Talk:Chargin' Chuck

(First topic)

Are these things like sumo bros wearing foot ball equitment? Luigibros2

They are sumo bros that wear football equipment and know how to play it, and it likes that they not practice sumo. And they charge. So, they are these guys.

Drmgin 15:52, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Meh, why does this matter?Mr. Guy the GuyUseless talkpages SHOULD get deleted^E

Koopa Quarterbacks?

Can anyone give a source where Chargin' Chucks are referred to as "Koopa Quarterbacks"? It is mentioned as an alternative name in the first paragraph, but the article never states where the name is actually used. Searching the web for it didn't bring up anything notable aside from this very article.--vellidragon 10:59, 13 January 2010 (EST)

I think that name is fake. You should probably delete it.
Fawfulfury65

Done.--vellidragon 11:17, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Jumps to defeat

i have super mario worldand they take 6 jumps to defeat 24.187.191.151 19:24, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Super Mario 3D world

I watched the trailer to supermario 3d world and they were in it. Should I update the image? If I can find a sprite... Goombob 18:32, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

Not until the game is released. Yoshi876 (talk)

Okay. Goombob 19:13, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

3D World art

Can someone rip the Chuck artwork from this Super Mario 3D World image?

the picture

Because I think the Chucks you can see to the left are potentially clear enough to be ripped from the image and added to the page somehow.

Cheat-master30 (talk)

Split the Chargin' Chuck variants

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

canceled by proposer
Okay, why are the unique Super Mario World variants merged? I mean, if we have similar behavioral variants of Shy Guys split out, than there should be no excuse here. Since the Nintendo Mania guide names all but two different variants of Chargin' Chuck, I propose that we split out every variant, with a certain exception expanded on in the options below.

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: March 2, 2020, 23:59 GMT
Date withdrawn: February 17, 2020, 22:04 GMT

Split out everything except Lookout Chuck

1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) This is my preferred option. After all, the two subsequent non-remake Super Mario titles featuring Chargin' Chucks (3D World and Odyssey) decided to go with this particular type of Chargin' Chuck, establishing it as the "primary" variant, so to speak.

Keep everything merged

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) There's the fact that it's only relevant to one game while multiple types also appear in SMA4, there's the two being unnamed, there's the fact they all revert to "Lookout" behavior upon stomping, there's the fact that how they work after being stomped is changed in 3D World, there's two not having specific names at all as you mentioned, and there's the precedence of merging Seedy Sally and Short Fuse with Ukiki. Also, those Shy Guys are split in multiple sources across games and language barriers. This was some Nintendo Power writer just having a little fun, and it was never brought up again.
2. Alex95 (talk) - I agree with Doc. This seems too excessive for minor variants.
3. Scrooge200 (talk) After some consideration, I think this option makes the most sense. Per Doc.

Comments

@Doc: Paratroopas become Koopa Troopas when stomped, but they are kept split. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:38, February 17, 2020 (EST)

@Doc: Same thing for Paragoombas. ^(T|C) 16:39, February 17, 2020 (EST)

So? Those have different names across different games and different languages. Also, those actually look different from each other. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:41, February 17, 2020 (EST)

@Doc: So? Certain different variants of Shy Guys also look nearly identical save for the object that differentiates them from normal Shy Guys (Tree Guys, Hook Guys, the freaking Coin Bag Guys, etc.). Also, the Ukiki case is clearly different; that was a case of an enemy adapting to objects in its environment, whereas the Chargin' Chuck variants use items that never appear in the environment. And I wasn't excluding SMA4 either. ^(T|C) 16:46, February 17, 2020 (EST)

Again, I direct you to the lack of specific names in any other source, English or otherwise. The things you were mentioned had a name difference in the language of origin, and in some cases, in the game itself, not exclusively some magazine special. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:54, February 17, 2020 (EST)

Seedy Sally and Short Fuse were merged to Ukiki because post-Yoshi's Island material has discounted them as being separate variants of Ukiki. As far as I know, this hasn't been done so far with the Chargin' Chuck variants. If it has, then I might remove my vote. The 3D World Chargin' Chuck is clearly the lookout variant, adapted to 3D gameplay much like Paragoombas were in Mario Galaxy 2 (where stomping one would defeat it instantly, instead of turning it into a Goomba first). -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:53, February 17, 2020 (EST)

Chargin' Chuck was in SMW and SMA2's respective manuals (not to mention credits). None of the other names were. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:54, February 17, 2020 (EST)

The SMW manual says the following: "[Chargin' Chucks] use a variety of bull-headed attacks, so you'll really have a tough time checking a Chargin' Chuck." Alright then, removing vote. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:03, February 17, 2020 (EST)

1st playable apirince

It says that super rush is chargin chuck's 1st playable apirince, but what about bowsers minions? That shold count right? Bubbasour11

Technically I would agree, but that has lots of minions being controlled at the same time. Super Rush however is the first time a Chargin Chuck is a standalone playable character. Nightwicked Bowser 11:00, August 20, 2021 (EDT)

?

