Talk:Mega Mole

Are these the same Monty Moles that give away prizes in MLSS? – Spike

No, they are not...at least it hasn't been confirmed. Also the Monty Moles in MLSS are much smaller. Paper Jorge ( Need to tell me something? Go to my talk page.&middot;Contributions&middot; ) 21:21, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

Morty Mole
Prima Game`s strategy guide for Super Mario 3D Land refers to these guys as Morty Mole; not sure if that`s worth a mention. -- 03:17, 30 November 2011 (EST)


 * Prima's made naming mistakes before so best not to take this too seriously, unless they're referred by the same name elsewhere. But either way I added it to the trivia section just in case. - Four Paper  Heroes  FourPaperHeroes.jpg 03:22, 30 November 2011 (EST)


 * I was going to make a TPP, but changed my mind. Like Moneybags and Coin Coffers, they should be together. Technickal 18:57, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Split Morty Mole from Mega Mole 2: Molectric Boogaloo
Coming off the success of my most recent splitting proposal, I'd like to reopen this. To recap from my previous attempt:

Mega Moles: Brown and white, Japanese name is Indy, sunglasses, smug expression with large cheeks with circles on them and large lower lip without visible teeth, no whiskers, long pointed moleish nose and muzzle, jumping does nothing, works as a platform.

Morty Moles: Red and tan, Japanese name is Goropu (with "Indy" being a file name in the exact same situation as the aforementioned Bat), no sunglasses, neutral expression with visible tooth and smaller lower lip, has whiskers, short gopherish nose and muzzle, is defeated in two jumps, acts like a Rex.

These still seem very different to me. Literally the only similarities are being large-sized Monty Moles with a few hairs on top. However, given that we don't list Boss Bass and Big Cheep Cheep together despite Boss Bass being intended originally to be the "Giant" Cheep Cheep, I don't see why these should be listed together for being giant moles. Big Goomba and Grand Goomba also had Japanese names, yes, but at the very least they look the same, ie are simply upscaled Goombas, while these are both visually distinct from Monty.

Basically, different name in all languages, different appearance, different behavior, different weaknesses, literally the only thing they have in common is a parent species. I think if Big Bertha and Boss Bass are to be separate for having a distinction in one language, then these, who have a distinction in all languages, should also be split.

And no, saying "It's wrong because it's Prima" is still not a valid argument, particularly when the name is different in all languages.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick Deadline: October 24, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support, split them

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Doc.
 * 3) I agree.
 * 4) I don't even see how there's an argument when they're so wildly different.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) By every rule and every precedent by this wiki these articles should be split.

Oppose, keep them together

 * 1) I still feel the same way as I did in the previous. This should have been put under the older proposal. Why wasn't that done?
 * 2) This again? Per what I said in the last proposal. And the big Cheep Cheeps all have different qualities. Big Cheep Cheep is just a big Cheep Cheep, Boss Bass is the same, except it eats Mario, and Big Bertha is the same as Boss Bass, except it is a she and she has a baby. Cheep Chomp is the same as Boss Bass, except for color and similar to Spiny Cheep Cheep attacks. Very minor differences, but more than just a big Cheep Cheep. In theory, we could merge some of them, but there's more. File:BossBassEatingMario.png and File:Bertha.PNG shows the same sprite, yet we're most likely not merging them due to Big Bertha having a child to take care of. By comparing File:BigBerthaDS.png and File:NSMB MegaCheep-Cheep.png, you can clearly tell that Big Cheep Cheep in NSMB was designed after SM64DS, just like the other sprites, but this one differs due to Boss Bass eating as seen in the first picture. Only Cheep Chomps seems a likely candidate for a merge. And that's with the support of the wiki through a proposal.
 * 3) I'd rather err on the side of caution for the moment until the dust has settled. Per all, especially LTL below.
 * 4) Per last time, and then some. I repeat: I'd rather we stick to what closest matches the game data over go into a guessing game as to why the developers labeled Morty Mole the same as Mega Mole, and I believe that is what's currently represented in the article. The proposal glosses over the fact that its internal filename in Super Mario 3D Land ("Indy") is plainly and unmistakably its Japanese name in Super Mario World, which I suspect (unintentional or not) has led to at least one ill-informed vote. Again,  we've established precedent for internal names in various article content. If anything, if there are legitimate grievances about using "unseen material" such as filenames as the basis for valid information, it should be for a discussion broader than this - but as seen recently with Hatopop, just the opposite is gaining traction, and it's not like we plan to delegitimize the majority of pre-release and unused content articles anytime soon. Alterations to enemy behavior and additionally appearance are also nothing new in this franchise, especially for the jump from 2D to 3D after decades of total absence (and sometimes not nearly as long as is the case with "Mecha-Bowser" even receiving an alternate name). This version of the proposal still offers zero solution as to what to do with the big Monty Mole's appearance in Super Mario Maker, which was one of the main splitting concerns - we should have learned by now to avoid creating a shaky situation similar to the nebulous pre-merged status of Para-Beetle/Parabuzzy. Lastly, no new information has come to light since the original proposal; this would appear to be a quick recount on a separate talk page over the result making the proposer unhappy.
 * 5) Per LinkTheLefty.
 * OK, I am SO confused about what the heck is going on right now, so I'm just going to vote for this since everyone seems to have super-detailed arguments about why the articles shouldn't be split apart. Per all.
 * 1) Best to stick with this option until they appear in another game. Per all.

