Talk:Hammer Bro
Boss?
If Hammer Bro. was a boss, wouldn't it say Super Mario Bros. 3 on the boss page?
They aren't bosses, just enemies. They walk about the Map Screen at times, and if Mario touches one, he'll battle it. 3D
Hammer Bro. was a boss in Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix but it the boss page it mentions their first apperance not their first apperance as bosses. Understand? Paper Jorge
I wouldn't call it a boss in DDR. It was the first stage in the world. Hisak 18:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Hammer Bros. are bosses in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars though. -- Son of Suns
Name
Is Hammer Brother the official name? I've only seen it reffered to as "Hammer Bro." Marcelagus (T • C • E)
In addition to being mention in a couple of Mario Party mini-game descriptions, Hammer Brother is the longer version of a Hammer Bro..Knife (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
I've read a few manuals (SMB3, etc.) they called them Hammer Brothers, same with the Fire Brothers, Boomerang Brothers, Sledge Brothers. -- Sir Grodus
I Have A Hammer Brother Map Icon Picture from SMB3 (GBA version)
I took a couple pictures of the Hammer Brother Map Icon from SMA4 (Super Mario Advance 4) with my camera phone. as soon as i learn how to upload them to the computer, i could submit them. is the map icon neccessary or useful? From, Ninja Lucario
If it is extremely bad quality, it may be removed (which is the case with most camera phones :P. While it isn't necessary, it would be useful.Knife (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
I have 2 different ones. as i've said, as soon as i figure out how to upload them to the computer i will submit them. Ninja_Lucario
change of plans: i will take new pictures with a digital camera and my Game Boy Player (it turns out i dont have the cable for my phone). i'll take the pictures and upload them sometime this week
sorry for the inconvenience,Knife
Ninja_Lucario
No dot.
In Mario Party DS, "Hammer Bro" is spelled without the period. Change the title, spelling, et ceterah? NMRodo
- Nope. Mario Party DS is the only game to call them Hammer Bros without the period. Now if another game calls it that...Then maybe it'll be valid.
Why does He like Music?
Why did he choose to take over Toadette's Music room? Is he a musician? User: Mecha-Boss Unit
"Sub-Species"
Can I ask why Boomerang Bro, Fire Bro., Sumo Bro., etc are considered "sub-species" of Hammer Bro.? If they were hammer-wielding, boomerang throwing/fire-spitting, sumo-wrestling enemies then, yes, I suppose they would be. The only connection between the two are they have "Bro." in their name and they specialize in some weapon or technique. I would think they'd be sub-species directly from [[Koopa]s rather than Hammer Bro. The only true sub-species of Hammer Bro. would be Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro., Calm Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro., Calm Hammer Bro., Dark Hammer Bro. and maybe Sledge Bro.. Is my reasoning right, or...? Redstar 10:18, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- The Boomerang Bro. and Fire Bro. have the same shell, same helmet, overall same physical appearance as the Hammer Bros. except for their colour, and they have a similar movement/attack pattern aside from the weapon they use and are found guarding treasure chests in SMB3 just like the Hammer Bros. - and they are, in fact, listed as Hammer Bro. variations on Japanese Wikipedia. I've never thought of the Sumo Bro. as being related to the Hammer Brothers in any way though personally , since they look and act very different, their German name is simply "Sumo-Koopa" (so it doesn't even have the Bruder (brother) part) and their Japanese name (listed as K.K. in Super Mario World's credits) doesn't seem to indicate any relation either. The "Hammer Bro. sub-species" thing only seems to be hinted at in the English version of the game for some reason.--vellidragon 11:24, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Well if they have the same appearance and everything is the same but their choice of weapon, shouldn't that meant that they are also sub-species of Koopa Troopas? It makes no sense to assume that they're all somehow descended from Hammer Bros. A far likelier thought would be that, in-universe, some Koopa Troopas train with hammers, some with boomerangs, some with fire, etc. and that "Weapon/Technique" is a job-title and "Bros." is a title/position. The species infobox already has a section for "Related Enemies", so it wouldn't take so much to move some stuff around. For example, for Hammer Bros., Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro., Calm Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro., Calm Hammer Bro., Dark Hammer Bro. and Sledge Bro would stay under Sub-species (because they all still use hammers, and are apparently only of differing temperament/personality) while the others would be moved to Related Enemies, because they fill a similar role, just in a different way. Redstar 11:56, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Hammer Bros. types aren't only characterised by the fact they carry a hammer; both the games and official artwork portrait Hammer Bros. as a different species of turtle than the regular Koopa Troopa (look at their beaks for instance). Since Boomerang and Fire Bros. share the appearance of the Hammer Bro. and not the appearance of a Koopa Troopa, they'd be related to the Hammer Bro. and not the KT. There's of course no way to clearly determine whether the Boomerang Bro. for example would have descended from the Hammer Bro. or vice-versa (in-universe, that is), but fact is that they're the same species (which is different species than the Koopa Troopa) and Hammer Bros. were the first to appear in games, so it's probably safe to assume they existed before the others (and at least from a game development perspective they quite clearly served as the base for the other types).