Well, if those two forms are unnamed, then is there a Japanese name for them? I came up with the jumpin’ chuck and the whistlin’ chuck. OhoJeeOnFire (talk)

JP doesn't distinguish at all between any of them. Also I remove conjectural names for the two on sight (and those have been put many, many times). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:39, November 15, 2021 (EST)

Consider a variation of Boom Boom?

In their debut, these guys take three hits to defeat, adapt an invulnerable "crouching" stance after each hit, and usually attack with a simple charge - but are able to jump high while facing the screen. Plus, the Japanese names seem to have a connection (Bunbun and Bull), and a highly similar design aside from the gridiron gear. All in all, these seem to have been intended as a sports-themed version of the SMB3 miniboss, demoted to generic enemy. 3D World does give some divergent evolution to their facial design, but that's about it - otherwise, they're still very similar, and SMW already tended to heavily alter designs for its newer enemy derivatives. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, January 15, 2024 (EST)

Your points rely quite a lot on speculation, and similarities seem pretty coincidental so I'm saying no. Nightwicked Bowser 17:49, January 16, 2024 (EST)

In that case, we should probably stop considering Koopa Strikers to be a type of Koopa Troopa, as they have an equivalent amount of similarities and differences in function, design, and LoO name. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:59, January 16, 2024 (EST)

Koopa Strikers have "koopa" in their name so of course it's considered to be a koopa. I don't think we have ever had Nintendo tell us that charging chucks are a form of boom boom. -- Dark-Boy-1up 17:20, January 16, 2024 (EST)

"Koopa" does not mean "Koopa Troopa." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:31, January 16, 2024 (EST)

Why don't you stop reaching for other stupid cases everytime someone opposes something you suggest. Please stay on topic for once. Nightwicked Bowser 18:22, January 16, 2024 (EST)

I.... beg your pardon? I fail to see how this is "stupid." Both of them resemble the basis in shape aside from the face and gear, both of them do the same thing as said basis when jumped on, and both of them have an added projectile attack compared to their basis - incidentally based on a sport. It is absolutely analogous to what I said about Boom Boom and Chargin' Chuck. (Though somehow I don't quite think administrators are supposed to go around openly insulting their editors for having a different opinion and debate style XD) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:31, January 16, 2024 (EST)

I wasn't insulting you, I just needed to vent some frustration with the turn these debates always go. Nightwicked Bowser 18:55, January 16, 2024 (EST)

Please don't derail this further, but generally when you call someone's thought process "stupid," that counts as an insult. My debate style is based primarily around my autism+ADD and need to have a logical buildup in conversation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:59, January 16, 2024 (EST)

@Doc von Schmeltwick, It feels like you made a point, then someone disagreed and then you started throwing red herrings. For example, you told me that koopas aren't koopa troopas while you seemingly ignored my argument about how nintendo has never called chargin' chucks boom booms. -- Dark-Boy-1up 18:59, January 16, 2024 (EST)

No? Nintendo never called Koopeleons, Electro Koopas, Snooza Koopas, or Suppoko kinds of Koopa Troopa but we still consider them subtypes, due primarily to their Japanese names being similar to the Japanese one for Troopas (Nokonoko), which can't be said for the Strikers ("Shell Shooter"), which actually have some visual characteristics closer to SPM's Hammer Bros. Nintendo doesn't need to directly say how things are derived (and in fact, they usually don't) because those can be inferred based on context clues. Also, what I said was Koopa Strikers are not necessarily a type of Koopa Troopa. That doesn't mean they're not Koopas in general. For instance, Magikoopas aren't Koopa Troopas but they are Koopas. To say nothing of Bowser, whose name is "Koopa" in Japanese, but he's certainly not a Troopa. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:05, January 16, 2024 (EST)

