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!
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.227.6.208 (talk).

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)

It was just bad writing due to someone trying to be clever; I've rewritten it to mention both spin-offs and RPGs (no need for a specific Mario Party mention - if anything, that's one of the subseries they're less involved in). - Walkazo 16:46, 5 March 2016 (EST)

Buzzy Beetles

Aren't buzzy beetles koopas? Their article says their parent species is koopa, but I can't find them on this page? Also, should spike tops be considered seperate from buzzy beetles, so if buzzy beetles were to be added should they be added too? Thanks!!! --Lemmyistrans (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Their derived species is Koopa, but that doesn't necessarily make them related to Koopa Troopas. Spike Tops are Buzzy Beetle derivatives, rather than direct Koopa derivatives, so mentions of Spike Top should belong in the Buzzy Beetle article. Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:13, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Yeah that's mostly why I was asking, since I always saw spike tops as separate for some reason but I had a hunch that was just my own interpretation! And uhm? This isn't an article for Koopa Troopas? It's for the koopa species overall, including Koopa Troopas but also other species with no relation to Koopa Troopas? I think you might be confusing them uh... Either way, I find it weird that spinies, who have near identical anatomy to buzzy beetles, would be on this list while buzzy beetles aren't, which also makes the argument that even if what is or isn't on this page would be determined by Koopa Troopas kind of fall flat since spinies don't exactly have more relation to them than buzzy beetles do so... --Lemmyistrans (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

I can see your confusion. You are correct, this page seems to be treated as a weird incoherent mishmash between the Koopa Troopa species and the turtle Koopa enemies in general. To prevent this kind of confusion, the derived species and the overall article needs to be reorganized and cleaned. For starters, the page should include only direct parent species. For instance, Koopa Troopa, Hammer Bro., Lakitu, Magikoopa, Mechakoopa, Shellcreeper, Spiny, Snooze-A-Koopa, Buzzy Beetle should stay; derivatives of these such as Beach Koopa, Koopa Paratroopa, Dry Bones, Dull Bones, Ice Bro, Fire Bro, Mad Koopa, Super Koopa (enemy), Koopa Striker and Koops and Kooper) should not be listed here since they will heavily overlap with the parent species's articles and will bloat this page, defeating the purpose of including derivatives on the parent species articles. The only reason we don't have a humongous list is the incompleteness and inconsistency of what's being listed. Koopa Troopa also has a similar bloating problem, where things like Lakitu, Hammer Bro. and its derivatives are listed when it should be limited to just Koopa Troopa-like creatures. In fact, there was a clean-up at the Koopa Troopa Gallery page, but I'd like to see this change being applied here and in Koopa Troopa in a similar fashion. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Oh, also, related to this discussion, it's also worth to have a look at ideas by the late Walkazo on how to reorganize this article. I actually like the annotated idea, and it seems like Walkazo had the same problem as me, but I think I'm going to consider revamping this page in the future. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 18:58, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Yes yes I agree!! I read this page a lot 'cause I love thinking about science and like biology things regarding smb it's really fun, and it honestly has bothered me a bit that enemies like Koopa Troopa With Piece Of Metal On It are here, it doesn't really fit in as being its own species-thingy... It's been really confusing and hard to read, especially since I haven't played some of the games yet so I don't know a whole lot at all about some of the enemies, so pages like this is my only resource. I'd love if it got cleaned up a little 'cause it's a great page considering how diverse the koopa species is!! Also though, question: Do admins clean pages or are normal users allowed to? I'd gladly clean this page and the Koopa Troopa page a little bit if it's ok! --Lemmyistrans (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Anyone can technically alter this page, but first thing, let me fire a proposal for reorganizing this page and setting a distinction of the Koopa turtle people and the Koopa Troopas. All Koopa Troopas are Koopa turtle people, but not all Koopa turtle people are Koopa Troopas. Oh, anyone can create proposals, too, but this is a major issue that will involve major changes. Let me handle it, all right? I'm experienced here and people know me well enough as a competent user. The proposal should've happened earlier. After all, the late Walkazo has had plans for it, but someone else has to do it. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Rocky Wrenches?

I think we should remove Rocky Wrenches from derived species as they haven't been called a member of the Koopa species since Super Mario Bros. 3. Also I'm pretty sure that they're parent species is now the Monty Mole. Seandwalsh (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Should spikes be on here?

Is the Spike's parent species the Koopa? I mean they look nothing alike and I've never seen it mentioned in any games. Seandwalsh (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

I'll answer to the two above, it's important to stress that Nintendo since quite a few years no longer categorizes enemies in large groups, you can see this easily in the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.. Therefore, our only source to categorize enemies are books that are made in cooperation with Nintendo such as the Super Mario Complete Encyclopedia, released in 1991, or those that have Nintendo's copyright on them like the Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia, released in 1994 - it's actually likely that even the latter was made in cooperation with Nintendo, as both are published by Shogakukan and cooperating with Nintendo on these books was Shogakukan's modus operandi. In both books, Rocky Wrenches and Spikes are stated to be members of the Turtle Tribe (「カメ族」), in the case of the character encyclopedia you can see the pages here. Since in the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. even the Rocky Wrenches in the enemies' section of New Super Mario Bros. U have the same name the Rocky Wrenches have in Super Mario Bros. 3 enemies' section, we have no official information that allows us to change this page. It would be very good if Nintendo clarified that the new Rocky Wrenches are Monty Moles, as they now look very similar, but so far they really avoid mentioning any classification, we will see if the Mario Portal will change the current situation, but I'm not holding my breath.--Mister Wu (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

Bowser's mom

I think we should add Bowser's mom from Mario's Time Machine Special in the bowser species section. Ksiorze (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2017 (EST)

