Talk:Koopa (species)

This sure happened fast! I can't tell from the history when exactly this page was created/separated from Koopa Troopa? Goomb-omb

Short Descriptions

The page is rather ugly by being nothing more than a list. Considering there's a short description of Bowser's "species", would it be a good idea to add a single paragraph to each type of Koopa so we'll have some idea of what they are besides their names? Redstar 22:53, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Good point. Maybe we should. User:Dry Paratroopa/sig

I can just copy-paste the initial paragraph of each page over here and do a little re-write... Nothing more than a summary is necessary. Thumbs of the pictures might also be nice, but that's not as important, I imagine. Redstar 23:15, 27 November 2009 (EST)

I added text to each section, taking from the corresponding articles' initial paragraphs and re-writing a tad. I also re-formatted the initial paragraph of this article to get rid of the wall-of-text, and removed Mecha Koopa from the list due to their artificial nature and thus not fitting the profile of the Koopa species. Feel free to discuss anything you'd like to improve on or revert back. Redstar 03:44, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Merge with Koopa Troopa

Honestly, I don't get the purpose of this page. Everything in this page is covered in Koopa Troopa. The sub-species list on the page isn't even complete, the Koopa Troopa page's sub-species list is way longer. Another problem is that the Koopa Troopa page clearly states that Koopa Troopas are usually known as Koopas. So, in short, aren't these two pages talking about the same species? YL

No Koopa Troopas are the main species of Koopas however this article covers the major Koopa species also i suggest you read this proposal [1] Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

What he said, although this page could still use some work. I still like my annotated list idea; maybe I'll actually get around to proposing it this year... - Walkazo 23:50, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Bowser's Species

How do people know that Boom Boom and Pom Pom are part of Bowser's Species? These two have been the only odd ones out on the unique traits of Bowser's species. First of all, Bowser's species have their whole body shown, with their shells on their back and have a padded stomach in the front. You can clearly see their arms and legs connected to their body as if they aren't wearing a shell (The article for some reason doesn't mention this trait). Boom Boom and Pom Pom don't have this trait, instead they have their shells as their whole body and you can see that from the fact that their arms and legs stick out of their shells. Additionally, these two have also been the only ones to lack spikes on their shells, another notable trait of Bowser's species. (Pom Pom especially, has debuted with no spikes and has so far only appeared in SM3DL).

So it really makes me hard to believe that Boom Boom and Pom Pom are a part of Bowser's species if they lack these traits. Is there a source that confirms them to be part of Bowser's species or did people just assume they were a member of Bowser's species? - Smasher345 14:31, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Boo/Shy guy

It is possible that boos are undead koopas and that shy guys have some sort of Koopa like creature under their masks.RPG Gamer. I HAVE RPG!! (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2013 (EDT)

It is possible, but seeing as there is no proof this shouldn't be noted Yoshi876 (talk)

Per above: it's speculation.

Shokora (talk · edits) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (EDT)

Koopa = Kappa?

Kappa are Japanese Turtle/Duck like demons that live in/near water. They come up through the toilet to suck out people's intestines through their butt. Aside from the gross factor, this seems reasonable, given Mario's plumbing theme.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.237.210 (talk).

I personally feel that Kappas did influence at least some aspect of Koopa design (namely, Hammer Bros., with their bipedalism and beaks; as opposed to the original quadrupedal, basic turtle-looking Shellcreepers and Koopa Troopas), however, I don't know if we have any solid facts to back this up, and until we do, we can't speculate about it on the articles. On the other hand, we do know that the "Kappa"/"Koopa" name similarity is a false lead, as "Koopa" is only Bowser's name in the original Japanese (the other things we call "Koopas" in English have a variety of names, like "Nokonoko" for basic Koopa Troopas), and actually derives from a kind of Korean soup - not from the Kappa myth at all. - Walkazo 19:44, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Now it all sums up!

Nobody seems to understand... OH! It seems that Koopas are like... OH! Okay... So, are Shellcreepers actually Koopas? --WhiteYoshi2014 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2014 (EDT) "If we know how to make a 1-up, can we make a shell?" WhiteYoshi2014!

Pretty much, yes. - Walkazo 23:14, 4 July 2014 (EDT)

Koopas

Are Dry Bones their own species? Or are they considered Koopas, too? --WhiteYoshi2014 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2014 (EDT) "Yoshi Blargg here!"