--vellidragon 12:14, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Yeah, I was curious about the differing appearance. While they were originally bipedal and Troopas quadrupedal, Troopas have been "updated" to also be bipedal in recent years. The physical differences between them also very, where-in some media there's very little, if any difference. When there is a difference, the only things appear to be a smaller beak and more-visibly segmented shells. In any case, the article still links to the Koopa Troopa (species) article rather than the Koopa (general "turtle" "race") article, so that should be changed. I'm still wary of classifying any of the other Bro. enemies under the Hammer Bro. mantle, since even if they are a different Koopa species outside of Koopa Troopas, they would all be divisions of that species, not Hammer Bros. I was considering making a general article listing all the different Bros., much like the Koopa article lists the different Koopas, but the only name I could come up with was "Koopa Bros.". Obviously it fits well as a species' name or title, it still calls to mind the Paper Mario enemies. "Koopa Bros. (species/class/group)" could work, but I really don't know. Redstar 12:30, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Since their species is never named in the games, an article like that would be mostly speculation (the name in particular), so in my opinion (since this is a Wiki) it might be better to keep it the way it is, using only information that can actually be obtained from canonical sources, and the only thing we can obtain from those is that Boomerang Bros. etc. are similar to Hammer Bros. and were invented (by the creators of the games) after them (and their designs based on them; they are no more than palette swaps, in fact). Just my two cents, other people may have a different opinion on this.--vellidragon 12:41, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Well, that's why we have the {conjecture} tag. Easily notifies readers that the title of the article is made-up, while the information therein is factual. It's been used often enough that it isn't exactly a "last-ditch resolution" tag, but something acceptable. Besides, an article as basic as the Koopa article that groups together the various Bros. and speaks of their related history based only on factual evidence isn't the worst article to be proposed. Redstar 12:46, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Thing is that the only information about their "related history" that could be acquired from canonical sources is the fact that the Hammer Bro.-like enemies were based on (and named after) the Hammer Bros. by the developers, so we might as well leave it the way it is (listing them in the Hammer Bro. article). Making a seperate article trying to show the relation of them would only over-complicate things. Besides, I don't think the tag about the title being made up has ever been used for anything else than articles on elements/creatures actually directly being referenced (or appearing) in the games which had just never received an official name. All the Bro. enemies have official names already.--vellidragon 13:14, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Though they were based on (though more inspired by, rather) the Hammer Bros., saying they were named after them is probably a bit too far. It seems far likely that "Bro." is intended to be a title of sorts. The proposed article gathering them together wouldn't be an attempt to relate them in any way, it would simply put the class-type in one place. No one seems to be complaining about the Koopa article, which does much the same thing with far more controversial enemies. Redstar 13:19, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- I'm saying "named after them" by game development terms. It is highly unlikely the game developers intended "Bro." as any sort of title, but rather simply named them Boomerang Bros. and Fire Bros. because they already had Hammer Bros. and the new enemies they based on them were similar.--vellidragon 13:24, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- The tag has also been used for similar circumstances. It's not specifically for subjects that don't have a name, but for general groupings that don't have an official name. I'm not entirely sure if "Koopa" as a general name for all the turtle-like species in the series is entirely official either. As to your latest posting, whether or not "Bro." was originally a title or not seems to be retconned or whatever due to how the term has extended from "Weapon Bros." to actual positions and techniques, which is far more suggestive of a title. Redstar 13:28, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- "Koopa" as the name for the turtles is in fact established as early as the English-language Super Mario Bros. instruction manual: "[...]the Koopa, a tribe of turtles[...]" And I still think speculation like that should be avoided if possible, and it is entirely possible to avoid it here by simply grouping them all under Hammer Bro. sub-species, which makes the most sense from official information. There's a lot of other sites and forums on the internet where people can speculate about the origin and/or relation of Hammer Bro. types, but a Wiki should not be the place to do that. A single person's barely supported theory about something can hardly be considered information that should be in an encyclopaedia.