Talk:Bubble Blooper

Merge with Bubble Blooper

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.

merge 6-0
As discussed below in the Comments section, the Dried Blooper is only an alternate form of the Bubble Blooper. While forms have been known to merit their own articles before, this situation is different because there are no statistical differences between each, and neither are nothing more than simple enemies rather than bosses, which are the type of enemy that usually are allowed separate articles for forms.

The main problem here is which form should be considered the "natural" or original state, and therefore which should be the basis for the merged article's name. As I've explained below, I feel that the Bubble Blooper is the original form, and should therefore be the article's title. However, this may not reach full agreement, so multiple options must be allowed. What this proposal is asking is whether we should merge the two articles or not, not what the merged article's name would be; because of this, ignore the issue of what the name should be. Articles fitting the profile of needing a merge should not be stalled due to one trivial reason which should be worked out after agreement over all the other, far more pivotal reasons.

Deadline: 5 January 2010, 17:00

Merge with Bubble Blooper

1. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) We need this! This and that article are pretty much the same, closer than any other article probably. Anyways, don't have your vote sway because we don't have a official name right now, we can easily find a name later for the comined article. Right now, look at how short the articles are, look how alike (place, name, stat's, etc.) are, and then vote...
2. Knife (talk) - According to Prima, Bubble Bloopers are the natural form.
3. Redstar (talk) - Per Baby Mario Bloops
4. Reversinator (talk) I'm pretty sure we don't list different forms.
5. MATEOELBACAN (talk) Per all, I'm pretty sure that the two are the same enemy but the one with water and the other no.
6. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.

Comments

Shouldn't this article be merged with Bubble Blooper? - Gabumon^(talk) 14:46, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes it looks like it. User:Yoshiaga/sig 14:59, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

And how should the merged page be called? Dried Blooper or Bubble Blooper? - Gabumon^(talk) 15:17, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

How 'bout we call it Dried and Bubble blooper? User:Yoshiaga/sig 15:24, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

Wouldn't that sound a little bit unprofessional? - Gabumon^(talk) 15:42, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, we should! They have the same stat's, attacks (nearly), and same area they are found in. Baby

Mario Bloops

I think it's fine to leave them separate, even though they are alternate forms of the same enemy. There is a naming issue since we don't know what the "normal" form is supposed to be.Knife (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Knife, the articles seperated are pretty much stubs, but if we put them together, that would lengthen them, also, it would be a lot for pictures and templates sake. Also, I thought of a name. Why don't we just call them Pump Works Blooper? It's not that long, and it fits both Dried and Bubble Blooper in the name (that is where they are found). That's the best I have, so...how 'bout it? Baby

Mario Bloops

That is actually not possible, since this would be a conjectural title, and we cannot use such a title when the official title is known. Apparently, no matter how you look at it, Knife is right. The articles cannot be merged. - Gabumon^(talk) 15:17, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Let me try to offer some reasoning in favor of merging. I don't need to go into detail on all the reasons why, as Baby Mario Bloops already has, so the only remaining issue is what to name it... Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that the Bubble Blooper is both the "natural" state/form of the enemy, as well as the name we should go with.

Why? Because both the English and original Japanese names for Dried Blooper suggest it is not the original state. To be "dried", you must first have some amount of moisture, correct? Likewise, the Japanese name suggests it is "parched". If being dried was the natural state, I would think moisture wouldn't matter so much. Contrast this with the Bubble Blooper, whose name doesn't suggest anything but what it is; it doesn't bother saying it's a "wet" or "quenched" Blooper.

While that reasoning is nothing more than speculation, it makes perfect logical sense. Use of words is a specific deal, especially in non-English languages. The implication of each form's titles says a lot. Hopefully this settles it one way or the other, because I support merging. Redstar 23:27, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Let us just give set a merge vote on this talk page, and if enough users support the merge, then we come up with the best name possible. Redstar, maybe you should set that up. Baby

Mario Bloops

I have a contradiction. Bowser's body is normally dry, right? The Dried Bloopers only become Bubble Bloopers when Bowser drinks water (constantly), meaning they are in their Dried Blooper form more often. Wouldn't that mean the opposite is true? Dried Blooper possibly is the "normal" form because it is the most occuring state. However, you also make a good point. "Dried" suggests an altered state. We're back to square one. There is no way to prove which form is the "normal" one.--Knife (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2009 (EST)