They're undead skeleton Koopas, but they're also their own separate group of enemies. - Walkazo 23:14, 4 July 2014 (EDT)

Koopalings' species

In the article it states that the koopalings are the same species as Bowser, Bowser jr. and the koopa kids, but I'm fairly sure that isn't true? The koopalings don't have horns, and it can't be an age thing, because Bowser jr. does, so unless they're all younger than Bowser jr. (which I find hard to believe, especially Ludwig), they can't be the same species. They're also smaller than Bowser's species it seems, Bowser jr. is taller than Lemmy and close to the same height as Larry, Ludwig and Wendy, so again either they're younger than him, Bowser jr. grows incredibly fast, or they aren't the same species. Input?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.227.6.208 (talk).

Probably wrong then Per below. J-Luigi (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

This is just speculation. What if horns are just like, a recessive gene or dominant gene or something? All of what you're inferring is that some certain physical traits are inconsistent, when they can be explained by speculative genetic traits. What we had was that they were Bowser's children, but currently now a minion of Bowser. In fact, Koopalings have more similarities to Bowser than anything else, so it is logical to infer that they belong to the same species. Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:30, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

Or it could be like dogs, and how they're so variable in shape and size, yet are the space species and can interbreed, with muts often looking different from one (or both) of their parents - so it works whether or not the Koopalings are Bowser's offspring. But yeah, the main, non-speculative thing here is that they were created to be his kids which mean they were created as Dragon-Koopas (or whatever you wanna call the unnamed species, but this is what I use, because why not), which means they are still Dragon-Koopas - they weren't redesigned that much, after all. That's the simplest, and therefore best, stance on the matter. - Walkazo 20:40, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

I'd also like to add that Baby Bowser lacked horns. So there. Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:13, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

Emphasis on lacked. Baby Bowser was retconned in Yoshi's Island DS, now he does. I guess it is possible they're a different "breed" or something, but even going by that there shouldn't be a Dry Bones section and a Para Dry Bones section 'cause Para Dry Bones could just as easily be a different "breed" too, not to mention Beach Koopas, which seem to me to just be shell-less Koopa Troopas (which they're shown to be in Super Mario World), so it makes no sense that the Koopalings, who have more physical differences to Bowser than Para Dry Bones to Dry Bones or Beach Koopas to Koopa Troopas, would still be considered the same species as him. Still, just spectulation.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.227.6.208 (talk).

Also, as far as I know, they weren't originally actually his children and it might have been a translation error from japanese to english, since kokuppa can either mean Koopa's child, child koopa, or small koopa (I'm not entirely sure about this, though). Either way, facts are they aren't his kids, so it doesn't work as a reason in my opinion.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.227.6.208 (talk).

How "species" is used around here is often very woeful if you're hoping for scientific accuracy (i.e. this page isn't actually about a singular Koopa species). They use familial terms in Japanese material too, and either way, it was such a key aspect of their portrayal in the English versions of the games and tie-in media, it would be inappropriate to call it a mere "error" - lots of things differ from version to version, and we consider it all to be factual. We also don't toss out the old stories and appearances and whatnot when newer information contradicts them: we consider and convey all the facts. You can personally believe what you like, but the wiki's stance is that they're the same species, and this will not change any time soon. - Walkazo 16:01, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, I said I wasn't sure about the translation error thing, just thought it was worth mentioning. I just feel like nearly the only reason they're still considered the same species is because they were Bowser's children before, which even then doesn't necessarily mean they're the same species, adoption's always an option. And it's not me trying to shove my believes or something down your throat, and I'm terribly sorry if it comes off that way, I'm just saying that they're officially, according to canon, not Bowser's children. Of course, you can still headcanon they are, that's up to you, it's still possible for loop holes or aus or something, but that would just be a headcanon, while the other is completely canon and more appropriate for the wiki. And it still doesn't make sense that species with more similarities to each other than the koopalings to Bowser get their own section while the koopalings don't. Again, I'm not trying to argue and/or I'm sorry if I come off as rude, I just want to discuss ! !

PS. I feel like this is getting pretty long, is there any way to fix that? I don't want to take up half the page, thanks
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.227.6.208 (talk).

Uhm... was this solved? I'd kind of like to solve this...
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.227.6.208 (talk).

