Talk:Big Bertha: Difference between revisions

in New Super Mario Bros., ther are giant cheep-cheeps that may be same. I move that check this and confirm, or deny, this fact.

[[User:HK-47|HK-47]] 14:00, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

== Merge Big Bertha with Boss Bass and/or Merge Baby Cheep with Big Bertha ==

There have been [[Talk:Boss Bass|attempts]] to merge Big Bertha with Boss Bass given their identical appearance and Japanese names, but I thought this {{media link|BossBass SMB3.jpg|artwork}} necessitated another look. It shows the fish trying to eat Mario, so it must be a Boss Bass - but it shows a Baby Cheep with it, so it must be a Big Bertha. What this hybrid shows is that the lines were blurred even back then (the art appears to have even been made by Nintendo Power). Additionally, in ''Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'' (which again just has one entry for the giant Cheep Cheep and only briefly mentions that there is an underwater version), there is no name for Baby Cheep. Since Baby Cheep is inextricably tied to Big Bertha and is more like a short-range projectile than its own enemy, it doesn't make sense for them to remain as separate articles. The Nintendo Comics System's Bertha might be split as a character article if one of the Boss Bass options passes.

#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.

#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.

===Merge Baby Cheep with Big Bertha===

:1) Wait... Yoshi's Story guide? It would have been a good point if Big Bertha and Boss Bass had the same profile in that guide, but they don't even exist in that game. You can hardly compare a Yoshi's Story guide with ''japanese sources''. 2) I agree with you, it was not a bad idea to bring up that artwork. And why did you even write this? You brought that up, I invalidated it and now you say it was a valid reason? You act as if I said that you should have never written that. Only because I want to refute that argument does't automatically mean that it was a dumb one. 3) Doc used this argument to argue for the merging option, even though it can also count as an argument for the splitting option or for none of them. The ''Pick one'' was just there to let her choose if that would count for both or for none of them. It was also a joke, because it wouldn't have changed anything, because it would either be 1:1 or 0:0 which are both a draw. {{User:VOIDTHIS/sig}} 17:27, 23 November 2018 (CET)

::1) I think it's a good comparison because it's an example of a Japanese source treating a similar subject with the same name as a separate one, whereas that never happened with Boss Bass and Big Bertha. Here is the most recent description from ''Super Mario Pia'' and ''Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'' for 巨大プクプク (Giant Cheep Cheep): 「水面を移動し、ジャンプして<span class="explain" title="おそ">襲</span>いかかってくる。水中にいることもある。」 (''Moving along the water surface, it jumps to attack. It also exists underwater.'') It considers Boss Bass and Big Bertha to be one and the same, behavior difference or not. Also, we had early trouble getting their appearances sorted out until it was eventually decided that Boss Bass is the ''maneater'' and Big Bertha is the ''mouthbreeder'', but since the official Japanese distinction is that there are ''surface'' and ''underwater'' types, that puts the odd appearance of the underwater maneater into question unless you want to consider that yet another fish. 2) Generally speaking, it is discouraged to redo a settled proposal unless you can present new information, which is exactly what I did by illustrating a point with the artwork. That's also why I added the Baby Cheep option. 3) That doesn't really apply to Baby Cheep if that's what you're suggesting. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 13:50, 23 November 2018 (EST)