I sort of disagree. I wouldn't say Bowser's body is ever "normally dry" at all. Our bodies are like 80% water, right down to the last cell. Our insides our mostly fluids, or hardened fluids, composed of water. The natural state of all living things is technically "wet". If Bubble Bloopers are to become Dried Bloopers, it's because Bowser himself is dehydrated, which is forcing the Bloopers into an unnatural state. Redstar 00:58, 22 December 2009 (EST)

I don't think you can apply human biology to this situation, especially since Bowser is a fictional character. However, if you do want to throw biology in here, there is another contradiction. The area where the Bloopers are located is in Bowser's throat (or Pump Works). Why would the throat constantly be filled with water? I imagine Bowser would have difficulty breathing. Remember that Bubble Bloopers only exist when they are submerged in water.--Knife (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's not human biology, it's biology for all life on Earth. Water is the fundamental element necessary for all terrestrial, if not universal life. As for Bowser's throat: as I noted above, "hardened fluids", such as mucuses, as well as general moisture. The throat isn't exactly dry when you're not drinking. Finally, I wouldn't say that Bubble Bloopers only exist when submerged in water, but that Dried Bloopers only exist when outside the water. Redstar 02:34, 22 December 2009 (EST)

The Bubble Bloopers exist only when they are submerged in water, not when there is simply moisture. This can be proven in two ways. One, their attack pattern suggests that they need a high level of water to attack (most of their attacks involve floating to the top of the screen). Second, if they only need moisture, why do they immediately turn into Dried Bloopers when Bowser stops drinking water? Obviously, there would be leftover moisture after the water recedes. As for the name implication, there are still inconsistencies. Bubble Blooper's Japanese name is Mineral Blooper, which makes no sense. Also, Dried Blooper's name in Spanish is Land Blooper. Finally, I would like to state that I am not debating that Dried Blooper is the "normal" form, but rather showing that there is not strong enough evidence to prove which is the "normal" form.--Knife (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It doesn't even say for sure that it is located in the throat, I thought in the game they said something like the stomach, but anyways, (this may or may not help) but I agree with Redstar, Bubble Blooper has to be the orginial state. For one - Bubble Blooper is who you first see inside Pump Works, not Dried Blooper. Two - my guidebook only shows stuff about Bubble Blooper (with no Dried Blooper pics) and only mentions it saying after Bowser steps away from the statue. It has to be Bubble Blooper, because of my reasons and Redstar's reason. Baby

Mario Bloops

Wait a minute... do you have a Prima guide? If so, is there an enemy glossary? If Dried Blooper is listed under Bubble Blooper or not listed at all, that would be proof enough that Bubble Blooper is the normal form. It hardly matters which form is encountered first though. In most cases, the true form of an enemy is revealed after something happens to it.--Knife (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2009 (EST)

If it's listed/not listed in the Prima guide as stated, then that should settle it. Redstar 17:16, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, it is the Prima guide, and yes, it doesn't show or talk about Dried Blooper nearly at all. In the list of stats in it, it only shows Bubble Blooper. It only mentions Dried Blooper in this note in the guidebook:

Bubble Bloopers don't disappear when Bowser has backed away from the Sea Pipe Statue. They just shrivel down a bit. They have the exact same stats in battle, though. Their attacks are similar, except that they are more like spears and must be jumped over to avoid them instead of swatted with a hammer.

I think that means that Bubble Blooper is the base form, since it only states that they shrivel down, after its Bubble Form. That is all I can state right now. Baby Mario Bloops

On that note, if the Prima guide doesn't mention Dried Blooper by name, then is it possible that it's not even an official name? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Oh no, Dried Blooper is the official name of the thin blooper, just not really even mentioned in my guidebook. It says it in the game, just no where in my prima book really...and it doens't even mention Dark Mechawful.5 besides a small note paragraph after Dark Mechawful. Maybe we should merge that too! lol Baby

Mario Bloops

So right now, it is 5-0 with supports winning, and a sysop supporting this, so do we have enough votes to merge the pages together yet? If we do, can I do it, or does a patroller/sysop/bureaucrat have to do it? Baby

Mario Bloops

Because of Tucayo's urgings, you need to wait another week. Redstar 18:22, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Tucayo, if you read this, it has been over two weeks since this proposal has been up. I don't know why, but do you think we can settle this now? Baby

Mario Bloops

Settled :) --™ The 'Shroom 19:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Split Bubble Blooper and Dried Blooper

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.

split 7-1
So, these are two separate enemies with different appearances, stats (okay, just speed), and names (in every region), but they were merged solely because one turns into the other. What. Even if you wanted to argue that they're the same thing, why are Bubble Bloopers the "default" form, seeing as how they only exist when Bowser's constantly drinking water? Overall, there's no good reason for these to stay merged, especially considering the other pages we have for different enemy forms.