--vellidragon 13:46, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- That isn't specific. Is it referring to the Koopa enemy (as it was known at the time, "Troopa" being added later), or the supposed "Koopa" tribe of various turtle-like enemies. It can go any way, and is just as speculatory as you suggest what I'm saying is. And how exactly is an article grouping together the Bros. enemies a theory, when they all clearly have the word "Bro." in their name? You suggesting they're all sub-species of Hammer Bros. is far more speculation than simply grouping them together in an article and not saying anything at all. Redstar 13:50, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Their being derived from Hammer Bros. is less of a theory since it's hard to believe they would have been designed independently.--vellidragon 13:54, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Being a "theory" is speculation, and I'm not making a theory. Whether or not the various Bros. were inspired as "pallet" swaps of the original Hammer Bros. is fairly obvious, but applying it to in-universe material and labeling them "sub-species" is speculation. My alternative, moving the ones that came later to "Related Enemies" and only keeping the variations in "Sub-species" is a fair compromise that does away with the speculation. Making an article grouping them together is no speculation at all because it's essentially a list of the various "Bros." enemies, which you've basically said yourself are sub-species of each other anyways, so, by your own logic, would be perfectly fine on such a page. Redstar 13:58, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- I agree that "sub-species" seems rather in-universe, but it appears to be the standard definition on the Wiki for groups of enemies derived from another enemy.--vellidragon 14:03, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Then why don't we change it? The most specific and non-speculation changes would be "Derived Enemies" and "Source Enemy". But in the end, while more clear, they still carry the same connotations and moving some enemies into the largely-unused "Related Enemies" section would be in order. Redstar 14:09, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- It's probably not being changed because it's already being used on a whole lot of articles, and would have to be changed for every single one. I like the uniformness of how is currently is. "Related enemies" seems to be more for similar enemies making their first appearance in the same game as the base enemy, like the recolours of enemies in the Super Mario RPG (cmiiw).--vellidragon 14:14, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Actually, they wouldn't. Just go into the template and change the title for the corresponding areas in the table. The coding remains the same, so people can continue to type "|sub_species=", but it will result in different text. All previous articles will be effected without need for changing. Redstar 14:19, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- The sub-species section in the article isn't part of a template.--vellidragon 14:29, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- This is the only page to have such a Sub-species section. It would take me less than a minute to revise it. What's the problem? Redstar 14:35, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- The problem is that it's NOT the only page to have a sub-species section. (The Shy Guy article, for instance, has one as well.)--vellidragon 14:38, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- I already did a search on this. Less than five pages have such sections, and after personally reviewing each, only the Hammer Bros. section needs revision in my opinion. The others are consistent with what the terms Origin Species and Sub-species mean/should mean. Redstar 14:42, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- The problem is that it's NOT the only page to have a sub-species section. (The Shy Guy article, for instance, has one as well.)--vellidragon 14:38, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- This is the only page to have such a Sub-species section. It would take me less than a minute to revise it. What's the problem? Redstar 14:35, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- The sub-species section in the article isn't part of a template.--vellidragon 14:29, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Actually, they wouldn't. Just go into the template and change the title for the corresponding areas in the table. The coding remains the same, so people can continue to type "|sub_species=", but it will result in different text. All previous articles will be effected without need for changing. Redstar 14:19, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- It's probably not being changed because it's already being used on a whole lot of articles, and would have to be changed for every single one. I like the uniformness of how is currently is. "Related enemies" seems to be more for similar enemies making their first appearance in the same game as the base enemy, like the recolours of enemies in the Super Mario RPG (cmiiw).