1,547
edits
Talk:Hammer Bro: Difference between revisions
→"Sub-Species"
Vellidragon (talk | contribs) |
Vellidragon (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
:::::Since their species is never named in the games, an article like that would be mostly speculation (the name in particular), so in my opinion (since this is a Wiki) it might be better to keep it the way it is, using only information that can actually be obtained from canonical sources, and the only thing we can obtain from those is that Boomerang Bros. etc. are similar to Hammer Bros. and were invented (by the creators of the games) after them (and their designs based on them; they are no more than palette swaps, in fact). Just my two cents, other people may have a different opinion on this.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 12:41, 3 December 2009 (EST) | :::::Since their species is never named in the games, an article like that would be mostly speculation (the name in particular), so in my opinion (since this is a Wiki) it might be better to keep it the way it is, using only information that can actually be obtained from canonical sources, and the only thing we can obtain from those is that Boomerang Bros. etc. are similar to Hammer Bros. and were invented (by the creators of the games) after them (and their designs based on them; they are no more than palette swaps, in fact). Just my two cents, other people may have a different opinion on this.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 12:41, 3 December 2009 (EST) | ||
::::::Well, that's why we have the {conjecture} tag. Easily notifies readers that the title of the article is made-up, while the information therein is factual. It's been used often enough that it isn't exactly a "last-ditch resolution" tag, but something acceptable. Besides, an article as basic as the [[Koopa]] article that groups together the various Bros. and speaks of their related history based only on factual evidence isn't the worst article to be proposed. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:46, 3 December 2009 (EST) | ::::::Well, that's why we have the {conjecture} tag. Easily notifies readers that the title of the article is made-up, while the information therein is factual. It's been used often enough that it isn't exactly a "last-ditch resolution" tag, but something acceptable. Besides, an article as basic as the [[Koopa]] article that groups together the various Bros. and speaks of their related history based only on factual evidence isn't the worst article to be proposed. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:46, 3 December 2009 (EST) | ||
:::::::Thing is that the only information about their "related history" that could be acquired from canonical sources is the fact that the Hammer Bro.-like enemies were based on (and named after) the Hammer Bros. by the developers, so we might as well leave it the way it is (listing them in the Hammer Bro. article). Making a seperate article trying to show the relation of them would only over-complicate things.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 13:14, 3 December 2009 (EST) | :::::::Thing is that the only information about their "related history" that could be acquired from canonical sources is the fact that the Hammer Bro.-like enemies were based on (and named after) the Hammer Bros. by the developers, so we might as well leave it the way it is (listing them in the Hammer Bro. article). Making a seperate article trying to show the relation of them would only over-complicate things. Besides, I don't think the tag about the title being made up has ever been used for anything else than articles on elements/creatures actually directly being referenced (or appearing) in the games which had just never received an official name. All the Bro. enemies have official names already.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 13:14, 3 December 2009 (EST) | ||