Sorry. I misspoke, and I meant to say that you told me koopas are not the same as koopa troopas. I agree that Nintendo doesnt need to tell us what species is what, I just don't think that just because Boom Booms and Chargin' chucks have a few similarities means that they are in the same species. I understand your arguments about how super mario world tried to change earlier enemies, but I don't think we have enough proof. -- Dark-Boy-1up 19:31, January 16, 2024 (EST)

I don't believe the analogy to Koopa Striker is a strong enough analogy. Chargin' Chucks have much more differences to Boom Boom and whatnot. It's the same issue I have with the attempt to move Big Boo (Dark Moon) to Boolossus in perceived similarities while significant differences are not considered. With an overall lack of evidence and the similarities just not being quite enough (body proportions, eye design, shell design, movement, hairstyle etc are different) I'd rather just treat the two as separate species and just have people come to their own conclusions. Overall, the evidence isn't strong and I don't think it's anywhere near sufficient to the point we have to state this in the article. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:04, January 16, 2024 (EST)

I understand that, but SMW was when they really wanted to differentiate designs - compare Dry Bones between SMB3 and SMW, they could be seen as different enemies. If it weren't for the localized name for the next example, these'd have about as much as common with each other as the Hammer Bro and AFH Bro (basically named "Hurray!" in Japanese). I'll probably end up making a proposal to settle this at some point (and throw in a part for Sumo Bro being derivative of Sledge Bro) as I'm getting opposition on the page itself here but a lot of support in DMs elsewhere. In the meantime, I'll probably look for more direct evidence. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:21, January 16, 2024 (EST)

Perhaps but I don't see how design decisions affecting two sets of Dry Bones should be applied between Chargin' Chuck and Boom Boom. We need more evidence, and I wouldn't be comfortable putting that in the article as if we've arrived at that conclusion. Stating some design similarities is probably okay but I would personally stop short at stating any link between the two. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:24, January 16, 2024 (EST)

Could you elaborate on what connection you're seeing in the Japanese names of the enemies? How "Bunbun" and "Bull" are connected aside from starting with the same letter isn't at all apparent to me. Furthermore, while there are similarities in their behavior, I'd argue that doesn't support them being variants of one another on its own. While variants do often share behaviors, that doesn't mean that every enemy that shares its behavior is a variant of the enemy with which it shares its behavior. To give a counter-example, Spike Tops and Lil Sparkies have, more or less, the same behavior, circling around the edges of platforms and being invulnerable to most forms of attack, but that's not enough to suggest they're variants of one another. The three key points you're presenting here are similarities in Japanese names, a subset of their actions being identical, and visual similarities. That last one is tenuous to me, and, as you say, it requires allowing for a bit of a redesign. Unless I'm missing something more on the connection between their Japanese names, I'm not convinced them starting with the same sound is enough to establish a link. That only leaves their behavior as a point to go off of, and that's already making the assumption we can disregard all the behaviors they don't share. I'm simply not convinced, but I do welcome you to elaborate on the name connection if I have missed something. Hooded Pitohui (talk) 21:38, January 16, 2024 (EST)

Actually, that's a good point? The main argument for Koopa Strikers being a variant of Koopa Troopa, from what I understand, is the English (and other languages whose scripts were translated from English) name for Koopa Striker and Troopa Striker, but aside from that? I mean, it looks kinda like a Koopa Troopa, but so do Hammer Bros in these games. And in the catch card list, the various types of Koopa Troopas, Paratroopas, and Koopatrols appear all together, while the Strikers appear later on in the list alongside other Koopa clan enemies like the Bros and Magikoopas. And unlike the explicitly Koopa Troopa enemies (even the Bones, which admittedly also listed separately), its Japanese catch card description doesn't refer to it as "Nokonoko", but as a "カメ族だいひょう" (Koopa clan representative?), which just mentions the Koopa clan in general. So I'm thinking the Strikers are just their own thing. Blinker (talk) 07:33, January 17, 2024 (EST)

You and Doc von might be onto something with the koopa strikers actually. Those are some good points! Dark-Boy-1up 8:30, January 17, 2024 (EST)