--vellidragon 14:14, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Then why don't we change it? The most specific and non-speculation changes would be "Derived Enemies" and "Source Enemy". But in the end, while more clear, they still carry the same connotations and moving some enemies into the largely-unused "Related Enemies" section would be in order. Redstar 14:09, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- I agree that "sub-species" seems rather in-universe, but it appears to be the standard definition on the Wiki for groups of enemies derived from another enemy.--vellidragon 14:03, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Being a "theory" is speculation, and I'm not making a theory. Whether or not the various Bros. were inspired as "pallet" swaps of the original Hammer Bros. is fairly obvious, but applying it to in-universe material and labeling them "sub-species" is speculation. My alternative, moving the ones that came later to "Related Enemies" and only keeping the variations in "Sub-species" is a fair compromise that does away with the speculation. Making an article grouping them together is no speculation at all because it's essentially a list of the various "Bros." enemies, which you've basically said yourself are sub-species of each other anyways, so, by your own logic, would be perfectly fine on such a page. Redstar 13:58, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Their being derived from Hammer Bros. is less of a theory since it's hard to believe they would have been designed independently.--vellidragon 13:54, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- That isn't specific. Is it referring to the Koopa enemy (as it was known at the time, "Troopa" being added later), or the supposed "Koopa" tribe of various turtle-like enemies. It can go any way, and is just as speculatory as you suggest what I'm saying is. And how exactly is an article grouping together the Bros. enemies a theory, when they all clearly have the word "Bro." in their name? You suggesting they're all sub-species of Hammer Bros. is far more speculation than simply grouping them together in an article and not saying anything at all. Redstar 13:50, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- "Koopa" as the name for the turtles is in fact established as early as the English-language Super Mario Bros. instruction manual: "[...]the Koopa, a tribe of turtles[...]" And I still think speculation like that should be avoided if possible, and it is entirely possible to avoid it here by simply grouping them all under Hammer Bro. sub-species, which makes the most sense from official information. There's a lot of other sites and forums on the internet where people can speculate about the origin and/or relation of Hammer Bro. types, but a Wiki should not be the place to do that. A single person's barely supported theory about something can hardly be considered information that should be in an encyclopaedia.--vellidragon 13:46, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- The tag has also been used for similar circumstances. It's not specifically for subjects that don't have a name, but for general groupings that don't have an official name. I'm not entirely sure if "Koopa" as a general name for all the turtle-like species in the series is entirely official either. As to your latest posting, whether or not "Bro." was originally a title or not seems to be retconned or whatever due to how the term has extended from "Weapon Bros." to actual positions and techniques, which is far more suggestive of a title. Redstar 13:28, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- I'm saying "named after them" by game development terms. It is highly unlikely the game developers intended "Bro." as any sort of title, but rather simply named them Boomerang Bros. and Fire Bros. because they already had Hammer Bros. and the new enemies they based on them were similar.--vellidragon 13:24, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Though they were based on (though more inspired by, rather) the Hammer Bros., saying they were named after them is probably a bit too far. It seems far likely that "Bro." is intended to be a title of sorts. The proposed article gathering them together wouldn't be an attempt to relate them in any way, it would simply put the class-type in one place. No one seems to be complaining about the Koopa article, which does much the same thing with far more controversial enemies. Redstar 13:19, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Thing is that the only information about their "related history" that could be acquired from canonical sources is the fact that the Hammer Bro.-like enemies were based on (and named after) the Hammer Bros. by the developers, so we might as well leave it the way it is (listing them in the Hammer Bro. article). Making a seperate article trying to show the relation of them would only over-complicate things. Besides, I don't think the tag about the title being made up has ever been used for anything else than articles on elements/creatures actually directly being referenced (or appearing) in the games which had just never received an official name. All the Bro. enemies have official names already.