Comments
@WildGooseSpeeder I'm not hiding it, the information, and as such, the old proposal, was originally listed under Morty Mole due to being a more recent name, but the information was moved to Mega Mole due to being an in-game name. The talk pages weren't moved as both pages already had separate talk pages. Either way, I'm making it abundantly clear that this is the second attempt, as seen by the title. Don't be so accusative. Over 4 weeks have passed, and I'm doing this due to the support for my Bat proposal, which was an almost-identical situation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I changed my vote reason before you commented. Still though, why wasn't this second attempt proposal below the first one? If I didn't link, the older proposal would have likely been hard to find or overlooked. Some people might not even be aware such a proposal took place or even remember. -- 04:07, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Because I figured it should go under the current "Main Article" and not a redirect. I suppose I could link that talk page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I agree with that fact that the first proposal that is under the redirect's talk page isn't good. What to do? Should the old proposal be moved to make things easier? Merge the entire talk contents of the redirect's talk page with this talk page? -- 04:22, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I have it conspicuously linked now at the top of the proposal, by the way. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

I admit my position is a little more relaxed since last time due to knowing some more about Super Mario Pia. However, the fact of the matter is, excepting the pattern broken by your recent Swoop/Bat proposal, we've established precedent for internal names in various article content. For example, prior to knowing the internal object filename for Phantom Guy, it was previously considered a subject separate from Polterguy (as it turns out, its filename is identical), affecting wiki organization. (In fact, Phantom Guy and Polterguy both have differing appearances, behavior, and non-internal names - basically the same arguments made for "BasaBasa" & "Indy" - so where is the urgency for that proposal?) The game's own data is certain vital information mostly left out of this round, by the way - absolutely no one was bringing up Prima except to say that it's the only source for the name Morty Mole as of now, thus a merged Mega Mole would have that as the article title. Additionally, while Super Mario Pia is better at cataloging name changes than Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten, honest coverage gaps still seem to happen since you have to remember the book authors are not the game developers; for example, they listed Snifit as appearing in Super Mario 64, while the enemy's Japanese name was corrected to something else in Super Mario 64 DS guides, which they did not use as. Moreover, one facet important to me remains unaddressed: if this splits, does the coverage for the big Monty Mole from Super Mario Maker go into the same nebulous yet easily avoidable situation that Para-Beetle/Parabuzzy was in back when they were split? If that is the case, my stance is already settled. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Also, don't you think starting this proposal fresh on another talk page without going into very much detail about the reasons it failed last time is rather misleading to others? LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I linked to the other proposal. And it was like 5 in the morning, so I can't be expected to have all the info for why it failed. And @YoshiTheSSM the original Japanese name for Boss Bass/Big Bertha was "Kyodai Pukupuku," literally "Giant Cheep Cheep," meaning it was originally intended to simply be a larger counterpart to Cheep Cheep back then, a role now filled by Big Cheep Cheep. That's why I brought that up. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * In the future, perhaps you could wait until you're of sound mind before making a proposal. 14:18, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I was sound of mind. Just minorly forgetful. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty Alright, you outright lied there. I did say that Morty Mole has Indy for a filename at the top. And regarding the "Name is not Morty," even in the current situation, the wiki uses "Mega Mole" and not Morty Mole, so don't jump to conclusions regarding my motivation behind the file name. It was actually a tiny bit of both, just for fun. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Don't name files that'll be used on the wiki for "fun". It's unhelpful. 14:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Exactly why I haven't done so since then. Take a look at all the SS+BM sprites I uploaded last night, for instance. We all do stupid things when we're still starting out, right? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * You joinedd in May and uploaded the image in September. 14:54, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * And had only recently started uploading files. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Doc - I refer you to image use policy, specifically "When uploading a file, be sure to give it a straightforward and meaningful name, as this makes it easier to use, is better for searching purposes and looks more professional." and "Names should be serious and professional." (Not to mention, even disregarding any particular reasoning for the title, it was -highly- anachronistic.) Also, I meant exactly what I said - reread that "recap" you wrote up for this very proposal. If people are just joining in, they're not going to have all the facts, as one case has already proven right in front of our eyes (I'd say that one might even be subject to Rule 5). Maybe for greater visibility/transparency, the proposal should've been written as a bullet point rebuttal (besides just that fake Prima part which wasn't an issue at all prior)? LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sorry, I considered there to be too many details for a full recap and figured saying the filename was the same would be sufficient. As for the image name, yes that was highly immature of me and I regret it. But I still believe they should be split, as they are in practice about as alike as Colossal Koopa Paratroopa and Tub-O-Troopa, and I figured with the Bat precedent I'd have more ground. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

I thought about it, and realized that the file name is actually quite supportive evidence for my argument. I am on mobile, so it will take a while for me to get back here, but I want to throw this out: if Indy is the file name, the developers still consider it valid for something, and if they intended upon release for it to be Indy, why not just officially call it Indy? Instead they called it Goropu, but due to that file name indicating there still is an Indy, thst would make Goropu not a rename, but a distinct entity. Probaby, much like Bat, it was initially intended to be Indy, but to get it to work in the game in question, they had to change a lot of details; enough that they decided it should be its own thing. Hence the different name, despite how "Indy" was still in usage by them. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Adding on to this for clarity: File names really should only be used as a rather low-tier resort, because they represent plans from when the object was initially created, which may not jive with the final project. Why would this be? Because if they were to rename the object, every instance of the object's name in the code would also have to be changed, and if they had coded it enough to decide it was too different from the official Indy, the name would probably have been in there a lot, so instead of altering every instance of a name in the portion of the game people aren't intended to see, they simply kept the object name as is, to not use time for a relatively pointless endeavor and avoid potential problems arising with missing them. It's like how when we move pages, we need to fix redirects, except with no redirects in the first place. Now I'm no expert programmer, but it sounds about right to me. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (EDT)