Talk:Deep Cheep

Appearance in NSMBU

Do they really appear in NSMBU? I mean, there's artwork of them, but I don't remember seeing any. Aokage (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2013 (EST)

I have the same question, I have indications that appears or in Tropical Refresher or in Porcupuffer Falls or in Swim Your Life! but eh not been confirmed so it's possible it then appears in a next DLC or is in some challenge or a Coin Courses, so for now I will try to investigate if is found in the game, and later I'll give you an answer ok? . Marioyoshi (talk)

So, do they appear at all? --Hiccup (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2015 (EST)

Appearance in Super Mario Maker or not?

When you shake Cheep Cheeps into green ones in NSMBU style they highly resemble Deep Cheep except that they don't chase you why is that?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheHelper1000 (talk).

Yoshi's New Island section shouldn't be here

I honestly can't agree with Green Cheep Cheep in YNI being covered in Deep Cheep page just because of the internal filename when everything else from its behavior to the supplementary sources we have at hand contradict this. This is more like Deep Cheep's files being used as a basis for the green Cheep Cheeps in the finished product, which makes the filename an artifact and should have a trivia note at most. SmokedChili (talk) 05:11, February 9, 2020 (EST)

Stop considering the green Cheep Cheeps in certain Super Mario Maker styles to be Blurps and Deep Cheeps: take 2

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.

Failed 4-9
So I attempted this on the Blurp talk page a while back, it failed mainly because they "still act like Blurp," which while true I do not find a valid reason. The fact of the matter is the green versions are consistently called "Cheep Cheeps" in every style, and River Fish in the Forest's description doubles down on this. Nothing in any of the Super Mario Maker series ever uses the names "Blurp" or "Deep Cheep," only the wiki does in spite of what the games explicitly say. Also, it's not like the games didn't change names between styles and themes for other entities, like Spike Trap becoming Jelectro and Sea Urchin. Furthermore, this can't be a "Search Pukupuku" if it doesn't search. As for the nature of the design, Lakitu in Super Mario Kart reuses Fishin' Lakitu graphics, but we no longer consider that to be an actual Fishin' Lakitu appearance; the same goes for Chomps in Donkey Kong Land using Chomps Jr's design.

Basically, I'm wanting to fix the enemy table and gallery labels on the SMM game pages and simply note on these pages that the design was used for that game, but no longer consider it an actual appearance (similar to how some articles list name appearances on Mario Golf scoreboards).

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: April 30, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per the previous proposal's support. Why don't we call Peach's Daisy color scheme in the older Super Smash Bros. games a full-fledged appearance of Daisy while we're at it?
3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all, and my initial statements. There's no proof they're intended to be actual Blurps and/or Deep Cheeps. Just because they use the same sprites doesn't mean they're supposed to be this specific species.
4. Blinker (talk) Per proposal. I'm fine with the Sand Cheep bridge staying uncrossed for the time being.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) Per the previous proposal's opposition. If something appears, it should count as an appearance.
2. Somethingone (talk) "and River Fish in the Forest's description doubles down on this." - The River Fish in the Forest article literally shows in the infobox that there's regular-styled cheeps and blurps. How do you know it's specifically talking about the blurp-like ones and not the regular ones? And your design point isn't very strong; "Fishing Lakitus" were confused with Lakitus for a long time because they're literally just Lakitus with Fishing Poles, a trait later adopted by many many many normal lakitus. Blurps have a very different color AND a very distinguishable characteristic (the eyeglasses), so they're not going to be sharing designs with normal Cheeps unless Nintendo actually wants to retcon and merge two species into one. I think it's fine to call the ones in SMM/SMM2 Deep Cheeps and Blurps. Also, what about Slave Basa, which is called a Basa but is clearly a Fang variant? What about Sand Cheep which is called a Cheep Cheep but is clearly a Blurp?
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
4. Archivist Toadette (talk) Per previous proposal's opposition, especially 7feetunder's comment about the "intended goal" of the proposal.
5. Mustard Machine (talk) Per all. Somebody needs to figure out if there's a more controversial topic in mariowiki history then goddamn fish.
6. WildWario (talk) Per all.
7. Bazooka Mario (talk) This and the previous Blurp proposal seems to be drastically overthinking this. If there's some weird inconsistency in a game, just take note and move on. Don't see why there needs to be a proposal over this.
8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all, as well as the opposition from the previous proposal.
9. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Somethingone: "The River Fish in the Forest article literally shows in the infobox that there's regular-styled cheeps and blurps. How do you know it's specifically talking about the blurp-like ones and not the regular ones?" Er, no? Try looking down a bit. There is precisely one (1) Big Cheep Cheep. No regular Cheep Cheeps by our definition. Also note that Para-Beetle Transfer, for example, mentions Para-Beetles by name, like Jelectro / Sea Urchin and unlike Blurp / Deep Cheep. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:14, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

