Talk:Blargg

OK, we have here a little name problem. In Yoshi's Island, there are Blarggs and Gargantua Blarggs. In Yoshi's Story, we have Blarggs. In Yoshi's Island DS, we have three: Blarggs, Gargantua Blarggs, AND Crusher Blarggs. Now, in the YIDS Pkayer's Guide, the Gaugantua Blarggs are called Super Big Blarggs, and the Crusher Blarggs are called Gargantua Blarggs. Confused yet? There's one other thing: The Nep-Unuts in YIDS are called Super Big Nep-Unuts! How should we work this article, now? 3D, {{{1}}}

Create pages here:

Blargg

1. Blargg
2. Gargantua Blargg
3. Crusher Blargg
4. Super Big Blargg

Nep-Enut

1. Nep-Enut
2. Super Big Nep-Unut

After creating all pages, put a little section or template linking them all. As for how similiar they look, just note how similiar they look and name the (if there are) differences between both.Knife (talk)

Super Big Blarggs and Gargantua Blarggs are the same thing, though. And are there two Nep-Unuts? 3D, {{{1}}}

What really are Nep-Unuts? I thought they were called Nep-Enuts?Knife (talk)

Okay. Where did the name "Crusher Blargg" come from? -- Son of Suns

As far as Nep-Enuts go, I'm sure it's "Nep-Enut" with an E. I'm so confused with the Blarggs, though. Phoenix Rider

Split?

Should we separate Blargg into "Blargg (SMW)" and "Blargg (YI)"? Pseudo (talk) (contributions)

They're the same enemy basically, aren't they? Time Questions 06:35, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

That may be true but one is a dragon and one is a... thing. Pseudo (talk) (contributions)

Ancient

Kylie Koopa I implies that Blarrgs can live for a long time. "I haven't been this jazzed in a Blarrg's age!" RPG Gamer. I HAVE RPG!! (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

An imply is an imply, but that stuff can go into the trivia. I'm not sure if it's necessary, though. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:23, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Blargg

Are Blarggs considered as dinosaurs? --

16:18, 4 April 2014 (EDT)

They're inspired from dinosaurs definitely. Ray Trace^(T|C) 16:20, 4 April 2014 (EDT)

The only ones that look like dinosaurs for me are Super Mario World game and show. Yoshi's series Blarggs look nothing like dinosaurs for me.--

16:24, 4 April 2014 (EDT)

Yoshi's Island

Do regular Blarggs actually appear in SMW2 like the article claims? As far as I can tell, only Gargantua Blarggs and Kounbabas appear. Binarystep (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

No, regular Blarggs are absent in the Yoshi series, but variants do appear. I don't see anywhere in the article where it mentions that the SMW Blarggs appear in SMW2 or its sequels. It appears that someone (you perhaps?) changed the article between when you asked your question and now. Lumastar (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2015

Create a Blargg (species) page

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

canceled by proposer
I do not understand the meaning of the page. Is it a page for the Blargg that first appeared in Super Mario World or a page for the species as a whole? If I read the first line of text, this page is for Blargg who first appeared in Super Mario World. So, I propose a small clean up to this page and create a page for the Blargg species. Since there are several types of Blargg now. After all, we have a page for the Koopa species, a page for the Boom Boom species, a page for the Yoshi species and so on. It also would provide a better built page for the enemy and for the species, because presently this page was yet to Blargg from Super Mario World and now it resembles a page for the species. To be more specific about what I want to do :

• Rewrite this page to be less than about others variants Blargg
• Created a page for the species structure as Koopa (species) for the page to be avoided as it is now if a new species of Blargg appear in a future play.

Proposer: LudwigVon (talk)
Deadline: January 14, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. LudwigVon (talk)

Oppose

1. Banon (talk) The SMW enemy is the main Blargg subspecies. This article is about that enemy.
2. Walkazo (talk) - "Blargg (species)" would imply the other "Blargg" article is not a species (i.e. a character), but that's not true and makes no sense. You could argue for a separate "Blargg (SMW)" page for the dinosaur-like ones vs. the more blobby modern ones, but seeing as there's been a few other redesigns and yet no name changes anywhere, it's not a clean break, so it might be best to leave it in one place for now.

