Talk:Blurp

History section

Template:SettledTPP Template:ProposalOutcome This article appears to have enough information to add a History section, and right now I think that it looks a bit awkward without one, so should this section be added?

Proposer: LED42 (talk)
Deadline: "September 18, 2017, 13:00 GMT"

Support

1. LED42 (talk) Per proposal.

SMM games and Cheep Cheep

So in the SMM games, the Blurps are called Cheep Cheeps, made more blatant by the River Fish in the Forest SMM2 mission. Anyways, I'm starting to think that instead of listing these as "actual" Blurps, we should list them as Cheep Cheeps that look like Blurps to fit with the game's aesthetic. A reskin cameo, if you will. Given that Cheep Cheeps already sometimes looked like Blurps in some N64 games, it's not that much of a long shot anyways. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:21, March 3, 2020 (EST)

Yeah, I'd be okay with calling them Cheep Cheeps. Niiue - Who has lost his tail? 03:22, March 3, 2020 (EST)

Yeah, probably, if the Japanese version doesn't recognize them either. -- FanOfYoshi 05:17, March 3, 2020 (EST)

To be fair, it's not completely incorrect - the Blurps and Big Cheep Cheep are only one degree away from normal Cheep Cheeps after all - so it could be a holdover of the previous game not giving verbal cues to all variants, like how text doesn't match the voice for Jelectros and Sea Urchins. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:03, July 23, 2020 (EDT)

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

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, November 12, 2024, 00:52 GMT

See above (this affects both Blurp and Deep Cheep). In SMM/2's SMW and NSMBU styles, the designs of Blurp and Deep Cheep are used to stand in for the green Cheep Cheeps in fitting with the bases of said styles. However, they are always treated simply as Cheep Cheeps (and it doesn't even act like Deep Cheep in NSMBU style). This proposal aims to reflect that: treating these as normal Cheep Cheeps that, for stylistic reasons, happen to resemble Blurp and Deep Cheep and not being Blurp and Deep Cheep themselves. They would not be completely excised from the pages, as the usage of their designs can be noted in an "other appearances and references" section.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 18, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per proposal. I don't think sprite = the species it's supposed to be.
3. HappyToad (talk) Per FanOfYoshi. Because the game always called these stylistic variations of Cheep Cheeps "Cheep Cheeps," it had never even crossed my mind while playing the game that they were something different.
4. Blinker (talk) Per all. Seems like a similar situation to, say, Fishin' Lakitu.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) This seems a lot like arbitrarily picking and choosing what does and doesn't count. The way I see it, if it's in the game, then it should count as an appearance. Also, what about Jelectros and Sea Urchins being design changes for Spike Trap?
2. Swallow (talk) Per Hewer, it's still a physical appearance regardless.
3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per all. If they weren’t meant to be Blurps, they wouldn’t be Blurps.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Does the same apply to Galoombas in the Super Mario World style? Nightwicked Bowser 06:09, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

No, the warbly voice actually says "Galoomba" there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:36, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

I can understand treating them as regular Cheep Cheeps if the game treats them as such, but why not keep the Mario Maker sections, and just word them in a more "in X theme, Cheep Cheeps appear as Y" kind of way? Blinker (talk) 14:19, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

I guess we could, but Deep Cheep already has an "other appearances" section for something similar. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:36, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

@Opposition The warbly voice says "Jelectro" and "Sea Urchin" for that. It says "Cheep Cheep" for this. Also check out the description for River Fish in the Forest. It's not arbitrary, it's following the game's lead to a T. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:36, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

Still, I feel that an appearance is an appearance and we shouldn't get into semantics about what does and doesn't count. They probably only called them Cheep Cheep to avoid confusion, as having a similar-looking and identically-functioning enemy to a Cheep Cheep but calling it something else would probably just confuse people unfamiliar with Blurps and Deep Cheeps (the Galoombas actually differ in function and Jelectros and Sea Urchins look much more different to Spike Traps, so the same doesn't apply to them). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:53, October 8, 2021 (EDT)

I always saw "Other appearances" as a section where we list appearances of things in media we don't cover on the wiki. So far it’s been a pretty inconsistent deal, though, as such sections may also cover things like cameos in Mario-related games. For the record, we definitely should draw a line somewhere on what to put in such sections and what to allocate their own game sections. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:48, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

"If they weren't meant to be Blurps, they wouldn't be Blurps." Considering that the green palette does not work on SMW Cheep (it uses the yellow palette), using the sprite of the resident green fish as a stand-in makes perfect sense. Additionally, the NSMBU ones don't even act like Deep Cheeps (ie Search Pukupuku), so I cannot believe they are "actual" Deep Cheeps. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:37, October 9, 2021 (EDT)

So what you're saying is that, since there was no existing green pallete for SMW Cheep Cheeps, the developers naturally gravitated towards another fish-based species from that game that fit the behaviour intended for green Cheep Cheeps in Mario Maker--i.e. swimming uninterrupted in one direction. Yeah, they're still Blurps through and through. Green NSMBU Cheep Cheeps are a different deal as they do not have the behaviour of Deep Cheeps, so there'd be no grounds for concluding they are meant to be one and the same. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 04:08, October 10, 2021 (EDT)

There's the thing: the game treats the "Deep Cheeps" in the same manner as it does the "Blurps," so we can't really have one without the other on this. Additionally, I want to point out that in all styles, the "green" is treated as the basic version and needs to be changed to access the red, the importance of which is that said basic form is always considered just Cheep Cheep. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:53, October 10, 2021 (EDT)

The game doesn't treat anything as a Deep Cheep because no such enemy exists within Mario Maker--the Cheeps that swim unwavered in the NSMBU style only superficially resemble Deep Cheep without retaining any sort of distinguishing feature from them, such as their characteristic homing behaviour or something as little as their frowning expressions. This is not comparable to the case of SMW green "Cheep Cheeps", who are not only designed to hearken back to the generic underwater enemy of that game, but also behave identically, which is enough to safely construe them as actual Blurps. Your second point ignores the fact that many Mario Maker course elements can be changed into distinct things, such as Rocky Wrenches having to be shaken in order to obtain a Monty Mole (or vice-versa, I don't remember); it's by no means indicative that two elements sharing a slot are meant to be one and the same. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:52, October 10, 2021 (EDT)

Eh? The NSMBU-style green Cheeps absolutely have the Deep Cheep "angry" eyes. And I did not ignore that, I specifically noted the game has it "always considered just Cheep Cheep," and the same cannot be said for Rocky and Monty. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:01, October 11, 2021 (EDT)

I must admit I didn't check whether what I said about the green Cheeps was true, only going by my untrustworthy memory. Sorry about it. Regardless, should we go down the route of "these are not actual Blurps/Deep Cheeps", what real impact would it have on the way we currently handle our coverage of them? Your proposal advocates putting these design cameos in a general "Other appearances" section, but as I said above, these sections tend to have a rather inconsistent scope between pages, and I believe this is something we must sort out before deciding if relevant information about a subject should stay in its own section or be relocated somewhere else on the same page. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 02:13, October 11, 2021 (EDT)