That's just a minor technicality. Keep in mind that official sources can sometimes make mistakes. ^(T|C) 13:55, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

I just want to say that the Peach=Daisy in Smash comparison you're making is not a very good one, that is clearly just Peach dressed like Daisy. This however, it's the Blurp / Deep Cheep appearing that happen to be referred to as "Cheep Cheeps". Nightwicked Bowser 13:59, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

The only "mistake" here is openly defying the categorization used by all languages in all relevant games. Note the "all"s. It's not a "minor technicality" if it's consistent. It's not a mistake, it's blatantly a deliberate choice. To defy it therefore, is by definition fanon. Also, I made my (altered) intended goal very clear here in the last sentence. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:25, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Yeah, calling it a "minor technicality" frankly sounds like another way to say not to nitpick it apart, considering that was addressing at least a whole padded line of text of that oppose vote. And not to get off track, but I fully stand by the same Peach/Daisy comparison being perfectly apt here. Look at Daisy's originalMedia:SML Daisy Art.png design. Now look at Peach's Super Smash Bros. recolors. These characters become nigh-indistinguishable, and if the games didn't give us a giant "Peach" label we'd no doubt had had discussions over whether to call her "Daisy" (following that Luigi's Smash voice was initially just Mario barely pinching his nose). By this logic, thisMedia:PMTTYD Mario L Emblem.png is Luigi because he was originally represented as a very simple recolorMedia:MB Luigi Artwork.png. Consider the fact that the new sprites in Super Mario Maker tend to respectMedia:Rocky wrench.jpg older design elements. Same deal; these are aesthetic skins. If it was only one product, sure, maybe that can be let go - but you also have Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS and Super Mario Maker 2 (which corrected Bull's-Eye Blaster), meaning that we're to ignore not one, not two, but three instances of this in a row. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:45, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

I'm not going to get into a debate over this, I most likely won't say anything else, but the TTYD recolor is just stretching it here, especially for a game that has Luigi in it and even has them both appear onscreen at the same time. Nightwicked Bowser 15:17, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Okay then.Media:TwoMarios.png LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:19, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

How does that relate to this discussion? The argument here is that both being on-screen proves they are different entities, it has nothing to do with how many there are. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:25, April 17, 2022 (EDT)

What about Sand Cheep? Its Japanese and English names are both based on Cheep Cheep's, but the wiki treats it as a Blurp presumably because of its appearance. Blinker (talk) 15:18, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Blurp is already derived from Cheep Cheep. Sand Cheep may need reexamined though, admittedly. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:40, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

I'll just leave my overall view on the proposal here. I am unsure which to vote for, however I do think the way these are organised are adequete enough but I wouldn't mind if these sections are rewritten to reflect that these games refer to them as Cheep Cheeps that use the design of Deep Cheeps and Blurps respectively. That would be a much better solution than getting rid of these mentions entirely. Nightwicked Bowser 15:25, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Y'all seem to be focusing on Blurp, despite (or dare I guess, because of) the elephant in the room being that identifying the NSMBU-style ones as "Search Pukupuku" when they by no means search and are identified only as the normal Pukupuku is incredibly disingenuous and misleading. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:57, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Why would they look identical to Deep Cheeps if they were meant to just be normal Cheep Cheeps? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:25, April 17, 2022 (EDT)

To fit with the style's established aesthetic. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 05:29, April 17, 2022 (EDT)

Regardless, if they are Search Pukupuku, why don't they search? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:57, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

Because they're the same situation as Jelectro/Spike Trap; an enemy replacement for one theme that shares the same slot in the gameplay as the enemy they replace. For them to be able to search they would've had a separate menu option/game entity in the game, but according to the files they're palette swaps of the same PukuPukuGreen entity(and Jelectro is the same situation, as the internal name data dump makes no mention of Shibire Kurage). I am removing my vote due to reading this over, but I do want to say that Japanese names aren't always indicative of an enemy's functions/classifications("Cookie" is clearly not edible, "Sweaty Youngster" doesn't sweat in-game, "Peace Sign" isn't peaceful, etc. etc.). Somethingone (talk) 14:51, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