Proposer: Niiue (talk)
Deadline: September 15, 2017 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Niiue (talk) Per proposal.
2. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
3. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) I was confused when I first saw this page. Per Proposal.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
5. Yoshi the SSM (talk) This is not split? Per all.
6. Toadette the Achiever (talk) We have Hermite Crab and Hermite Crab R split for a reason. Per all.
7. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Because it's the same thing as with Peps, and splitting them would be inconvenient for all involved. And Troopas should stay all to one page, because there is just so much shared information with them. It would make more sense to split Dribble and Spitz or Young Cricket and Master Mantis than either of those.

Comments

Aren't they just two different forms of the same enemy? We don't split Green Koopa Paratroopa and Red Koopa Paratroopa. 09:35, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

We've split Paragoombas from regular Goombas, despite them turning into Goombas when hit. We've also split Mr. L from Luigi, despite them being the exact same person. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 09:40, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

You can't just cite a piece of logic after someone refutes it without backing it up yourself. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 10:06, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

Heh. These are very obviously one and the same, but then again, so are Mr. L and Luigi. My example has two different enemies, yet we classify them the same. Your example, however, has the games themselves classify them as separate characters, whereas M&L:BIS does not do that with this enemy. 10:14, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

The game literally gives them different names, much in the same way a Paragoomba's name changes to Goomba when it loses its wings. How is the game not classifying them as separate enemies? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 10:17, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

I had a thought and I went with it. That's all. Perhaps the two Koopas could be split later in the future if that's the logic you're going by. 10:31, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

Rule 5 gives me probable cause to point out flaws in other users' arguments. If you're going to continue to use an argument with issues and fail to reasonably respond to critiques, then I have the ability to point that out and strongly encourage you to clarify your position. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 10:34, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

That's fine. For this case, they are two different forms of the same enemy and they move back and forth between them. A Goomba can't become a Paragoomba when it loses it's wings. So while a Bubble Blooper can become a Dried Blooper and vice versa, Goomba to Paragoomba doesn't work. That's my clarification.

Honestly, I've been thinking about splitting the two Koopas (and possibly Paratroopas) for a while now, and the pages are so large that they could use the split. Perhaps I'll do that soon. 10:40, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

So it's a Paragoomba that can regrow its wings after it loses them. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:14, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

There are 2 instances that I can think of right off without searching deeply into the games (though I still search the two games, but the more important one doesn't have it on the article) for Koopa Troopas. The first one is less obvious. It is Mario Sports Superstars. In Soccer, they are like this, but so is Boom Boom and Pom Pom and a few others. But others aren't. Kind of like a mix. So, this does not help. In Baseball, they are listed separate. But so are a few others. This is why the game helps little compared to the next one. Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS in Yamamura's Lessons mentions that they are separate, being even called Red Koopa Troopa and Green Koopa Troopa. And why they have differences. And this goes for Koopa Paratroopas as well, though being called Red Paratroopa and Green Paratroopa. And this is an enemy that you shake in Super Mario Maker to change back and forth. Though, Paratroopas take more than just a shake, as shaking once just removes the wings. With this one alone, is enough to think about splitting them. These are about alike as the Yoshis. I said about due to some differences like game appearances. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

@Alex95 The Troopas shouldn't be split, and especially not the Paratroopas. The main reason is that despite the "rules" that have been set for their behavior, they often subvert that, especially the Paratroopas in SMW and the NSMB series. Those had such wonders as vertically flying Green Paratroopas and laterally flying and jumping Red Paratroopas. Another reason is Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. Due to it being greyscale, we just don't know what color they are. They act how the red ones should act, but the official artwork (which is recycled) depicts them as green. And let's not get started on the complete lack of consistency between generic red and green Cheep Cheeps. And more importantly than all of that, there's too many appearances, too many pages that would have to be updated, to even make that 0.3% worthwhile an endeavor. They have appeared in nearly every main game, spinoff game, et cetera. And how would Paper Mario and TTYD be handled in that regard? There's too many questions, it's too large of an endeavor, and it would just make things even more inconvenient. Generic Troopas should stay merged. There's a reason the previous split proposals failed for it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2017 (CT)

@Doc: Why would splitting the Peps be inconvenient? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:53, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

