Talk:Koopa Cruiser crew

So...

Doesn't the creation of this article need a proposal to override this old one? LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:38, November 26, 2023 (EST)

It respects the previous discussion linked, it now properly distinguishes the Koopa Cruiser crew as a subset within the overall Bowser Baddies. The previous Bowser Baddies split suggestion had erroneously applied the name to the subset crew, when Bowser Baddies is synonymous with the Koopa Corps/Koopa Troop.Boddle (talk) 20:51, November 26, 2023 (EST)

The old proposal specifically refers to the aviator-geared Koopa Troopa crewmembers (this was before the remake, where they're normal Koopa Troopas and thus support the no-split suggestion). LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:52, November 27, 2023 (EST)

The old proposal to split "Bowser Baddies" concluded with Bowser Baddies referring to the overall Koopa Troop in translation, which this page does not conflict with. Furthermore, most appearances including Partners in Time have aviator-gear and we go off of official depictions rather than assuming canonicity. They are officially specified as its "crew" and now found to also be specified as its "personnel”. Boddle (talk) 08:50, November 27, 2023 (EST)

It seems kind of redundant with the overall articles for the Cruiser and for Troopas. The gear was always a stylistic choice, like how the trace-walking Troopas in Odyssey all wear funny hats. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:58, November 27, 2023 (EST)

The distinction is that the Cruiser and its crew are officially described as its "crew" and "personnel" regardless of clothing, whereas the trace-walking Troopas seem to have no official descriptions specifying them. Boddle (talk) 11:24, November 27, 2023 (EST)

I don't think this article really needs to exist. It's just describing what's effectively a sub-faction in the Koopa Troop and the only difference is that they wear aviator clothes in the original version. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 13:12, November 27, 2023 (EST)

I agree, anything worth saying here can easily be said instead in the Koopa Cruiser, Koopa Troopa, Goomba articles. Blinker (talk) 13:20, November 27, 2023 (EST)

Can what's said in Deep Cuts Toad or Mushroom Shop Clerk be easily said in the general Toad article as well? I thought conjecture articles exist for officially described content that do not (yet) have proper names with capitalization. The crew has more notability through recurrence, story, and gameplay, than those two aforementioned Toad conjectures. Boddle (talk) 13:28, November 27, 2023 (EST)

They're in Partners in Time too. If the recurring sub-faction is described in official material, why can't it stand? It has more reference than other conjecture articles such as Deep Cuts Toad, a purple Toad. Or Mushroom Shop Clerk, a tall Toad with a orange-striped vest and black shirt. Boddle (talk) 13:28, November 27, 2023 (EST)

Merge back to Koopa Troopa

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Wednesday, October 23, 2024, 23:30 GMT

This conjecturally titled page was created without a proposal, and marginally defies a previous proposal that merged "Bowser Baddies" into the page that is now called Bowser's Minions, and is about Koopa Troopas as they appear in the first two Mario & Luigi games. The motivation for this split was because of the aviator gear, though there are no "generic" Koopa Troopas in those games to lack said gear - the only other Koopa Troopas in those games are variations (Dry Bones in both, Troopeas and allies as well as Ankoopas in the former) or specific named characters (Kylie Koopa in the latter). Superstar Saga, with its extra-goofy, whimsical artstyle, wasn't exactly a model for design consistency with other games. And of course, the remake nixes said gear entirely to portray them as bog-standard-design Troopas (as the other BIS-onward M&L games portrayed nonspecific, nonvariant Troopas) in every sense to better segue into the "Minion Quest" campaign.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: August 14, 2024 (GMT)

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. Ray Trace (talk) Per, you can easily fit this into Koopa Troopa's article in their section about their role in Superstar Saga and Partners in Time
3. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) A bit like splitting green-hatted Goombas living in Rogueport to me.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
6. PrincessPeachFan (talk) Per. I never agreed with the reasoning to split this in the first place.
7. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Boddle (talk) The reasoning is not about design as incorrectly described in the proposal, it exists as they are officially described as "crew" and "personnel" in their respective games like other conjecture articles. The Superstar Saga remake further distinguishes "Minions" as Bowser's overall forces and "crew" pertaining to the Koopa Cruiser within those forces. If merged back, we would have to merge Deep Cuts Toad back to Toad (species) and Mushroom Shop Clerk back to Toad (species) for the same reasoning. It also raises the question of why sailor existed as "S.S. Chuckola crew member".