It's the in-game vocals and labels too, Jelectro and Urchin are listed differently from Spike Trap but all green fish are just listed as "Cheep Cheep." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:14, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

Yeah it's inconsistent but I just don't see it as a strong reason to argue at length over. From how I see it, I'm not really on-board trying to enact changes on shaky terms being Super Mario Maker doesn't have these specific lines for these extremely derivative fish and the Japanese name for this generic creature now isn't applicable in this one game and it's evident from the oppose from this proposal and the earlier ones that I'm not the only one who thinks this. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:45, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

It follows the same logic of considering DT's Nipper Plants to be regular Nipper Plants and not Fire Nipper Plant IMO. The design is the only attribute suggesting they might be the other species, and in my opinion that's arbitrary and unconvincing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:16, April 22, 2022 (EDT)

Well we all know Nintendo has played fast and loose with a lot with these, resulting in being arbitrary splits and merges. Why not extremely briefly mention Dream Team's Nipper Plants in Fire Nipper Plant while most of the information is found in the main article? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:01, April 22, 2022 (EDT)

That is precisely what I want to do here. People who've only played SMM are only gonna think of them as Cheep Cheep anyways. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:17, April 22, 2022 (EDT)

@SomethingOne Yes, and we call Heavy Troopa a Paratroopa rather than a normal Troopa. Variants of variants can have names more like the original, and that does not correlate with a base species using a variant's design. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:19, April 22, 2022 (EDT)

Comments

I do get that the Deep Cheep is called Search Pukupuku in the Japanese Super Mario Maker, but if this guy from the Super Mario Maker games acts like Green Cheep Cheeps and are called that in game, then we should merge these two articles instead of the whole "they have Deep Cheep's appearances, ergo they should stay separate" (which to me is becoming increasingly common on the wiki). PrincessPeachFan (talk) 08:10, May 1, 2022 (EDT)

Actually my point is it's not called "Search Pukupuku" in SMM, but just "Pukupuku" - making it indeed just Cheep Cheep. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:51, May 1, 2022 (EDT)

So, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck and should be merged. (And I've noticed a fair few proposals have been opposed due to the fact that the characters have the same look even though they have the same Japanese names such as Bubble and Crazee Dayzees). PrincessPeachFan (talk) 15:13, May 1, 2022 (EDT)

I argue that "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" is also paradoxically applicable here too, especially provided the overall inconsistent relationship between Japanese and English names (I do not believe Japanese names are reliable indicators on deciding to split/merge; developers in Japan also probably had a similar approach of playing fast and loose with names) throughout the wiki that does sometimes necessitate editor judgement call. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:32, May 1, 2022 (EDT)

So, if you don't believe that Japanese names are reliable indicators on deciding to split/merge, then we should merge Blue Coin/Silver Coin from Super Mario Bros. 3 with the DDKR Silver Coins and re-merge the Ice Snifits, right? The point is, these "Deep Cheeps" are just Green Cheep Cheeps and furthermore, the Green Cheep Cheeps have the exact same file name as Deep Cheeps in Japan. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 12:56, May 2, 2022 (EDT)

Japanese names are not always the ultimate decider for merging and splitting things, and I think you're missing the point a bit with the situation here. As I said during the proposal, I'm personally a bit indifferent about the whole thing but the opposition stated that it was from the Deep Cheep/Blurp design being used that constituted as an appearance, languages didn't have much to do with it. The Bubble Dayzee/Crazee Dayzee thing however, from what I can tell the matching Japanese name was the only strong reasoning for merging, whereas the enemies themselves behave differently which is why the proposals failed and we are leaving them split (and this is from them appearing in the same game; the Paper Mario appearance isn't very relevant there). I should also point out, we currently have a proposal going on solely drawn from the Japanese name that is most certain to pass, which is a case of mistranslation. Nightwicked Bowser 13:32, May 2, 2022 (EDT)

Why would we even merge the DKR Silver Coins based on Japanese names when that game isn't even from Japan? If we decided everything based on Japanese names, then Vanna T. would be merged with Toadette, and Boo Guy's Partners in Time info would be moved to Greaper. 13:37, May 2, 2022 (EDT)