I thought about that, but you know that's not a Nintendo-made game, so it barely counts. Speaking of, if we had a name to go by other than simply "Koopa" and ambiguously "Royal Koopa," I'd happily make an article for them; they are my favorite (or potentially second favorite) fictional species, after all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2017 (EST)

There's also a dry bowser that's said to be a family member no? Not the one that's clearly bowser, another one that appears with Bowser. But I understand and thanks for responding! And yes a similar page to the Kong page for Bowser's family would be really useful. Ksiorze (talk)

That Dry Bowser is still supposed to be Bowser, even if Nintendo handled him just like the other alternate versions of characters and went so far in doing that to the point that in the Mario & Sonic games he appears alongside Bowser (and, by the way, Bowser when falling in the lava in New Super Mario Brothers 2 and Super Mario 3D Land doesn't become a skeleton just like in the other Super mario games before New Super Mario Bros. and still those two games feature Dry Bowser, putting the very idea of him coming from Bowser falling into the lava into question). Remember that Mario Party, in which it was stated that Dry Bowser is a close friend of Bowser's family, isn't a first-party series, by the way. Regarding a page about Bowser's family, at this point I don't see many reasons to make it. Currently, Nintendo doesn't even mention the Royal Family anymore, since it is only composed of Bowser Jr. and Bowser. Previously, there was a point, as there were multiple Bowser's children, the Koopalings, and Blue Bowser in the role of Bowser's brother as well. Remember also that Nintendo didn't acquire the rights of many characters of the Mario universe which were introduced by third parties, so the Koopa Kids and all the other relative of Bowser in the comics or third party games like Mario's Time Machine Special disappeared as soon as the developers or authors stopped collaborating with Nintendo. For this reason in my opinion, while a page about Bowser's species might have a point, a page about Bowser's family might be overkill and home to much speculation or coverage of characters who are no longer relevant.--Mister Wu (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2017 (EST)

I meant page regarding the species, not the "family," per se. As it stands, we have a rather large section on this page devoted to it, and there's still more that can be said. Maybe I could make a preliminary article under my name and ask for approval? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2017 (EST)

That response was for the comment immediately above, which was about Bowser's family. The real problem with Bowser's species is that it doesn't really have a name - the only thing remotely similar to that is that page of the Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia that grouped Koopas according to the type of Koopa they were derived from and grouped all the members of Bowser's royal family into the Bowser Group. This is not surprising, as the guide mistakenly considered Blue Bowser a fake Bowser and thus at the time all the members of Bowser's species were members of Bowser's royal family as well. Now that this concept fell apart in the recent years, nothing is said about this species and in general now Nintendo refuses as much as it can to classify enemies, with the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. only citing a bunch of recurring enemies and then rather listing all the enemies of each game, rather focusing on their gameplay aspects. Just as an indication, in the Italian Wii U version of Mario and Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games Bowser Jr. was stated to be a little turtle (tartarughina) - that game likely was directly translated from Japanese so turtle wasn't translated as Koopa.--Mister Wu (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2017 (EST)

From what I've seen, their species name really does just seem to be Koopa. That's all they ever seem to be referred to as in localizations, and the old cartoon referred to "Koopas and Troopas" as different thigs in the title sequence, so that's all we really have to go by, aside from the ambiguously-defined "Royal Koopa line." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2017 (EST)

Royal Koopa line doesn't look like the term used to refer to Bowser's species, it rather looks like the term used to refer to Bowser's lineage (pretty much it's the English version of 「クッパ王族」), after all the Koopalings in Super Mario Advance 4, released after Super Mario Sunshine, were still stated to be Bowser's children and Bowser's family was explicitly mentioned in the Nintendo Official Guidebook of said game. I'm a bit conflicted about the idea of the Koopa (species) title, as in English Koopa is really generic and filled with ambiguity when translations from Japanese are involved - just look at the Super Mario World manual. I think you should find an unambiguous reference stating that the name of the species in English is indeed Koopa since such a title might indeed create confusion among the readers. As a side note, I just discovered that the tartarughina term referred to Bowser Jr. was absent in the Japanese version, showing that this is one of the few times where in the West turtle is used in place of Koopa, just like in Japanese material. If this became the norm, I think we would have an easier life on the wiki...--Mister Wu (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2017 (EST)

I don't think the goal of this wiki is to be relevant but it's to talk about Mario un general. So à page that covers bowser look a like characters even if they're irrelevant could be interesting. And it would be an opportunity to talk more about Bowser's mom wich is great. But I think there's two dry bowser, a family one and the transformation of our good old bowser but that's just an headcanon. Ksiorze (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2017 (EST)

The matter is not whether or not we should cover characters that appear in official material - we definitely must do that -, the problem is that we must report the current depiction of what we talk about, and Bowser's family currently isn't even mentioned. If Nintendo gave us more information about Bowser's family, we might make an article, but honestly I'm not expecting them to do that in the short term since the only current relative of Bowser is Bowser Jr.. I think that in the current situation we probably still can cover everything in the Family Relatiosnhips section of Bowser's main page and in the Faimily Relationships sections of the individual characters or groups of characters.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2017 (EST)

The Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island quote

The quote added is actually very interesting, as in English it just works, but in Japanese there are far more nuances: the original text talks about the 「クッパいちぞく」, so strictly speaking the family of Bowser. Of course, one can argue that it might refer to the 「ぞく」 of which Bowser is part, the Turtle Tribe, but the original sentence is ultimately centered around Bowser. At this point I strongly suspect that it has a far broader scope in English and I'm wondering if we should rather look for a quote that isn't as affected by this Japanese wording that simply can't be expressed properly in English.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2018 (EDT)