly, i think i've invalided it. Note: What i've bolded is what invalids Bazooka Mario's vote. Should Clam and Bee be split as well? I know this is not a part of the proposal, but like frog, they have a different Japanese name regarding the Yoshi's Story counterparts.
 * 4) Per my Don't Split anything vote vote being : Per all, especially Bazooka Mario, making different articles for every single non-generic appearance of frog would be overkill, just as it would be if we spit articles for every single appearance of a single thing, such as if we split Biddybud into  and  and more separate articles for every single appearance of the Biddybud. and other user's Don't split anything votes and the comments below, it would be overkill to make an article for every single game appearance of a frog, however the Yoshi's Story frogs should still have an article for themselves, as they have a unique Japanese name and are clearly meant to be different enemies. Per all.
 * 5) Second choice, per Doomhiker.

Don't split anything

 * 1) Disagree. I think it's overkill to have multiple articles on what's essentially a generic subject. This article works fine as a catch-all on all the frogs on the series, and I am also opposed to removing information on Diddy Kong Racing because it's part of an unlock requirement and also an interactable (albeit minor) gameplay element. Do not dissect the frog. I also oppose splitting Yoshi's Story frog as "but different name in Japanese" is arbitrary.
 * 2) - I don't think anything needs to be done, it looks like the coverage is non-generic enough to me.
 * 3) Per Bazooka Mario.
 * 4) Per Bazooka Mario & Alex95.
 * 5) why complicate anything

Comments
How do you feel about the fact that the DKR ones sing with human voices? They can also be interacted with, if only marginally. I'd support splitting the YS ones due to having a non-generic Japanese names, but I'm on the fence for the others. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2018 (EST)

@FanOfYoshi: As far as I know, there's no limit on how many TPPs can be related to a certain article at once, but it can't interfere with a proposal that's currently running. -- 11:56, 19 December 2018 (EST)
 * Shouldn't the "Support" and "Oppose" be named after something that has to do with the frog? Like respectively "Dissect generic Frogs" and "Let them live in their lake and bounce whenever they want"? -- 12:48, 19 December 2018 (EST)
 * No. Silliness is not required. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2018 (EST)

FanOfYoshi: We do cover generic subjects... We have Generic subjects that deal specifically with covering them. On the other note, yes, we do allow several proposals. 17:28, 19 December 2018 (EST)
 * Is this proposal splitting Yoshi's Story Frogs? Or only the other Frogs? These appear to be the "Frog Pirates" of Yoshi's Story. And have a different Japanese name. "Geko" instead of "Kaeru". The Yoshi's Story ones will have Frog (Yoshi's Story) as an article name. -- 02:05, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 * @Bazooka Mario, the exception is that if they don't have any generic relation with the generic subject. -- 02:48, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 * I asked if this proposal splitted off, or only some frogs, before i make a proposal about it. -- 13:02, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 * Please stop responding to yourself. Just wait for them to respond in their own time, don't be impatient. @_@ Anyways, due to this proposal, you can't make one on the subject right now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2018 (EST)

Anyways, let me break this down a little: Beetle and Mole's examples were all pretty specialized (note how one example of beetles were a design parody of the Beatles, and one mole was part-plant). With this, only one isn't generic, and that's only due to Japanese name, and all of them can be interacted with, giving them a gameplay purpose, which is what allows generic subjects. Ergo, every section aside from possibly the SMRPG section (as these are specific characters) and the Story section with the specified name deserves to be simply on the frog page. The former could be removed for said reason, and the latter split. But everything else should stay until further notice. Other splitting with this kinda falls outside guidelines, I do believe, as they're still generic subjects that, according to said guidelines, are indeed allowed a page due to having a gameplay purpose. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2018 (EST)

@Doomhiker: Biddybud is a different case entirely. This is talking about four clearly generic frogs that might be worth considering for a split. 19:12, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 * True, Biddybud is a different case, my point was that it, in my opinion it would be going overboard to make a page for each different frog appearance in a game, as they share the same names and generic subjects are generally are herded into one large article, such as with Hot Dog. The reason that I mentioned Biddybuds is that if Frogs warrant separate articles per each game appearance then it would make sense to do the same with non-generic things to, which in my opinion would be overkill unless they had separate names, and thus clearly are meant to be different species, such as with Goombo. It is true that other generic subjects like Beetle have separate pages per game, so perhaps a proposal for what should and should not be split into an article per game appearance could be made. As for now, I do think that the frog page and other generic subjects should stay merged. Sorry for my poor wording! 19:59, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 * I forgot to mention, I do think that generic subjects that have been turned into characters such as with Beetle (Donkey Kong 64) should be split, however none of the frogs are characters except for Drumstick, however Drumstick is simply a cursed frog, and as it is covered in the Drumstick page it would be unnecessary to give the cursed drumstick its own page. 20:07, 20 December 2018 (EST)