PrincessPeachFan: I didn't say Japanese names should be disregarded, but more like they aren't a consistent piece of information to rely on when deciding to split/merge/rename articles; i.e. sometimes they're good crutch especially supported by other evidence, but not all the time. Clarification: the Chestnut King matter is more clear-cut due to every other language sharing the same name as each other barring English and the weird inconsistent English translation aspects of Thousand-Year Door making that English name even more suspect. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:27, May 4, 2022 (EDT)

Consider the Super Mario Maker games a design cameo rather than a full appearance - take 3

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: Thursday, November 14, 2024, 14:12 GMT

I know I've proposed this before, but I recently came across a major reason why the angry green Cheep Cheeps that use Deep Cheeps' design in the Maker games NSMBU style are not Deep Cheeps themselves: namely, when hopping, the green ones do not chase, and the red ones do. If these were meant to be "Search Pukupuku," they'd be the ones doing the searching, not be the ones that do NOT do that.
Also, same other reasons I previously brought up:

• They're called Cheep Cheeps by the in-game labels and voices (unlike Galoombas and Goombuds which are treated differently from Goombas and Goombrats in both cases, as well as Jumping Piranha Plant from Piranha Plant)
• They're treated as the "basic" ones while the red ones are treated as the secondary kind - it wouldn't make sense for an explicit variant to be used as the "normal" kind.
• They just move forward in all styles, again averting the "search" aspect of "Search Pukupuku."
• The SMW-styled River Fish in the Forest calls the "Blurps" in it "Cheep Cheeps," lumping them with the singular red Big Cheep Cheep in the stage.
  

The obvious reason they used Blurps' and Deep Cheeps' designs for those styles is the graphics for them already exist from the base game (as the resident "green fish" enemy) and most players won't care about the difference anyway. We can mention the design is used on Blurp and Deep Cheeps' pages, but saying that they are Blurp and Deep Cheep is disingenuous (and perhaps outright dishonest) when the game is very insistent that they are simply Cheep Cheeps.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 (GMT)

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. Hewer (talk) Although I have a history of opposing this, I've thought about it more since last time and have since changed my mind. If they wanted them to be considered Blurps/Deep Cheeps, they could easily have called them that, which they even did with Jelectros and Sea Urchins despite them being functionally identical to Spike Trap. Per proposals.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. Deep Cheeps are not just color iterations like past green Cheep Cheeps. Deep Cheep is to Cheep Cheep what Bull's-Eye Bill is to a Bullet Bill. A chaser. That is its defining trait, and without that, I agree it is more accurate to recognize it as a cameo.
4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Wait, Blurps aren't named as such in the Super Mario Maker series? If they actually used that name, I'd oppose, but given they're called Cheep Cheeps in all cases, along with the other points, I can support this.
5. PrincessPeachFan (talk) Per. If they don't chase, why are we calling them Deep Cheeps?
6. EvieMaybe (talk) seems reasonable
7. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.
8. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
9. Blinker (talk) Per all.

DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Oh, no, not again! I will give credit that this proposal has one new argument, but this is still one massive piece of speculation and the only way for me to ever support this is for Nintendo to confirm it, which they haven't. Nintendo is usually quite clear on stuff like this and would not make it confusing for people to assume otherwise. For example, there is no confirmation on whether the Chancellor and the Minister are related to each other or if Kaptain Skurvy is a Kannon despite implications. There needs to be official word proving that these are not the actual entities, which there never has been. The River Fish in the Forest course's description is rather vague and it's not clear what Cheep Cheeps mean in this case (are they referring to the fish in the pond, is it the offscreen Cheep Cheeps, or was this even a localization choice to mention Cheep Cheeps?) and it's technically not wrong anyway; Blurps are indeed Cheep Cheeps and so are Deep Cheeps. It's just generic terminology being used here. It's weird; I have no argument for what that is the case. However, that doesn't prove that these are cameos of these enemies and I always just thought it was because the people who worked on these games probably forgot to change their names in the progress. That is speculative, but so is saying they aren't. Occam's razor, anyone?
2. SmokedChili (talk) By the proposal's logic, it would also be dishonest of this wiki to consider Brick Blocks and Spinning Blocks fully appearing in Maker games when there are only "Blocks" that have their respective appearance and function. And so to answer Doc's question below, if the games are playing fast and loose with whether they're actually Brick Blocks and Spinning Blocks, so must we also consider the waters being muddied for SMW/NSMBU green Cheep Cheeps being exactly that instead of Blurps and Deep Cheeps.
3. Mario (talk) This and the previous Blurp proposal seems to be drastically overthinking this. If there's some weird inconsistency in a game, just take note and move on. Don't see why there needs to be a proposal over this.
4. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
5. Ray Trace (talk) Per all
6. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk)Per all.
7. Shoey (talk)Per all.
8. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
9. FanOfYoshi (talk) I intially supported the first two times around, but i've been thinking about it... And upon thinking further... Per all.
10. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
11. Waluigi Time (talk) Seems more intuitive to organize based on the design when there's inconsistencies. Enemy behavior can change on a whim (see also, Porcupuffer suddenly acting like Cheep Chomp/Boss Bass in SMM2) and, as already pointed out, calling them Cheep Cheeps isn't technically incorrect anyway.