--vellidragon 13:14, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Well, that's why we have the {conjecture} tag. Easily notifies readers that the title of the article is made-up, while the information therein is factual. It's been used often enough that it isn't exactly a "last-ditch resolution" tag, but something acceptable. Besides, an article as basic as the Koopa article that groups together the various Bros. and speaks of their related history based only on factual evidence isn't the worst article to be proposed. Redstar 12:46, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Since their species is never named in the games, an article like that would be mostly speculation (the name in particular), so in my opinion (since this is a Wiki) it might be better to keep it the way it is, using only information that can actually be obtained from canonical sources, and the only thing we can obtain from those is that Boomerang Bros. etc. are similar to Hammer Bros. and were invented (by the creators of the games) after them (and their designs based on them; they are no more than palette swaps, in fact). Just my two cents, other people may have a different opinion on this.--vellidragon 12:41, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Yeah, I was curious about the differing appearance. While they were originally bipedal and Troopas quadrupedal, Troopas have been "updated" to also be bipedal in recent years. The physical differences between them also very, where-in some media there's very little, if any difference. When there is a difference, the only things appear to be a smaller beak and more-visibly segmented shells. In any case, the article still links to the Koopa Troopa (species) article rather than the Koopa (general "turtle" "race") article, so that should be changed. I'm still wary of classifying any of the other Bro. enemies under the Hammer Bro. mantle, since even if they are a different Koopa species outside of Koopa Troopas, they would all be divisions of that species, not Hammer Bros. I was considering making a general article listing all the different Bros., much like the Koopa article lists the different Koopas, but the only name I could come up with was "Koopa Bros.". Obviously it fits well as a species' name or title, it still calls to mind the Paper Mario enemies. "Koopa Bros. (species/class/group)" could work, but I really don't know. Redstar 12:30, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Hammer Bros. types aren't only characterised by the fact they carry a hammer; both the games and official artwork portrait Hammer Bros. as a different species of turtle than the regular Koopa Troopa (look at their beaks for instance). Since Boomerang and Fire Bros. share the appearance of the Hammer Bro. and not the appearance of a Koopa Troopa, they'd be related to the Hammer Bro. and not the KT. There's of course no way to clearly determine whether the Boomerang Bro. for example would have descended from the Hammer Bro. or vice-versa (in-universe, that is), but fact is that they're the same species (which is different species than the Koopa Troopa) and Hammer Bros. were the first to appear in games, so it's probably safe to assume they existed before the others (and at least from a game development perspective they quite clearly served as the base for the other types).--vellidragon 12:14, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Well if they have the same appearance and everything is the same but their choice of weapon, shouldn't that meant that they are also sub-species of Koopa Troopas? It makes no sense to assume that they're all somehow descended from Hammer Bros. A far likelier thought would be that, in-universe, some Koopa Troopas train with hammers, some with boomerangs, some with fire, etc. and that "Weapon/Technique" is a job-title and "Bros." is a title/position. The species infobox already has a section for "Related Enemies", so it wouldn't take so much to move some stuff around. For example, for Hammer Bros., Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro., Calm Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro., Calm Hammer Bro., Dark Hammer Bro. and Sledge Bro would stay under Sub-species (because they all still use hammers, and are apparently only of differing temperament/personality) while the others would be moved to Related Enemies, because they fill a similar role, just in a different way. Redstar 11:56, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Align
I can't seem to align the Paper Mario enemy box to the right, even though I'm filling in the correct code. Any suggestions? Redstar 11:32, 8 December 2009 (EST)
- Look at the code, it had 2 aligns:
- |align=right
- |image=blablabla.png
- |bla=50px
- |blab=lablablablablablablablablabla…
- |align=left
- Always look at those. SWFlash
Super Mario RPG Hammer Brothers
I'm just wondering how we have a psychopath thought when Mallow isn't accessible at the time? Or is the psychopath from a hack?
~Darkfawful2~
Mario Party
Unless there are any ways to expand most of his Mario Party appearances... Would it be smarter to merge the earlier Mario Party sections into a whole? Master Crash Or maybe the entire Mario Party into a whole.
I agree. A lot of the other species articles do the same thing. Even the Mario article lumps all of his Mario Party information into one paragraph.--Knife (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
Alright, so unless anyone has any objections, i'll merge the Mario Parties together. Master Crash