Because they're the same basic thing, they switch every other turn, and there's so much overlap with them. It's just adding more loading screens between information. Particularly when you'd like to access that information all at the same time, and the bestiary doesn't have bios with the entries. And as I said before, alt-colored Troopas should not be split, because there would be too many edits (read: Near-infinite) to go into it, not all behaviors are remotely consistent (looking at you, NSMB Paratroopas), and there's too much overlap. We don't have a page for every alt color Smash or Mario Tennis features, and before that gives you any crazy ideas I'll say that they certainly shouldn't. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2017 (CT)

@Toadette: It's less comparable to having Durmite and Wisdurm spilt than it is to have Wisdurm and Durmite (small) ((ie the one that Wisdurm switches back and forth between during the battle)) split. Which we don't. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:06, 2 Septemver 2017 (CT)

How about Nooz? You going to try and split it as well? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

That's not really comparable, seeing as how the game doesn't treat them like different enemies (e.g. both colors have the same name). Niiue (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

I'm just worried regarding the slippery slope with this. As I pointed out earlier, we don't have "Wisdurm" and "Durmite (small)" separated, nor Alpha and Beta Kretin, and they're bosses/characters. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't see anything wrong with splitting Alpha/Beta Kretins. Niiue (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

And I think that the characters, that have actual relevance to the plot, should be split first. And the whole "Different name in all languages/different appearance entirely/different behavior" thing didn't persuade people to split Mega Mole from Morty Mole after they were illegally merged. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

I'd be in favor of splitting Mega Mole/Morty Mole again. Niiue (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

..."illegally"? LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Without a proposal or hard evidence they were the same. If I spontaenously merged Goombo and Micro-Goomba due to the fact that Super Mario Galaxy Micro-Goombas looked like Goombos and they have similar-meaning Japanese names, pretty sure that would be against the rules. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

But we just had that proposal. Granted, it was after someone else had decided to perform the merge on their own accord, which they shouldn't have been done since it was certainly contentious enough for a formal proposal (and to be fair, likely wouldn't have brought it to anyone's attention had it simply been left alone), but the subsequent proposal itself rectified that and was done fairly by the books, with more votes plainly siding that the reasons for it were stronger than against it. There was a rather long-winded yet critical discussion and everything. As a general rule of thumb, it's advised to refrain from revisiting the same old proposals unless you can present new information that wasn't originally in there that you think will change people's minds or else you risk burnout in all parties - which is precisely why it took so long after Super Mario Maker to recently merge Parabuzzy back with Para-Beetle. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

As I said, it should have been proposed before the merge, thus making the proposal-less merge against the rules. While it was later decided through proposal that they were the same, that does not change the fact that the initial merge shouldn't have happened. Also, new information has been brought to light, namely that the Japanese names have been confirmed to be vastly different, and that the artwork was indeed concept artwork given it was featured in at least three sources from around the same time (Mario Family, that Japanese activity book, and the Mario Character Encyclopedia). These both add to my original point of "They look nothing alike, they act nothing alike, the only similarity is them being an abnormally-large Monty Mole". The sole even remotely valid argument for them to stay merged that I can think of at this point is an internal filename that people aren't intended by the creators to see. Similarly, I think, for following official documentation's sake, we should split "Swoop" from "Bat (Super Mario Galaxy)," since they have vastly different designs, are named different in all relevant languages, and are just as similar as Rocky Wrench and Monty (Super Mario Galaxy), which are split. The thing with Bubble Blooper though, is that from an execution standpoint, it's better to be able to see both sets of stats on one page without having to go to another or getting lost in the bestiary.Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

This page you're referring to and its artwork (with the rather tongue-in-cheek file name) do not tell us anything new or compelling. The book is from the mid-90's, at roughly the same time frame or era as Perfect-ban: Mario Character Daijiten, so of course it's before Goropoo's time. At best, it would just be used as another cited source for Indy, after Super Mario World; at worst, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The Japanese Indy/Goropoo name difference was also already known and made sufficiently aware of during the proposal, so I frankly find it disingenuous to suggest otherwise. There are even examples where the more obvious name changes aren't taken into account in the Character Daijiten listings (and for that matter, Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.), which would be horrendous for the wiki's organization if we took that at face value. This merely retreads some of the same points, though - anyone is free to go back and read it through to reach their conclusions. As for the person who originally took the so-called "illegal" (illegitimate?) action of moving the article, my guess is that it was just assumed that it was considered clear-cut enough; either way, there's no reason to dwell on it anymore. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

I agree with LinkTheLefty on that accord. ^(T|C) 01:32, 9 September 2017 (EDT)