Comments

@TheUndescribableGhost - How on Earth is the games themselves literally calling them "Cheep Cheep" at every opportunity not "Nintendo confirming it?" Occam's razor in this case would be to follow what it says. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:46, September 5, 2024 (EDT)

@SmokedChili - Not quite the same. What is treated as the most "basic" type of block varies game-by-game already (sometimes it's Empty Block, sometimes it's Hard Block, sometimes it's ? Block, sometimes it's some mish-mash) and in any case "block" is a shorthand of their main name; not the case for these. Also, those at least keep their respective behavior, unlike the angry green Cheeps. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:05, September 7, 2024 (EDT)

Plus, I'm pretty sure Brick Blocks and Rotating Blocks were called that in the original Mario Maker and had their names changed to just Block in 2, unlike the green fish being consistently called "Cheep Cheeps" in all three Mario Maker games. There's plenty of differences between the two cases. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:29, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

Whether they're an exact match or not is irrelevant. To amend my point on Maker series, while they've always been called "Blocks" in English, they are called "Renga Blocks" in Japan, Spinning Blocks included. There's also Boos becoming Stretches but still being called "Boos". In other words, Maker series has a habit calling select objects something else than they are, and given how this Wiki sees these cases, this proposal would cause an inconsistency on that. SmokedChili (talk) 13:27, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

You're bringing up the other cases to suggest that they are analogous to this case, so of course it's relevant if they're actually not. The green fish are unlike what you've brought up in that they consistently have neither a naming distinction nor a functional difference from Cheep Cheeps. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:50, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

Wrong. "Renga Block" is Brick Block's Japanese name, and since Spinning Block is also "Renga Block" in SMM series in Japan, then those games never had Spinning Blocks, they only have Brick Blocks because they said so. Try pushing that fact and see if this community goes along with it or sticks to questioning the games by claiming they're still Spinning Blocks. SMW style Brick Blocks acting like Spinning Blocks is on the opposite end of green Cheep behavior pasted on Blurps and Deep Cheeps, and yet the latter are as questionable on appearance alone. Thus, it's irrelevant if they're analogous or not. SmokedChili (talk) 15:23, September 9, 2024 (EDT)

He's not wrong; he said a naming distinction -or- a functional distinction, of which that case has the latter. These fish don't. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:39, September 9, 2024 (EDT)

Yes he is wrong and so are you. We don't need every minute detail examined to come to resonable conclusion. Occam's razor here is that the name of some parts belies what they are based on, and that raises the question if the games' naming can be trusted. Is it Spinning Block bearing Brick Block's name or Brick Block looking and acting like Spinning Block? Is that SMB3 style Hard Block taking Wood Block's appearance or Wood Block bearing the name "Hard Block" and losing its unique bumper trait? And outside the Maker series, this proposal would provide precedence for moving the Boo in a Box to Boo article, because for its very bare size difference, it is in-game only a Boo. SmokedChili (talk) 14:20, September 12, 2024 (EDT)

Most Wood Blocks in SMB3 didn't have the bumper trait anyway, only a few did. Also, I'm obviously talking about distinction between styles, not between games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:19, September 12, 2024 (EDT)

A trait is a trait. How often it's expressed is one of the most irrelevant metrics. And of course you only consider styles. If you had to acknowledge games as well, your arguments would be open for more deconstruction. SmokedChili (talk) 14:46, September 15, 2024 (EDT)