(Shifting indent back) I do think Li'l Sparky is derivative of Spark, but that's a different conversation. Anyways, due to Japanese being a syllabic language rather than a phonetic one, "Bu-ru" and "Bu'n-bu'n" are actually pronounced fairly similar, not just "Bull" and "Boom Boom," which are of course pronounced quite different. This is often the only thing shared with many of their enemy names, if even that; for another SMW example, Porcupuffer's JP name, for example, seems to be a cross between Cheep Cheep and Porcupo (despite functioning more as a Spiny Cheep/Boss Bass combo), spelling the former in a way that invokes a blowfish. When written and pronounced in English, "Puku" and "Fugu" don't seem all that similar, but in Japanese, they are nearly homophones and homonyms. There's a lot of nuance to it that can't really be imitated with English phonetics and characters, simply due to the disconnected roots of Japanese and Romantic/Germanic languages. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:47, January 16, 2024 (EST)

That's a fair explanation, and I appreciate it. I'm not knowledgeable enough when it comes to Japanese to recognize that, so I missed the connection. That does add some strength to the case you're making. I personally find the remaining two points a bit too weak to not oppose this if it does become a formal proposal, absent additional strong evidence, but I can at least see where you're coming from and I'm willing to re-evaluate in the future based on what more may be presented later. Hooded Pitohui (talk) 21:52, January 16, 2024 (EST)

I personally think that the similarities are just coincidence. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 09:00, January 17, 2024 (EST)

Split Chargin' Chuck Corps

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

vetoed by the administrators
Sorbetti currently has four other proposals going on currently, plus an unimplemented proposal. This means that this proposal breaks rule 2: "A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled."

I don't really have much to say. They have their own names in every language, including Japanese. They have a important history and a boss role that differentiate them from a normal enemy, and we have similar pages like Pentabros, so there's no apparent reason to keep these guys merged.

Proposer: Sorbetti (talk)
Deadline: May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split

1. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per proposal.
3. Kirby the Formling (talk) Per proposal.
4. Hewer (talk) It's weird that this wasn't done sooner.
5. Salmancer (talk) We have {{Group infobox}} on this wiki, might as well use it. It's also more natural to be able to search for boss fights by their name. Doing this split would also be a good excuse for someone to upload a screenshot of the fight in addition to the sprites we have already; I guess the main Chargin Chuck article doesn't have space but apparently its not even in their gallery?
6. Altendo Corps (talk) Per my fellow comrades.

Comments

I guess the pain point here is that it's a group consisting of a single species, in a game where that species doesn't otherwise appear. It has been communicated that Kremling Krew would not be an article if every member was a Kremling, and Kong army is merged to Kong on the basis of every member being a Kong. I'd say being a boss fight overrides these concerns, but still: something to keep in mind. Salmancer (talk) 07:32, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

The unique name is what seals it for me personally. I don't think the Kong army really had anything unique to say about them from the Kong page. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:38, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

Sorry, but this proposal is getting vetoed because Sorbetti has four other ongoing ones plus an unimplemented one, which breaks rule two. Sparks (talk) 10:28, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

Split Chargin' Chuck Corps Second Lap

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

split 10-0
Same proposal as above, apparently the proposals you haven't implemented yet also count toward your maximum...

I don't really have much to say. They have their own names in every language, including Japanese. They have a important history and a boss role that differentiate them from a normal enemy, and we have similar pages like Pentabros, so there's no apparent reason to keep these guys merged.

Proposer: Sorbetti (talk)
Deadline:May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on May 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split

1. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
2. Hewer (talk) I can't help but feel like this proposals limit rule is doing nothing but force proposals that people already agreed on to be needlessly repeated...
3. PrincessPeachFan (talk): Count me in.
4. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per initial vote
5. Salmancer (talk) I get to make a meme vote now!
6. Altendo Corps (talk) Per my fellow comrades and my initial vote.
7. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Heck, why not?
8. Power Flotzo (talk) Per everyone.
9. Kirby the Formling (talk) Per again.
10. Superspongis (talk) Per others

Comments

@Altendo @Salmancer @Hewer @Kirby the Formling @FanOfYoshi It's the same proposal, sorry for the inconvenience. Sorbetti (talk) 15:08, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer To be fair, this only happens because Sorbetti didn't know that rule has been made stricter. On the other hand though, neither did I, or most of us for that matter, so it's not exactly their fault either. But my point is, I think this could've been entirely avoided if it was made clear to most of us that the limits have been made stricter. Which is not the fault of the limit itself, but rather the person who silently applied it for not communicating it clearly with us. rend (talk) (edits) 16:41, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

I think it feels needlessly bureaucratic and silly to force a proposal to restart that six people already agreed on with no opposition, for reasons completely unrelated to the proposal itself and its intended goal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:41, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

