2,750
edits
Template talk:Goombas: Difference between revisions
m
→Comments
m (→Comments) |
|||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
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) | :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) | ||
::I'm not sure the distinction between "subtype" and "inspired by" is particularly useful. Hell, it's not even always consistent (just look at Snifit), or even particularly obvious (Shymore). [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 12:54, April 27, 2024 (EDT) | ::I'm not sure the distinction between "subtype" and "inspired by" is particularly useful, though. Hell, it's not even always consistent (just look at Snifit), or even particularly obvious (Shymore). [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 12:54, April 27, 2024 (EDT) | ||
To be honest, the goal of this proposal kind of sets a precedent for usage of the "Relatives" section going forward, in that if a species that is considered distinct enough from the parent species and doesn't have any explicit connection to it (i.e. has significant visual differences, but similar behavior and name, like with Beanie), then they could go under relatives. ''Technically'' the [[Template:Species infobox|species infobox template]] requires that the relatives field be used only for "an entity with a variant-type relationship with the subject in which it's not clear who is the variant of whom (if either), such as [[Spoing]]s and [[Sprangler]]s." (something that I didn't take into consideration when I made those edits to Galoomba and Goombrat). | To be honest, the goal of this proposal kind of sets a precedent for usage of the "Relatives" section going forward, in that if a species that is considered distinct enough from the parent species and doesn't have any explicit connection to it (i.e. has significant visual differences, but similar behavior and name, like with Beanie), then they could go under relatives. ''Technically'' the [[Template:Species infobox|species infobox template]] requires that the relatives field be used only for "an entity with a variant-type relationship with the subject in which it's not clear who is the variant of whom (if either), such as [[Spoing]]s and [[Sprangler]]s." (something that I didn't take into consideration when I made those edits to Galoomba and Goombrat). | ||