It means the trait not being there at all isn't weird in the slightest, a weird outlier not appearing again doesn't mean much (see: the Paragoombas who flew high above and dropped Mini Goombas from the same game). And it's less "deconstruction" and more "convolution" considering how wide things are portrayed between games - keeping it to how THIS game portrays THIS keeps things focused, not what some other random game does with a similar asset. But if you must know, it's the same principle as "not every Lakitu with a fishing pole is a Fishin' Lakitu" or "not every Nipper Plant that breathes fire is a Fire Nipper Plant." See also Jumping Piranha Plant's sprites being used for normal Piranha Plants in Yoshi. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:49, September 15, 2024 (EDT)

Stretch also has the weird situation of it being determined by how close to the ground it's placed, so it's going to share the designation by default - you select it before you place it, after all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:31, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

These proposals are exhausting and the persistence of these I really really do not like. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

I'd consider what the proposal is aiming for shouldn't need proposed because I'd consider it common sense, not "overthinking." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:10, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

If the proposal was common sense, I believe it probably would have passed sooner, so I assume folks have good reasons for not supporting it. Doc, I should have asked this beforehand, but how would Super Mario Maker info be integrated into the Deep Cheep and Blurp articles if this proposal were to pass, and how would it be reflected in the main Cheep Cheep article? - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:08, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

I'm so glad you asked. Anyways, like I said, it's just my personal belief that it should be common sense, not that it objectively is.

Deep Cheep article:

"In the New Super Mario Bros. U style of Super Mario Maker and its follow-ups, green-colored Cheep Cheeps take the appearance of Deep Cheeps. However, they are listed simply as Cheep Cheeps in all contexts, and act exactly the same as normal Cheep Cheeps (swimming or hopping in a single direction rather than chasing); they are also treated as the "basic" Cheep Cheeps relative to the red ones, as with every other game style."

Blurp article:

"In the Super Mario World style of Super Mario Maker and its follow-ups, green-colored Cheep Cheeps take the appearance of Blurps. However, they are listed simply as Cheep Cheeps in all contexts, and are treated as the "basic" form of Cheep Cheep relative to the red ones, as with every other game style."

Cheep Cheep article:

[General information goes here] "In the Super Mario World and New Super Mario Bros. U styles, green Cheep Cheeps recycle graphics from Blurps and Deep Cheeps, respectively. However, they are still consistently identified as Cheep Cheeps and treated as the basic type of the enemy regardless of style, rather than as variants, and their behavior remains consistent between styles."

Cheep Cheep gallery:

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (Super Mario Bros. style)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (Super Mario Bros. style)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (Big Mario version)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (Big Mario version)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (Super Mario Bros. 3 style)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (Super Mario Bros. 3 style)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (Super Mario World style, takes Blurp's appearance)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (Super Mario World style)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (New Super Mario Bros. U style, takes Deep Cheep's appearance)

• 

  Super Mario Maker
  (New Super Mario Bros. U style)

-Pretty much like that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:18, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

That generally seems fine. It is not wholly erasing the enemies' appearances in these games while recognizing they are more like cosmetic cameos. This is nitpicky, but I personally may deemphasize including persuasive phrases in these articles and take a more neutral, observational approach. For example, for Deep Cheep, I would probably write:

In the New Super Mario Bros. U style of Super Mario Maker and its follow-ups, green-colored Cheep Cheeps take the appearance of Deep Cheeps, but they do not exhibit their invasive behavior from past appearances and are explicitly recognized by the game as normal Cheep Cheeps. Like the green Cheep Cheeps of other styles, they swim or hop in a single direction. As with all green Cheep Cheeps, they are the default color in the New Super Mario Bros. U.

Including the Blurp and Deep Cheep sprites in the main Cheep Cheep gallery seems fine to me, but I would still keep them in the respective gallery sections for Blurp and Deep Cheep. It is a visual appearance of those enemies in those games. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:42, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

It is also worth considering that Deep Cheep and Blurp are not in the same exact situation in these games, and it is why I initially did not realize Blurp was even incorporated in this proposal. Deep Cheeps are chiefly defined by their behavior, and they likely did not retool many New Super Mario Bros. U assets for Super Mario Maker. Super Mario World is different, because they have no means of loading the engine or assets for those games - they likely included the material with deliberate intent, so it is not accurate to say it is probably not accurate to say it is recycled. And more importantly, Blurp still behaves the same way in Super Mario Maker as it did in Super Mario World. "Cheep Cheep" may be employed here in a broader sense than other games to clearly communicate what is available to players across styles, and that while Blurp may be referred to as a "Cheep Cheep" in the description for a level, that is not necessarily incorrect or indicative of anything because if Blurps are a type of Cheep Cheep (which the name Bukubuku seems to indicate is the case), than they can be referred to as one in the same way an ocelot can be referred to as a cat.

