Talk:Mattermouth

Where's the source for the name? --

the name is offical as BMB say it in the strategy guide he has. --Lindsay151 21:53, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Stop considering Mattermouths as Dry Bones
They look nothing like a Dry Bones, i don't understand why there that kind of species.

Proposer: Deadline: January 16, 2014, 23:59 GMT Extended: January 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) They have different appearances and purposes. The only thing really similar is that they're skeleton-like and they have the same eye-style. (yellow glowing pupil against black)
 * 3) I'll support because we shouldn't use a blanket term of "Dry Bones" to refer to any animated reptilian skeleton; Bone Dragon and Spine Coasters (especially the one in Super Mario 3D Land) are apparently not considered Dry Bones, yet they resemble Dry Bones as much as Mattermouths or more, so Mattermouths should not be considered Dry Bones either.
 * 4) Per LGM (a.k.a Mario). And per my comments.
 * 5) Being bones, don't make em' Dry Bones.
 * 6) It's more logical and easier to say that they're NOT Dry Bones than assuming they are. Just how we do NOT lump Rocky Wrenches into the Monty Mole species, we shouldn't lump Mattermouths into Dry Bones just because they resemble one.
 * 7) No evidence suggests they are related. Stating there's resemblance is fine, but not claiming they are a Dry Bones subspecies.
 * 8) They are completely different species. Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - They look like Dry Bones skulls so it's not illogical, and lumping them together is good for organization. It doesn't need to be a perfect fit, and the article merely says there's a "resembl[ance]" anyway.
 * 2) A note to the proposer- their skull looks similar to the Dry Bones's and they have no flesh, so saying that they look nothing like one doesn't make much sense, does it?
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo.
 * 5) - Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.

Comments
@Walkazo: but is a resemblance enough to warrant them as a sub-species?-- 15:43, 2 January 2014 (EST)
 * Our use of "sub-species" is garbage: it's an empty term that we slap on anything with a design based on a more generic thing. But I'm not advocating for subspecies designation anyway. Simply saying they're vaguely related would be ideal: leave them in the Dry Bones template and category and leave the links on the article and in the infobox, but replace the sub-species category with a regular species one. - 16:04, 2 January 2014 (EST)
 * I don't totally agree with you, I suggest saying that they are similar but removing them from the Dry Bones sub-species and removing the Dry Bones category.-- 16:12, 2 January 2014 (EST)

I have a question: what about Spine Coasters from Super Mario 3D Land? They resemble Dry Bones, more so than Mattermouths, in my opinion, and they act alive, so they aren't merely a moving platform, yet they aren't given the Dry Bones category. Should they be considered Dry Bones? And what about Bone Dragon? 20:34, 2 January 2014 (EST)
 * Also, the skulls of Mattermouths resemble Bone Dragon more closely than Dry Bones. Mattermouths don't have forward-facing eyes like Dry Bones do. 20:48, 2 January 2014 (EST)
 * With the exception of Spine Coaster (whilst I don't like it very much either), I don't agree. As I said before, a resemblance is not enough to warrant them as a sub-species, especially that Mattermouth, Bone Dragon poorly resemble it anyway. I think that the Undead category fits them better than the Dry Bones category.-- 07:32, 3 January 2014 (EST)
 * I agree as well. We can go through the route where Dry Bones is a blanket term for skeleton reptilian beings, but this will be speculation territory, and it's easier to say they're NOT Dry Bones rather than they are. NOT being Dry Bones is not as definite as the affirmative. 12:54, 3 January 2014 (EST)