| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 82: |
Line 82: |
|
| |
|
| == Consider the ''Super Mario Maker'' games a design cameo rather than a full appearance - take 3 == | | == Consider the ''Super Mario Maker'' games a design cameo rather than a full appearance - take 3 == |
| {{Settled TPP}} | | {{TPP}} |
| {{Proposal outcome|failed|8-16|Do not consider a design cameo}}
| |
| 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 ''search''ing, not be the ones that do NOT do that.<br> | | 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 ''search''ing, not be the ones that do NOT do that.<br> |
| Also, same other reasons I previously brought up: | | Also, same other reasons I previously brought up: |
| *They're called Cheep Cheeps by the in-game labels and voices (unlike [[Galoomba]]s and [[Goombud]]s which are treated differently from [[Goomba]]s and [[Goombrat]]s in both cases, as well as [[Jumping Piranha Plant]] from [[Piranha Plant]]) | | *They're called Cheep Cheeps by the in-game labels and voices (unlike [[Galoomba]]s and [[Goombud]]s which are treated differently from [[Goomba]]s and [[Goombrat]]s 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 - in all other cases in these games, the variants always go second (like [[Fire Piranha Plant]], [[Blooper Nanny]], and [[Boo Buddies]], for example). Cheep Cheeps are ''not'' derivative of Blurps or Deep Cheeps; it is the other way around. | | *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." | | *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.<br> | | *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.<br> |
| 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. It would obviously be very lopsided to just do one but not the other, so that's why this covers both. (Also from what I can tell, the actual SMW Blurp animated really fast, and this doesn't... though that might apply to the "red" ones as well.) | | 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. |
| | |
| ;Clarification of precedence
| |
| Putting this on the record, this is following the same argument as
| |
| *Not every [[Lakitu]] with a fishing pole is a [[Fishin' Lakitu]]
| |
| *Not every [[Nipper Plant]] that breathes fire is a [[Fire Nipper Plant]]
| |
| *[[Jumping Piranha Plant]]'s sprites are used for normal [[Piranha Plant]]s in ''[[Yoshi (game)|Yoshi]]''
| |
| *[[Chomps Jr.]]'s sprites are used for [[Chomps]] in ''[[Donkey Kong Land]]''
| |
| *[[Piranha Plant]]'s usual design is used for [[Piranha Plant (Pit of 100 Trials)|a variant]] in TTYD (with a localization inconsistency we acknowledge)
| |
| *[[Cleft]]'s design is used for [[Moon Cleft]] in TTYD, then reversed back to normal Cleft for SPM (with a localization inconsistency we acknowledge)
| |
| Also there's the established [[Talk:Bomber Bill#Hotel Mario|"judgement call we shouldn't be making"]] principle in regards to contradicting the only sources on the matter we have; in this case in-game explicitly calling them Cheep Cheeps.
| |
|
| |
|
| '''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br> | | '''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br> |
| '''Deadline''': <s>September 18, 2024, 23:59 (GMT)</s> September 25, 2024, 23:59 (GMT) | | '''Deadline''': September 18, 2024, 23:59 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| ===Support=== | | ===Support=== |
| #{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per | | #{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per |
| #{{User|Hewer}} 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. | | #{{User|Hewer}} 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. |
| | #{{User|Nintendo101}} 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. |
| | #{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all. |
| #{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} 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. | | #{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} 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. |
| #{{User|PrincessPeachFan}} Per. If they don't chase, why are we calling them Deep Cheeps? | | #{{User|PrincessPeachFan}} Per. If they don't chase, why are we calling them Deep Cheeps? |
| #{{User|EvieMaybe}} seems reasonable | | #{{User|EvieMaybe}} seems reasonable |
| #{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
| | #{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all. |
| #{{User|Blinker}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Metalex123}} Per all.