We do have to wonder about what this means for some proposals with far larger scopes to implement, though... What, do we just miss out on being able to run 5 proposals until we write every single Cluck-A-Pop prize? Is Doc Von going to be limited until she creates pages for every single Mario & Luigi equipment piece in the whole franchise? While we understand why that restriction was added on paper, it probably should've been run by people first... ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 15:02, May 18, 2025 (EDT)

Exactly! Since WHEN did unimplemented proposals count toward the maximum!? And, to your point @Camwoodstock, is Waluigi Time limited until he deals with this and this? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk)

Now, I do understand why these limitations are set. Lately, a lot of proposals (especially talk page proposals) are being made, a LOT more than in prior years, to the point that we have to split them in separate categories. Not only that, but it's also apparent that not much is being done about it even after it succeeds (this could be the case for various reasons), and instead, the proposers just... make MORE proposals, causing the list of unimplemented proposals to keep piling up (this is also why I (typically) do only one proposal at a time, and never on a larger scale such as splitting all clothing or equipment). In theory, these limitations should encourage a proposer to stop stalling with their unimplemented proposals and actually get shit done. So I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of setting a limit on ongoing/unimplemented proposals, but at the same time, I do understand why this may be too cumbersome for others. rend (talk) (edits)11:18, May 19, 2025 (EDT)

The idea is good, but only for certain situations. For me, rather than making me work on my unimplemented proposals, it only limits me unfairly. I've never had problems with my unimplemented proposals because I create the pages quickly, so this is just an annoyance for me. I think asking the users wouldn't be a problem, or even finding another way to implement it, but without a doubt, the most important thing was that no user was notified at any point. Sorbetti (talk) 11:37, May 19, 2025 (EDT)

We feel like a better solution would just be to reduce the amount of allowed ongoing proposals at a time per user, from 5 to 3 or maybe even 2, with no "unimplemented counts" clause. It greatly slows down the amount of proposals that can be added on at a given time, while still, y'know. Letting people propose if they happen to have a pile from before this change. We mean, hey, until every Mario & Luigi equipment and every Cluck-A-Pop prize gets a page, we're stuck making only 3 proposals at a time anyways ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT)

Split Clappin' Chuck, Passin' Chuck, Diggin' Chuck, and Splittin' Chuck from Chargin' Chuck

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

don't split 0-12

In choco mountain in mkworld, the Chargin' Chuck and some of its variants from smw appear. Why don't we agree to split?

Proposer: Daita (talk)
Deadline: July 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Stay merged(disagree)

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Those names were only used in one guide in a single language over 30 years ago. Every other source just considers them all "Chargin' Chuck" regardless of behavior.
2. PrincessPeachFan (talk): Let's agree to disagree!
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per Doc. also, you should really format your proposals better so people who aren't in the loop can be informed
4. Camwoodstock (talk) - Per Doc Von. The only sources that really draw distinctions between the different behaviors of Charlies Chargin' Chucks are an old guide from 30 years ago... And ROMHackers, who kind of have to care about that stuff. For the sake of documentation, though, it's more coherent to consider these guys just "Chargin' Chucks, and they do a wide variety of things" rather than "bespoke enemies that are forms of Chargin' Chucks".
5. Soshi The Yoshi (talk) - Per all.
6. Blinker (talk) Per all.
7. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
8. FanOfYoshi (talk) The exact thing the orange dinosaur said, as well as the 2 last votes said.
9. Power Flotzo (talk) Per everyone.
10. Clappin' Passin' Diggin' Splittin' Skurvy (talk) Per all.
11. Arend (talk) The Mario Mania guide (the source of these named variants) doesn't even have all those variants listed in the enemy section - which DOES list separate entities for things we've also have merged, like Lakitu in a Pipe. You won't know about the other Chuck formations until you go to the end of the Forest of Illusion section, in the yellow text block entitled "Chargin' Chuck's Game Plan" on page 114. Why should we give these sub-bozos that aren't even worth mentioning in the enemies section their own article when not even Lakitu in a Pipe is allowed one?
12. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.

Any questions?

@Arend Not to mention the leaping AND whistle ones don't even got "names" -- FanOfYoshi at 04:09, June 25, 2025 (EDT)

Daita (talk) Still, do you agree? Daita (talk) 14:59, June 27, 2025 (EDT)

@Daita ...You do see that BOTH of us have voted for the "disagree" option, right? rend (talk) (edits) 15:08, June 27, 2025 (EDT)

OK. Daita (talk) 13:19, June 28, 2025 (EDT)