Template talk:Goombas: Difference between revisions
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===Comments=== | ===Comments=== | ||
:Beanie is as close to Goomba as [[Sharpea]] is to Spiny. If this passes, should the latter two also be changed accordingly? May I ask where the line is drawn between variant and relative/derived? Because, to be honest, I think Goombrat and Galoomba could also be considered variants... They act like Goomba, they look like Goomba, they're named after Goomba. They're not literally Goombas, but [[Peepa]] isn't a Boo either. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 15:45, April 26, 2024 (EDT) | :Beanie is as close to Goomba as [[Sharpea]] is to Spiny. If this passes, should the latter two also be changed accordingly? May I ask where the line is drawn between variant and relative/derived? Because, to be honest, I think Goombrat and Galoomba could also be considered variants... They act like Goomba, they look like Goomba, they're named after Goomba. They're not literally Goombas, but [[Peepa]] isn't a Boo either. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 15:45, April 26, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:This is why I feel "subject origin" is helpful for non-real-life subjects, because there's clear derivation, but it's not quite a "subtype" so much as "inspired by" it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:10, April 26, 2024 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:10, April 26, 2024
Rather than lumping Galoombas together with the Goomba template's Characters and Species, why not make a third section specifically reserved for Galoombas (maybe with the note "*Originally considered Goombas")? That way, they reserve the distinction they've been getting recently. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2015 (EST)
Hi!
Can you add Outmaway, Hotcorn (corn like enemies), and Splunkin
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.149.133 (talk).
I personally would not consider these Goombas due to how different they look, but lets see what others think. Also, please remember to sign your comments - 
Donut | just helpin' when I can! 2:06, October 23, 2023 (CDT)
|
This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment. |
Current time: Tuesday, May 7, 2024, 09:18 GMT
As it currently stands, Beanies and Octoombas are treated as "actual" Goombas while Galoombas, Goombrats, Gooms, and Stus (all of which are much closer to Goombas physically and behaviorally) are merely considered "relatives" primarily due to official bios. I think those other two sections should also be included in the "relatives" section for consistency; I'm doing this via proposal because there was a proposal a while back while this system was still new to consider Beanies as proper Goombas.
Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
Oppose
Comments
- Beanie is as close to Goomba as Sharpea is to Spiny. If this passes, should the latter two also be changed accordingly? May I ask where the line is drawn between variant and relative/derived? Because, to be honest, I think Goombrat and Galoomba could also be considered variants... They act like Goomba, they look like Goomba, they're named after Goomba. They're not literally Goombas, but Peepa isn't a Boo either. Blinker (talk) 15:45, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
- This is why I feel "subject origin" is helpful for non-real-life subjects, because there's clear derivation, but it's not quite a "subtype" so much as "inspired by" it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:10, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