This does not exactly change anything because it is not like Super Mario Maker is being scrubbed from the Blurp article, and information that would be incorporated is not incorrect. However, I may ease my stance for that specific enemy. For Blurp, being green Cheep Cheeps does not mean they are not legitimate Blurps, especially if they retain the same behavior. - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:02, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

I dunno, that wording actually looks more persuasive in my opinion, what with words like "explicitly" being used. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:50, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

Those are just my two cents! I see the world "explicitly" as a neutral way to convey what the game is conveying, rather than an author inserting their personal perspective. But write however you want. What are your thoughts on the remarks I have made about Blurp? - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:35, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

I think that if they wanted them to be Blurp specifically among the Cheeps, they'd most likely have called them that (like they do with Jumping Piranha Plant unless I am really tripping), but regardless of any inconsistencies there, it makes the most sense to do this the "once and only once" way when describing enemy appearances and behavior rather than needing to describe how they act on multiple pages because of a shared design. Especially when linking from the main Maker pages. The River Fish in the Forest thing is what really cinches it in my opinion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:25, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

I agree with Nintendo101 in regards to the "persuasive"-ness. I think it has less to do with the specific wording and more just the structure of the paragraph. I dunno, it's hard to explain. I've also gotten this feeling in regards to some of your merge test pages, so I know I'm not imagining things. I think the reason Nintendo101's example feels more natural is that instead of every reason for them being considered Cheep Cheeps being clumped into what reads like a counter-argument, it opens with a sentence simply explaining things, and everything else is presented in the form of matter-of-fact statements ("As with all green Cheep Cheeps, they are the default color in the New Super Mario Bros. U."). Does that make sense? Blinker (talk) 14:56, September 9, 2024 (EDT)

I suppose? Still not sure I agree that that makes it any more or less "persuasive" than I thought, but to each their own. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:43, September 9, 2024 (EDT)

@Mario: Personally I think it's perfectly reasonable for this to get proposed again seeing as the last attempt was well over two years ago, and I'm glad it did since I've changed my mind on the matter in that time. The fact that the support option is winning this time shows that the situation has changed since it was last proposed. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:08, September 8, 2024 (EDT)

So, um, after two years, what are the thoughts on the situation with Sand Cheep? The main reason I supported the previous proposal was the game calling the Blurp-looking enemies "Cheep Cheeps", after all, so where does that leave fellow looks-like-a-Blurp-but-is-called-a-Cheep-in-all-languages Sand Cheep? Blinker (talk) 12:33, September 10, 2024 (EDT)

Sand Cheep looks like a Blurp of another color, even in remakes, and I would personally not feel comfortable with asserting it is not a variant of Blurp. I do not think the name of an enemy should be considered the sole deciding factor for interpreting the relatedness of enemies. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:58, September 10, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't think Sand Cheep's name changes anything (especially since that was a differing developer originating in a game where things tended to look funky anyway). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:11, September 10, 2024 (EDT)

@Opposition Please answer me this. If it doesn't search -and in fact exists next to red ones that do search- why would we consider it to be "Search" Pukupuku? That doesn't make sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:24, September 15, 2024 (EDT)

To play devil's advocate, plenty of depictions of Monty Moles don't run around (although at least those are still called Monty Moles). Blinker (talk) 11:34, September 15, 2024 (EDT)

They still squirm and jump, so they still "dart around" in some manner. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:40, September 15, 2024 (EDT)

The "calling them Cheep Cheeps isn't technically incorrect" argument bothers me. Mainly because they do specify the type between styles for Galoombas, Jumping Piranha Plants, and even Sea Urchins. Why wouldn't they also do that for these if they were meant to be a "specified" type, or just say "Goomba," "Piranha Plant," and "Spike Trap" for those aforementioned ones, which would also be "technically" correct? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:12, September 15, 2024 (EDT)