| |
| <s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>
| |
| | |
| <s>{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.</s>
| |
| | |
| <s>{{User|Nintendo101}} 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.</s>
| |
| | |
| <s>#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Deep Cheep's one defining feature is that it chases after the player. It's even in its Japanese name. Strip it away, and you're left with a {{file link|SMM-SMB-DeepCheep.png|green Cheep Cheep}} that frowns. The Mario Maker instance of this frowning Cheep can be safely covered in the "Similar enemies" section of this article like it is done with the faux Deep Cheeps from Yoshi's New Island.<br>The SMW-style "Cheep Cheep" is different, as it looks like a Blurp, acts entirely like a Blurp (swims forever forward), and it being called "Cheep Cheep" in-game isn't incorrect.</s>
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Oppose=== | | ===Oppose=== |
| Line 127: |
Line 109: |
| #{{User|Mario}} 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. | | #{{User|Mario}} 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. |
| #{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. | | #{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. |
| #{{User|Ray Trace}} Per all
| |
| #{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}}Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Shoey}}Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I intially supported the first two times around, but i've been thinking about it... And upon thinking further... Per all.
| |
| #{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Waluigi Time}} 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.
| |
| #{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} The way it's written in both articles is good enough for me, and as usual I'm not responding to any counter comments.
| |
| #{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Honestly, I agree with many of the points that this proposal is making when it comes to Deep Cheeps, and if it were affecting Deep Cheeps alone, I would vote in favor of it. It seems based on the references to Blurps and on the title on the main Proposals page, that this is trying to include Blurps, as well. If I'm incorrect on that, do correct me. I disagree with lumping Blurps in when they're appearing with a distinctive design.
| |
| #{{User|Nintendo101}} My feelings have changed. If this proposal just encompassed Deep Cheep, it would have my support. It is not just a green-colored Cheep Cheep - it is defined by its ability to chase the player in the same way [[Bull's-Eye Bill]] is. But that is not true of Blurp, who retains all of its behaviors and functions from past appearances in ''Super Mario Maker''. The fact that it is just called a "Cheep Cheep" is of secondary importance to function and form, in my view. By contrast, if the situation was inverted, and it was the angry green-colored Cheep Cheep that chased the player in the ''New Super Mario Bros. U''-style but was still just called "Cheep Cheep" in-game, I would still think it should be recognized as a Deep Cheep.
| |
| #{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Looks like I wasn't paying enough attention to the proposal. I thought it would only affect Deep Cheep, but I disagree with giving the same treatment to Blurp.
| |
| #{{User|TheDarkStar}} - Per all.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Comments=== | | ===Comments=== |
| Line 148: |
Line 118: |
| :::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. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:50, 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. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 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. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 15:23, September 9, 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. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk: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 (game)|Yoshi]]'', or [[Chomps Jr.]]'s sprites being used for [[Chomps]] in ''[[Donkey Kong Land]]'', or that thing with [[Piranha Plant (Pit of 100 Trials)|Killer Packun]] or [[Moon Cleft]]. Either way, there's precedence. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:49, September 15, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::What trait is and what isn't weird for being left out is subjective. Remember that Scattering Blooper is more common than Blooper Nanny in Mario 3, so by that it should be weird Baby Bloopers don't scatter because it's such a common trait - that's why I call it an irrelevant metric. And you call it "convolution" only to bring up examples all over the franchise to call for precedence. In case of Maker series, the games it bases its styles on are relevant as source material. Which brings us back up SMW "Brick Blocks" which set their own precedence for this wiki to consider it a full appearance for Spinning Blocks regardless.