Comments

Just to be clear, are you suggesting we split Super Mario World Blarggs from the modern ones? Niiue (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Nope, I suggest to create a species page. The Blargg that appear in Super Mario World and the modern ones is mostly the same enemy but with a different physic appearance (for the Yoshi games).--^(TALK) 20:59, 30 December 2015 (EST)

This is already a species page, though. Niiue (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2015 (EST)

If I read the first line of text from this page, it was mostly for Blargg (the enemy that first appear in Super Mario World), not for the species. To finish my comments above, some species have a similar appearance to both (the dinosaurs and blob) (eg: Sandmaargh, Charvaargh, Magmaargh.)--^(TALK) 21:06, 30 December 2015 (EST)

It is as if the Blargg (the enemy is first appeared in Super Mario World) has just lost his page in favor of the entire species , while this page was intended to be for the Blargg enemy. You can look on page history, and it was for the enemy and not for the species.--^(TALK) 21:16, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Alright, I see your point. Though I think a better solution would be to rewrite the Blargg page to be less about all the other variants instead of making a hub page for all of them. Niiue (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Exactly I wanted to do, but at the same time to make a page for the species, structured like Koopa (species). It can avoided in the future that this page came back as it is currently, if a new species appear in a future game.--^(TALK) 21:34, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Walkazo is right here and I think the suggestion of Niiue makes more sense. There are no articles of an enemy who is not a character to have a different page about the species entirely, not knowing if Blargg is actually the parent of all species of Blargg (we can say Sandmaargh is the parent and argue about it for days). What do you think about rewrite the page as Niiue suggests?--^(TALK) 21:44, 30 December 2015 (EST)

No, I'd be complete against rewriting the page like that. The Koopa page is a summary hub for all the different articles that then have the chronological info. This is not - this is the article with all the info, so the brunt of its info must be organized like a normal species page. - Walkazo 21:48, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Walkazo , I think I misled you. What I mean by rewriting, it's to remove the image of the enemies who is not Blargg and less detailed the enemies that have no place on this page. On this page currently, there are pictures of species that do not correspond at all to the enemy speaks of this page. I absolutely do not want to organize as like Koopa (species) is. If it was to create a Blargg (species) page, I wanted it to be structure like Koopa (species) is, but not this one.--^(TALK) 21:53, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Ah, okay. I'm still against making a separate page (for the Koopas, there are so many and they're so diverse, it makes sense to have a hub page - not so much here), but chopping out all the derived species from here is definitely a good idea: the amount of non-Blargg info is staggering when you actually look closely and realize half the sections ar actually "there's no Blarggs in this game, but...". Don't even need a TPP for that part, really. - Walkazo 22:03, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Okay, if I understand I removed what is not related Blargg (also the sections " There's No Blarggs in this game , but ..." )? --^(TALK) 22:09, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I will also closed this proposal. I have my own arguments that I have just mentioned above and as you also mention the Blargg (species)" would imply the other "Blargg" article is not a species (i.e. a character), but that's not true and makes no sense. Rewrite and remove informations that is unrelated to Blargg is the best solution. It's a similar case to what I propose here.--^(TALK) 01:00, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Confirmed subspecies?

This talk page or section has a conflict or a question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

Are Magmaargh, Magmaw, Sandmaargh, and Charvaargh officially confirmed anywhere to be actual Blarggs? The name structure is somewhat similar in English, admittedly, but the Japanese names have no reference to Blarggs. Furthermore, aside from the blobbish Yoshi ones, Blarggs hadn't appeared in years, so it's unlikely that Nintendo would introduce a subspecies without reintroducing the original along with it. All four of the "Magmaargh" varieties have characteristics resembling dinosaurs and eastern dragons (yes including Magmaw, it has a spine plate thing going on), while Blarggs haven't resembled anything remotely reptilian since Super Mario World. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

Magmaargh's Japanese name is based on Blargg's (and by extension, so is Magmaw's), and Sandmaargh/Charvaargh don't have Japanese names listed, so I can't really comment on them. Niiue (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2017 (EST)

How is "Ūgan" based off of "Unbaba?" That they have what is written as a U in English? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2018 (EST)