Comments

The reasoning for the page was misrepresented. Firstly it was written new rather than split from an existing page, and the reason for its existence is because they are officially described as "crew" and "personnel" in their respective games, regardless of design or gear. The remake of Superstar Saga nixing the gear is irrelevant when we go off of official depictions. In-game descriptions are same reason why sailor existed as "S.S. Chuckola crew member" despite having no capitalized name. Boddle (talk) 10:39, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Just as an aside, the reason given was also because they were described as such in spin-off material, read, a gag manga. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 08:56, August 2, 2024 (EDT)

Incorrect, I stated because they were described as such in official material. "crew" in Superstar Saga and "personnel" in Partners in Time.Boddle (talk) 10:39, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

The basic point is that these are just generic Koopa Troopas who are generically referred to in generic terms. That's why most of us are agreeing to merge because they have literally nothing that makes them unique and even the remake got rid of their "unique" looks. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 10:55, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

The issue of looks or design doesn't appear to be relevant though when conjecture articles are dependent on official descriptions and role in games. The remake changing design isn't relevant as it continues to describe them "crew" (not to mention Partners in Time still having said design). It raises an interesting question, is the Deep Cuts Toad to be merged back to Toad (species) because of looks, despite his relevance in the game and his in-game descriptions? Boddle (talk) 11:09, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

In that case, there's "normal" ones to compare him to in role. In this case, there isn't - they're the only normal Troopas in the game(s). This has less reason to be split than the punk-wearing enemy Troopas in the first three Paper Mario games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:46, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Deep Cuts Toad is a normal Toad though, except he just wears purple clothes and has purple spots. I'm struggling to see the difference. Boddle (talk) 16:43, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

He is, but he's not the only one. That's the main thing here. These are just ordinary Koopa Troopa NPCs with no role other than "they are minions of Bowser" - ie, their normal role. Now, for instance, the individual photographer character could be split since he has a notable role, but in general they are not distinct from Koopa Troopas whatsoever. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:46, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

The role of operating the Koopa Cruiser, transporting the Bros., and repelling Shroob invaders seems like a notable role, but I appreciate the distinction you made between a group opposed to an individual character. I could certainly agree to the photographer or other individual characters with notable individual roles existing, if that is generally the standard for conjectural articles. Boddle (talk) 17:07, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Also, I hate the notion of saying certain articles would have to be merged with another because one proposal passed which didn't even have that topic in it. This sort of thing is a case-by-case basis and if somebody wanted to merge Deep Cuts Toad with Toad (species), that would be its own discussion/proposal. Nightwicked Bowser 15:56, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

I thought there was a consistent guideline for what constitutes an article? MarioWiki:Conjectural names states "if the subject is notable enough" and MarioWiki:Naming#Conjectural_names states "If the only available indication of a subject's name is a generic term or phrase rather than a clear name, then that description may be used", this page seemed to meet that standard. If it doesn't, figuring out why one article passes while another fails, seems relevant to finding clarity to what the policy guideline actually is. You even made the "green-hatted Goombas living in Rogueport" comparison which I actually found helpful in illustrating what the line is. Without a consistent policy guideline, wouldn't articles would be just determined on if users subjectively like or dislike it? Boddle (talk) 16:43, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

This subject just plain isn't notable enough. They're just there to provide gameplay tutorials and some yuks and the remake getting rid of their unique designs means even Nintendo doesn't think they're notable either. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 08:11, August 11, 2024 (EDT)