| |
| ::::::::::Also, keep away from editing the proposal text. This is like the third time I've seen you do this, it's always happened when you're losing, and I've seen you given an exception only for the first time. If you have something new to add, keep it in the comments. Your desperation to see this pass is no excuse. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 11:19, September 22, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::Well the comments are bloated so I doubt it'd be seen, but either way I always make sure to keep it clear what's new (in this case, I created a bolded subheader with the word "clarification" in it) so it doesn't look as though it was there from the beginning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:01, September 22, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::::That's just your unwarranted self-importance talking. Anyone can make an argument they feel compelling, but you making your additions to the proposal text - which aren't limited to the addendum - implies trying to undermine what others, opposition especially, want to say by trying to making it seem like everything important needed to know is where the reader would first set their eyes upon and take it in full stride. And those edits are well past the alloted time for rewriting the proposal text. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 14:37, September 24, 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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:31, September 8, 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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:31, September 8, 2024 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Line 193: |
Line 153: |
| :::::::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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:25, 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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 14:56, September 9, 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? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:08, September 8, 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. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 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? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 11:34, September 15, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::They still squirm and jump, so they still "dart around" in some manner. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:12, September 15, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :There are mechanical differences between Galoombas in the SMW style and Goombas of the other styles, so I could understand the desire for further clarification. I think it is more comparable to "Goomba Shoe" vs. "Yoshi", though to a less extreme degree. Same with Jumping Piranha Plants. For Cheep Cheeps, the behavior does not change regardless of style, so greater clarification for players is not necessary. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:31, September 15, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::Spike Traps, tho (Also, Troopas and Bones also change behaviors for the SMW style, and they obviously keep their names). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:39, September 15, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :::Those are fair observations, and I don't want to be too speculative, but I think they did that because the Koopa Troopas and Dry Bones just ontologically are the same exact critters present in the other styles, and have always gone by those names. What else would they be called? If the Dry Bones in ''Super Mario World'' was, say, an undead Rex, I suspect they also would have changed their names if the player switched to that style... but they aren't. They are Dry Bones. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:44, September 15, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Hence the "obviously" part. These being ''intended'' as the Blurp-Deep-whatevers but not being called as such (or in Deep's case, functioning as such) seems lopsided regardless, especially given they consciously made green the "base" version rather than the more iconic red. Had they been switched around and red was the basic one and green pursued while jumping (or swimming, but they don't in the final anyway), I'd have a much harder point to push. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:51, September 15, 2024 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| {{@|Hooded Pitohui}} - Yes, Blurps are included, but it would be lopsided to include one but not the other. Cheep Cheeps already had an alternate Blurp-like design in ''Yoshi's Island'' and ''Yoshi's Island DS'' alongside the more "standard" design, though, and there's the point of [[Chomps]] using [[Chomps Jr.]]'s sprites once. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:26, September 18, 2024 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| {{@|Nintendo101}} - In that case they probably ''would'' have called them Deep Cheeps, corresponding "Search Pukupuku" with "Search Killer" (itself in the game as the alter to Bullet Bills, unlike here where the red chase/back-and-forth Cheeps are the alter to the green forward-oblivious Cheeps). Either way, I wouldn't be as gung-ho about this if they chased. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:51, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| One thing I do want to note: all the underwater Cheep Cheeps in the ''Maker'' games, regardless of style, take more from Blurp functionally than they do from Cheep Cheep. Namely, the gentle bobbing as they swim (though the slow animation is still more Cheep Cheep-like). Cheep Cheeps never really did that in any of the games covered by the ''Maker'' series; they tended to go either straight horizontally or swim in a wavy pattern that actually changes their direction. And either way, Nintendo has retroactively lumped species together before; some of the more obvious were how "Upside-Down Piranha Plant" and "Upside-Down Buzzy Beetle" were treated as distinct enemies in their respective first appearance, but were lumped with their basis almost immediately after and never looked back. Similarly, there was "Bloober with kids" and "Scattering Bloober" being combined into [[Blooper Nanny]]. Both of these examples were so early we never split them in the first place (and they've never been walked back in any of the later games), but for this subseries' case, they really do seem to want them to just be viewed as the most basic of Cheep Cheeps (moreso than the traditionally basic red ones) rather than as any variations. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:47, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :Doc, for clarification, do you think Blurp looks as morphologically different from normal Cheep Cheeps in ''Super Mario World'' and other mainline games as a Fishin' Lakitu does from normal Lakitus? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:41, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::Considering Cheep Cheeps resemble Blurps in several of the Nintendo 64 games, I don't see that as an issue. Please note that you can't actually apply the "green" palette to Cheep's SMW sprites without it looking awkward because they use not the red palette, but the yellow palette (which itself fits with their Blurp-like SM64 appearance). To say nothing of the "Piscatory Pete" Cheep Cheeps in SMW2 and YIDS looking like a combination of SMW's Cheeps and Blurps, while existing alongside the "Flopsy Fish" ones with a more traditional design. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:57, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Discussion time==
| |
| Like on [[https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Bubble_Dayzee#Merge_with_Crazee_Dayzee:_The_second_part]], why are people so interested in opposing the proposals to consider it a design cameo? They only share the same looks and are literally called Cheep Cheeps and even in Japan, they're called Pukupukus and not Search Pukupukus. [[User:PrincessPeachFan|PrincessPeachFan]] ([[User talk:PrincessPeachFan|talk]]) 15:42, October 20, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :This has been proposed and failed three times now and even the staff are exhausted over it. Look at the opposition and you'll see there are more reasons than those for it being opposed and I'm getting a sense of bad faith from your comment. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 15:53, October 20, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::Yeah, as the proposer for each of those, I see no reason for this discussion point other than to beat a dead horse. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:56, October 20, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :I cannot speak for fellow staff. Their views are valid. But for me at least, it was the inclusion of [[Blurp]] in the proposal. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:24, October 20, 2024 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Similar appearances==
| |
| Could we get rid of the Similar Appearances, please? It's merely just describing green Cheep Cheeps as in saying "These Cheep Cheeps are green and could be similar to Deep Cheeps". [[User:PrincessPeachFan|PrincessPeachFan]] ([[User talk:PrincessPeachFan|talk]]) 09:00, October 22, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| I deleted the similar appearances part and just briefly put down how Green Cheep Cheeps have appeared years before Deep Cheeps and how the former's coloration may have inspired the latter's coloration like how on our article for [[Gloomba]] we state how their color is reminiscent of the Goombas in the underground levels in the original [[Super Mario Bros.]] However, if anyone does restore that part, I have no problem. [[User:PrincessPeachFan|PrincessPeachFan]] ([[User talk:PrincessPeachFan|talk]]) 19:52, October 23, 2024 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Mario Maker Design Cameo, Hold The Blurp==
| |
| {{Settled TPP}}
| |
| {{Proposal outcome|passed|7-1|classify Deep Cheep's Mario Maker appearance as a design cameo}}
| |
| Before anything else, I want to acknowledge that folks seem to be, quite understandably, tired of talking about this fish. I get why that's the case, and after reviewing previous discussions to prepare this proposal, I share in that feeling. For that reason, I'm going to try to keep this brief.
| |
|
| |
| As the previous proposal played out, I noticed a few users, myself included, either indicated support for or cast an initial vote of support for the Deep Cheep portion of the proposal while expressing reservations about it including Blurps or changing their vote upon realizing it included Blurps. In light of that, I thought it '''worthwhile to give the proposal one go ''without'' Blurps included'''.
| |
|
| |
| The aim of this proposal is to reclassify Deep Cheeps' appearance in ''Super Mario Maker'' and ''Super Mario Maker 2'' as a "design cameo". The effect of this will be relatively minor, only changing the labels on a couple images in the SMM/SMM2 galleries and tweaking the SMM paragraph on the Deep Cheep page to say something along the lines of "In Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS, and Super Mario Maker 2, green Cheep Cheeps use the design of Deep Cheeps in the New Super Mario Bros. U game style. Though sharing the design of Deep Cheeps, they do not chase Mario, swimming endlessly in a straight line like all other green Cheep Cheeps in these games."