I'm actually going to make this a multi option proposal soon, seeing as how I clearly rushed out this proposal. 20:10, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 * Gosh, that's a LOT of options, but hopefully everyone can work out the change all right. 20:15, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 * Yeah, there's way too many options. IMO it should be split YS frogs (because non-generic in Japanese), split all, or split nothing. 22:07, 20 December 2018 (EST)
 * Jeeze, I go away for a few hours to play Pokemon, and I come back to pure insanity? I think my Spiked Fun Guy proposal had the maximum sane number of options. Anyways, yeah, the Story ones are the only ones to really require special consideration. You've just made a Twitter joke. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (EST)

I'm thoroughly disappointed that the choices are 31 instead of 32 = 2 ^ 5. We need to know Set theory better.--Mister Wu (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2018 (EST)

Per Mister Wu.
 * I've just got off from finishing This is the Only Level as a no death run, and when i saw each option... Holy Moly! There is that much options? -- 06:30, 21 December 2018 (EST)
 * I was reading Courtesy when i remembered this proposal. I hope we at least split because currently, it's the "Don't split anything" that has the most votes. The Yoshi's Story frogs are clearly intended to be different, given their Japanese name. -- 10:13, 22 December 2018 (EST)

holy moly what happened here -- 12:42, 22 December 2018 (EST)
 * @Waluigi Time i also said "Holy Moly". ;) -- 12:43, 22 December 2018 (EST)


 * @All: Changed the proposal again seeing how "absurd" my previous setup was. Why did I even rush this out in the first place? I'd better be careful next time. 22:28, 22 December 2018 (EST)
 * This is better. -- 05:07, 23 December 2018 (EST)
 * Toadette the Achiever said since he/she (well, it's kinda confusing) changed the proposal, Ghost Jam's vote isn't valid anymore. Should i use, or should he do it on his own? -- 11:49, 24 December 2018 (EST)
 * Per rule 5, only a majority of admins are allowed to remove another user's vote. I've already tried contacting Ghost Jam, but he hasn't responded at all yet (though I don't know if he's actually read it). I'll try contacting Alex95 again if he still doesn't respond after another day or two.
 * P.S.: Toadette the Achiever is male. 12:03, 24 December 2018 (EST)
 * Should this proposal be extended if no one else votes right now? It has 3 votes, and per rule 10, it's when a proposal with 2 option that has both support and oppose have equal, or the oppose has one more vote than the support. -- 13:17, 28 December 2018 (EST)
 * Bazooka Mario and Alex95's vote are invalid. @Bazooka Mario, check out my vote which i edited to invalid your vote. The proposal now has 3 options, and Yoshi's Story Frogs may need to be split, as saying that they ARE generic frogs is purely speculative. Check out, my whole vote invalids your vote. Also, @Alex95, the Yoshi's Story frogs haven't a generic name. I'm not soliciting at all, but i'm just invaliding your votes. Also, check out Doc von Schmeltwick's vote. -- 11:07, 3 January 2019 (EST)
 * The process of invalidating votes is not as formalized as in the case of featured articles, in any case, considering how Bazooka Mario specifically doesn't think that having a unique Japanese name is enough, you didn't invalidate her vote at all. We'd need a policy that states that all the elements with non-generic Japanese name must be sepatately covered to invalidate said vote. As far as I know, said policy doesn't exist yet - we wouldn't have had this issue to begin with if it did -, therefore it must be proposed and approved in the Proposals page.--Mister Wu (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)

"Also, saying that the Yoshi's Story frogs are intended to be the generic ones is purely speculative, as like i said, the Japanese name can tell wether the original creator's intent was to put a generic frog or just an invented species." The Japanese name is not a reliable metric by itself. I'd cite several proposals where the Japanese name was used as a reason to split/merge which failed. Generally, they work better as supporting evidence rather than standalone. 13:24, 4 January 2019 (EST)
 * Like I said, if Story Frog is a generic frog, Cheep Cheep is a generic fish, and Troopa is a generic tortoise. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2019 (EST)


 * I don't know exactly which proposals you're thinking of, but I highly doubt any of them are actually valid comparisons to the topic at hand. There's a difference between Japanese names not being sufficient proof to consider two fictional species/characters the same or different and them being a blatantly obvious indication that a species was not intended to be perceived as a generic, real-world creature. If the Yoshi's Story frogs were supposed to be generic, they would not have been given a unique name. We might as well merge Bee (Wario Land II) with Bee solely because its English name implies it's a generic animal. 03:28, 5 January 2019 (EST)
 * The frogs, bees, and Clams we're merged before their Yoshi's Story Japanese name was knows. Anyways, i think each appearance of the frogs were neither a reference, neither based on their previous appearance, so this is why my first vote was "Split everything". -- 07:41, 5 January 2019 (EST)
 * But they were still all intended as generic frogs, minus the Story ones. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2019 (EST)
 * Do you mean that generic subjects share the same page even though they are neither based, nor intended to be the ones from the previous appearances? -- 03:57, 8 January 2019 (EST)
 * Exactly, as they're all intended as just that: a generic representation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2019 (EST)