Well they look enough the part to be considered the same species as Bowser, with the most difference being their hairstyle and lack of said horns. We already mentioned that there could be genetic variation among the lack of horns. Both ways are speculation, but since the Koopalings still do look like Bowser, it can be reasonably concluded that they are the same species. Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:13, 12 October 2015 (EDT)

Also, old sources specifically said the Koopalings were Bowser's offspring (i.e. biological children): the adoption idea has never been anything more than pure fanon and has no place here. And just because Nintendo's current story is that they're unrelated doesn't invalidate the old story, so stop talking about "canon" in that sense: the wiki doesn't work like that. As I've said in both my earlier comments, the "same species" story is the simplest one and the wiki will not be changing its stance on the matter; if you want to keep debating about headcanons and fanons, join the forum. - Walkazo 15:33, 12 October 2015 (EDT)

@Baby Luigi, Yeah I mean I acknowledged that, but I mentioned the thing with beach koopas and para-species, so could I have some input on that instead? Thanks!

@Walkazo, I never said it was canon they were adopted, heck I don't even headcanon them as his children at all, I just mentioned it since you insisted they must be the same species because they're supposedly his kids. And I'm not debating my headcanons, like I said I don't really care if you think they are his kids or not I'm just saying you can't claim it as canon when it's not, besides, if anything, them being his children is what's fanon, since Miyamoto has literally stated they are not his children, anymore, meaning it is not canon, anymore, so it is a more reliable source and, imo, more suitable for the wiki. Also, going by the logic "once canon always canon" it's also safe to assume that Bowser is canonically grey and has no horns and Clawgrip's name is canonically Crawglip. By the way, could you actually show me these sources? The Japanese ones and the ones calling them offspring (especially the latter, it just feels like an out of place word...), that is. I mean I don't doubt you, I'm just curious. Also, I kind of feel like it isn't very fair to just decide what the wiki will and will not do by yourself, admin or not? It's a co-operative wiki, after all, but that's just my opinion, maybe. Again, sorry if I sound rude, and for how terribly lengthy this is getting!! (I would join the forum, however I do that, but I'm not here for headcanons like you said and it's about this specific page so...?)
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.227.6.208 (talk).

Yeah, I am staff, but I'm actually just speaking from over eight years of experience in how this wiki handles its often-conflicting info, and my knowledge of wiki policy in general (namely MarioWiki:Canonicity, which is basically "everything is canon", with discrepancies merely being noted, not deemed "non-canon", so enough with your "it's not canon anymore" arguments: 'round here, they're wrong). Plus, two other users were saying they're the same species even before I started posting, so it was never just me "unfairly" deciding what we do here by myself. Everything I've referred to is on the Koopaling page - read it. But again, this all boils down to the basic fact that the old story depicts them as the same species as Bowser by default (not adoption, not hybrids, nor any other baseless speculation, just the basic, non-reading-between-the-lines story of parent and children), and while the new story overrules the old one's familial stuff, it does not, in any way, contradict the assertion that they're still the same species, so in the absence of information to the contrary, we should stick with the information we were given, and continue to call them all one big, happy species. Anything else is adding speculation and unnecessary complication, and thus, running contrary to wiki standards. - Walkazo 18:45, 13 October 2015 (EDT)

As for Beach Koopas and Paratroopas, those are explicitly their own species, with their own name. Koopalings don't have that distinction: the term "Koopaling" is a collective grouping term like the name of a musical band rather than a species name. The only times they're referred to as their species is under the broader species, "Koopa", but it's pretty obvious that they're not the exact same species as the typical Koopas you encounter, so that's why we lump them into their own category of derived species. It's not the perfect way, but it's the best thing we could do about it right now. Ray Trace^(T|C) 19:23, 13 October 2015 (EDT)

@Walkazo, Ok? Sorry, I guess I misunderstood how the wiki works? I still find it really weird how everything could possibly be canon canon, but alright? Still though, if everything is canon that means they both are his kids and also aren't, meaning both are canon (the later also implying they are not his offspring), so? I don't know, I guess it can stay, but I still find it very odd considering them being his kids is the only basis I see right now, as far as I've understood, but both are canon so? Could we at least add a maybe to the koopalings being the same species because of this, since one canon says they are the same species and another showing no proof of it, explaining the differences (since there are quite a few, as I've pointed out)? Thanks and sorry for my confusion!

Some Kinda Party

"Koopa Troopas have appeared in almost every game, usually as enemies, but also as playable characters or party members."

OK, the wording "party members" kind of throws me off, given that can very well mean something else that Koopa Troopas have also been in multiple games. So just to clarify--are we for certain referring to a Mario Party thing as the word "party" was hyperlinked, or was this sentence actually meant to refer to partners in a party? --71.61.215.222 11:50, 5 March 2016 (EST)