| |
|
| |
| Why would we make this change? That rests on two main points. One, the game itself refers to the enemy exclusively as "Cheep Cheep", and two, these enemies do not exhibit the chasing behavior which distinguishes Deep Cheeps from other green Cheep Cheeps. Doc presented a nice succinct list of evidence of these two points in [[Talk:Deep_Cheep#Consider_the_Super_Mario_Maker_games_a_design_cameo_rather_than_a_full_appearance_-_take_3|her previous proposal]], so I will re-present those here.
| |
| <blockquote>
| |
| *They're called Cheep Cheeps by the in-game labels and voices (unlike [[Galoomba]]s and [[Goombud]]s which are treated differently from [[Goomba]]s and [[Goombrat]]s 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 - in all other cases in these games, the variants always go second (like [[Fire Piranha Plant]], [[Blooper Nanny]], and [[Boo Buddies]], for example). Cheep Cheeps are ''not'' derivative of Blurps or Deep Cheeps; it is the other way around.
| |
| *They just move forward in all styles, again averting the "search" aspect of "Search Pukupuku."
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| Now, to quickly address some potential points of concern:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>Enemy behavior frequently changes from game to game, and where there are inconsistencies, it's better to base these decisions off design.</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| While I broadly agree with this and I think Waluigi Time raises a very good point with his Porcupuffer example, I would make the case that Deep Cheeps are a rare case where emphasizing design over behavior isn't the best criteria, and I make that case because regular green Cheep Cheeps exist. With something like a Porcupuffer, there is nothing else it could be so long as it maintains its design. A Porcupuffer could dance a jig, and it still couldn't be mistaken as anything else. With Deep Cheeps, they're entirely identical to a regular green Cheep Cheep except for angry eyes. If we ever have an emotive Cheep Cheep or Deep Cheep on our hands, we'd best use behavior as the distinguishing factor, or we'll have quite the hard time distinguishing them!
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>This creates inconsistencies with Blurps or certain types of Blocks referred to be generic names in-game.</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| I wouldn't say it creates an inconsistency with Blurps because Blurps in SMM/SMM2 retain their design ''and'' behavior. In past appearances, they swam forward endlessly. Here, they swim forward endlessly. When it has both the same design and same behavior, I'd call that a full-on appearance. It looks like a duck ''and'' quacks like a duck, so even if the game doesn't explicitly call it a duck, we can.
| |
|
| |
| As for other potential inconsistencies, such as the Blocks SmokedChili brought up in the previous proposal, while they do demonstrate well why we should be cautious about trusting the in-game voice and labels alone, I'd say they're in a similar boat to Blurps. They retain their design ''and'' function and aren't visually indistinguishable from other items. Thus, we can confidently continue to identify them as making a full appearance.
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>Isn't this a whole lot of hoopla for a proposal that will affect, at most, four sentences and a few image labels?</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| There is no rebuttal or counterpoint to this one! It sure is! I think it's honestly fine if this goes either way, and I'm ready to see this discussion rest. Like I said, I just thought it would be wise to give this a go without the Blurp effect attached, since that did seem to change things for a number of users in the previous versions of this proposal.
| |
|
| |
| '''Proposer''': {{User|Hooded Pitohui}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline''': November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
| |
|
| |
| ====Support====
| |
| #{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal. Good summary and write-up.
| |
| #{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Fillet the freak.
| |
| #{{User|Hewer}} I'd still rather include Blurp as well for consistency, but I guess this is better than nothing.
| |
| #{{User|PrincessPeachFan}} Clean up.
| |
| #{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|EvieMaybe}} per propoisson
| |
|
| |
| ====Oppose====
| |
| #{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} per like the previous seven proposals on this subject. the facts haven't changed, and neither should this page.
| |
|
| |
| ====Comments====
| |
